|
On September 08 2009 08:21 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 08:10 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:04 igotmyown wrote:
I'm pretty sure eating 1500-2000 calories a day will help a lot more than going to the gym. Seeing as how an ordinary person would have to walk 300 miles to burn off 30,000 calories, an 800 pound person maybe 75 miles.
30,000 calories, that's like 18.75 pounds of dry food a day. If I spend $50 a week on groceries, 15 to 20 times that is $750 to $1000. 52 weeks that's up to $50,000 in food. Even if I round way down, he's still eating at least $10k to $20k in food each year. Even if you want to let him make his own decisions, give him 2000 calories a day and let him get a job to pay for the rest of his food. 1500-2000 calories would be too severe a goal for him... that's like what a 90-120 pound person should be eating? I guess it depends a bit on other factors but you know what I mean. He should slowly adjust his diet to slowly bring his weight down... and slowly phase in exercise as it becomes possible. No way, 2000 calories is like for the average adult american, who's going to weigh like 180 pounds, not the average scrawny teenager. http://www.hpathy.com/healthtools/calories-need.aspOk, parameters 19 years old, sedentary lifestyle, male 90 pounds, 5'0": 1509 calories 120 pounds, 5'6": 1824 calories 180 pounds, 6'0", 20 years old: 2363 calories 820 pounds, 6'0", 19 years old: 7163 calories At a 2000 calorie diet, he'd lose 10 pounds a week, at that rate in half a year he'd be at 550 pounds. To lose 15 pounds a week, he'd have to eat nothing. Edit: wait, that's the BMR, whatever that means. Let me recalculate Edit: BMR is if you stayed in bed all day, in which case he's like 6000 calories.
I think the most disgusting part is...
even if he does lose all that weight, he has about 5 times as much skin as he needs... o_o
|
On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis?
Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims.
You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages.
|
On September 08 2009 08:57 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 08:21 igotmyown wrote:On September 08 2009 08:10 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:04 igotmyown wrote:
I'm pretty sure eating 1500-2000 calories a day will help a lot more than going to the gym. Seeing as how an ordinary person would have to walk 300 miles to burn off 30,000 calories, an 800 pound person maybe 75 miles.
30,000 calories, that's like 18.75 pounds of dry food a day. If I spend $50 a week on groceries, 15 to 20 times that is $750 to $1000. 52 weeks that's up to $50,000 in food. Even if I round way down, he's still eating at least $10k to $20k in food each year. Even if you want to let him make his own decisions, give him 2000 calories a day and let him get a job to pay for the rest of his food. 1500-2000 calories would be too severe a goal for him... that's like what a 90-120 pound person should be eating? I guess it depends a bit on other factors but you know what I mean. He should slowly adjust his diet to slowly bring his weight down... and slowly phase in exercise as it becomes possible. No way, 2000 calories is like for the average adult american, who's going to weigh like 180 pounds, not the average scrawny teenager. http://www.hpathy.com/healthtools/calories-need.aspOk, parameters 19 years old, sedentary lifestyle, male 90 pounds, 5'0": 1509 calories 120 pounds, 5'6": 1824 calories 180 pounds, 6'0", 20 years old: 2363 calories 820 pounds, 6'0", 19 years old: 7163 calories At a 2000 calorie diet, he'd lose 10 pounds a week, at that rate in half a year he'd be at 550 pounds. To lose 15 pounds a week, he'd have to eat nothing. Edit: wait, that's the BMR, whatever that means. Let me recalculate Edit: BMR is if you stayed in bed all day, in which case he's like 6000 calories. I think the most disgusting part is... even if he does lose all that weight, he has about 5 times as much skin as he needs... o_o
Actually, if he does enough cardio, it's possible for him to lose a lot of the excess skin.
|
On September 08 2009 01:52 Too_MuchZerg wrote:At the moment USA has 33% overweight people and in next 6 years its going to raise to 40% of total USA population. USA pays 200 billion dollars treating overweight patients (diabetes II, Heart problems). Urban Institute researcher Stan Dorn suggest that food that causes overweight problems should have tax on it. This will cover Medical bills and advertisement on this matter. Source: yle.fi (finnish though)
as long as they subsidize healthy options it would be a good idea
Actually, if he does enough cardio, it's possible for him to lose a lot of the excess skin.
would his knees stand up to that?
he should do boxing training imo , even if he sits while doing it
|
United States24768 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages.
I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation.
|
On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation.
Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)?
I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't.
|
United States24768 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't.
99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption.
|
On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages.
On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't.
I am in agreement.
|
I don't really see how it's possible. I mean simple solution: stick refrigerator on opposite side of room from couch. gg, no re.
|
On September 08 2009 09:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't. 99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption.
It is inherent to people choosing to smoke as long as it is done in public. Consuming alcohol does not directly hurt anyone, except maybe the consumer. Smoking a cigarette can directly hurt other people, the victims of the pollution of the air. If I were to sit next to you at a park and smoke a cigarette, I would be hurting you with my pollution. If I sat next to at a park and I drank a beer, there is no harm done to you.
|
On September 08 2009 09:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't. 99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption.
You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking.
I am truely in awe of how you prevent people around you from breathing in the smoke that you exhale. I'm truely curious, how may I prevent second-hand smoke from those who are smoking around me?
(Don't even say Gas Mask!)
|
On September 08 2009 08:27 number1gog wrote:
I'm surprised the public healthcare debate hasn't filtered into this thread yet. Well I'll take care of that!
When this kid's body starts breaking down (probably his heart from pushing his blood around the world and back lol), why should my tax dollars pay for his medical bills? Should we integrate a program where mandatory amounts of exercise and proper nutrition are required to be eligible for public health care so that cases like this don't drain the system?
Mandatory exercise or proper nutrition? Ridiculous.
|
On September 08 2009 09:20 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 08:27 number1gog wrote:
I'm surprised the public healthcare debate hasn't filtered into this thread yet. Well I'll take care of that!
When this kid's body starts breaking down (probably his heart from pushing his blood around the world and back lol), why should my tax dollars pay for his medical bills? Should we integrate a program where mandatory amounts of exercise and proper nutrition are required to be eligible for public health care so that cases like this don't drain the system? Mandatory exercise or proper nutrition? Ridiculous.
Exactly. I believe those were rhetorical questions.
|
On September 08 2009 04:44 psion0011 wrote:
Clearly fat people shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
|
On September 08 2009 09:18 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 09:11 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't. 99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking.I am truely in awe of how you prevent people around you from breathing in the smoke that you exhale. I'm truely curious, how may I prevent second-hand smoke from those who are smoking around me? (Don't even say Gas Mask!)
You leave...?
Taxation of cigarettes has nothing to do with second-hand smoke or "pollution"
|
On September 08 2009 09:30 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 09:18 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 09:11 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't. 99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking.I am truely in awe of how you prevent people around you from breathing in the smoke that you exhale. I'm truely curious, how may I prevent second-hand smoke from those who are smoking around me? (Don't even say Gas Mask!) You leave...? Taxation of cigarettes has nothing to do with second-hand smoke or "pollution"
You do have the ability to leave under most circumstances, but you have lost your right to be in the same area as a person smoking a cigarette. The smoker has infringed on your rights, and should pay for it.
Whether or not taxation of cigarettes currently has anything to do with second-hand smoke or pollution is irrelevant to the case of taxation for those reasons.
|
It's a fairly insignificant case.
|
On September 08 2009 09:37 nomsayin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 09:30 BlackJack wrote:On September 08 2009 09:18 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 09:11 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't. 99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking.I am truely in awe of how you prevent people around you from breathing in the smoke that you exhale. I'm truely curious, how may I prevent second-hand smoke from those who are smoking around me? (Don't even say Gas Mask!) You leave...? Taxation of cigarettes has nothing to do with second-hand smoke or "pollution" You do have the ability to leave under most circumstances, but you have lost your right to be in the same area as a person smoking a cigarette. The smoker has infringed on your rights, and should pay for it. Whether or not taxation of cigarettes currently has anything to do with second-hand smoke or pollution is irrelevant to the case of taxation for those reasons.
On pure principle I'm against any form of taxation. Practicality wise in todays political environment I would favor a very low flat tax (5-7%), or a consumption tax (On all non-essential (Food, Water, Shelter) end products) (4-6%), or in another scenario letting the states freely decide how they wish to raise tax money that they would end up pooling to fund the Federal Government. That isn't to add onto the bloated system now, but only after abolishment of the Income tax (Ala, no more 16th Amendment, which wasn't even properly ratified in the first place) Sometimes you have to move in the direction you favor in incrementalism and then one day you'll be at the end point (No taxation).
If you wonder how America survived for 140 years without any taxation, that would be through the small amounts they make through Tariffs and other associated measures. This also has a nice by-product when coupled with a decentralized banking system of having the Government "live-within" their means, which is good for everyone.
Oh well, now we are way off the topic. Let's get back on topic. Maybe someone should give that kid Richard Simmons phone number? He does a lot of charity work for people in his situation.
|
United States24768 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:18 nomsayin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 09:11 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't. 99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption. It is inherent to people choosing to smoke as long as it is done in public. Consuming alcohol does not directly hurt anyone, except maybe the consumer. Smoking a cigarette can directly hurt other people, the victims of the pollution of the air. If I were to sit next to you at a park and smoke a cigarette, I would be hurting you with my pollution. If I sat next to at a park and I drank a beer, there is no harm done to you.
Then don't smoke in public? Instead of standing in the doorway to the bowling alley, go around to the back where there is nobody except for smokers? Instead of smoking in the kitchen, do it in another room near an open window? Don't sit down next to me on a park bench? If you want to avoid giving other people second-hand smoke you can.... same way most people can avoid allowing alcohol to hurt other people if they so choose (not getting into impaired judgment).
On September 08 2009 09:18 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2009 09:11 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote:On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote:On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote:On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why do people want to tax fatty foods?
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't. 99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking.I am truely in awe of how you prevent people around you from breathing in the smoke that you exhale. I'm truely curious, how may I prevent second-hand smoke from those who are smoking around me? (Don't even say Gas Mask!)
Read above. Individual smokers don't make a big dent in overall air quality if you stay away from other people. Smoke in your house by yourself or in your room near an open window. Smoke in a place outside that is away from other people. Then, when you drink, do so responsibly and avoid things like driving while drunk or getting into bar fights. How are these issues so fundamentally different?
|
Someone is using a random thread as a platform for his political ideas again. Kind of pridictable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
