Jump to content

Fat People

Hanrahan

By Hanrahan
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mr. Drummond
Mr. Drummond

On TOS there was a fasting thread, and i talked a bit about some of my hard core fasting.   I lost 150lbs in about 8 months and after almost 3 years I'm still 125 down.   So went from 345 to 195, and

Jerry Callo
Jerry Callo

I'm trans-slender.

Helobious
Helobious

You were in one of the fattest cities in one of the fattest states, at a game for a team with the fattest dumbest fanbases in sports.    All that said, yes America has a big time fat problem. 

Posted Images

Nivek

Nivek 16946

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, MoJames said:

So based on this argument we should also go back to prohibition?

Is alcoholism an increasing society problem, promoted as part of a healthy lifestyle, and available unregulated to people at all times including children?

Your argument was foolish and you knew it.  Quit trying to deflect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28788

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, lmao said:

Calvin Klein model Raisa Flowers

sp21-pride-2x3-17-1622041163.jpg?resize=

sp21-pride-2x3-15-1622039930.jpg

 

So it seems that she is a famous makeup artist and a black lesbian so she was picked for a Pride shoot honoring some members of the LGBTQ community not to promote fatness.

 

Edited by F250
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15302

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Is alcoholism an increasing society problem, promoted as part of a healthy lifestyle, and available unregulated to people at all times including children?

Your argument was foolish and you knew it.  Quit trying to deflect.

Ea5pMkSXsAIF33h.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonkeyCigars

DonkeyCigars 143

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

When someone needs to drop >30% of their weight, there are many paths to achieving that. You can try fad diets, specialized programs, or whatever. However the really basic idea is to stop the 4000+ calorie days. We've all seen the reality shows that someone at 500 lbs claims to eat the same as someone who weighs 175.

Youtube suggested to me a few videos with the actor Ethan Supplee. He is from My Name is Earl, Remember the Titans, American History X, etc. He's recently lost 100s of pounds. He is open in the videos that when was at his heaviest, he would routinely sneak off to fast food places and order multiple hamburgers. He would lie  to everyone about this behavior, including the fast food employee. Seems like people first need to be honest with themselves and their behavior. 

"What you eat in private, you wear in public"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MoJames

MoJames 8244

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nivek said:

Is alcoholism an increasing society problem, promoted as part of a healthy lifestyle, and available unregulated to people at all times including children?

Your argument was foolish and you knew it.  Quit trying to deflect.

At what point is massive caloric intake promoted as a part of a healthy lifestyle by the government?

I'm not a proponent of prohibition. Simply showing that your argument that Government should police vices is idiotic. 

Here is the current dietary guidelines per our government - Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025

As noted early on in the text, the vast majority of those evaluated were not following dietary guidelines since around 2005 and it shows.

The vast majority of people I speak to about weight loss are not interested in changing their habits as they are happy with their choices. Suggesting the government should step in to put grants/money towards foods that are healthy to move the consumers choices away from unhealthy foods would be very similar to say making it more difficult to purchase alcohol. Are you also a proponent of state run stores like Utah?

I get it, a huge swath of our population is lazy. And without someone making decisions for them, they won't change their mind. I'm just of the mind that if that patient wants to partake in a vice and it isn't against the law, so be it. I have no right to tell someone how to live their life as long as it doesn't intrude on other's rights.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27682

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MoJames said:

The vast majority of people I speak to about weight loss are not interested in changing their habits as they are happy with their choices. Suggesting the government should step in to put grants/money towards foods that are healthy to move the consumers choices away from unhealthy foods would be very similar to say making it more difficult to purchase alcohol. Are you also a proponent of state run stores like Utah?

In my mind, it's less of "the government should make bad food illegal" and moreso that they should fight fire with fire. There's billions and billions of dollars flowing into just advertising all the shitty, sugary, empty food that goes into our fat American faces - not to mention to billions in government subsidy towards those unhealthy foods.

What's so wrong with subsidizing the healthier stuff instead or in addition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13515

Posted
Posted

The govt shouldn't be subsidizing food that has a fairly well established connection to health problems. I'm ok if HFCS exists because by itself, it isn't poison. But we don't need tax dollars to subsidize it so it can be cheaply included in 75% of processed food. If the free market wants it included, pay for it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MoJames

MoJames 8244

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

In my mind, it's less of "the government should make bad food illegal" and moreso that they should fight fire with fire. There's billions and billions of dollars flowing into just advertising all the shitty, sugary, empty food that goes into our fat American faces - not to mention to billions in government subsidy towards those unhealthy foods.

What's so wrong with subsidizing the healthier stuff instead or in addition?

I have absolutely no problem with this approach. I'm not sure it moves the needle much, but all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MoJames

MoJames 8244

Posted
Posted

As a corollary, I would compare this to the debate ongoing with Electric cars. The government has done the right thing in putting money in the technology to grow it. There is a subset of our population that no matter what is developed in the eCar world, will always drive a car/truck that takes gasoline.  The subset that will take the most advantage of the eCar push is those people that were already driving a Prius or put solar panels on their homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15302

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, MoJames said:

I have absolutely no problem with this approach. I'm not sure it moves the needle much, but all for it.

It won't move the needle at all.  The govt subsidizes ingredients.  Not the finished product.  It's akin to cutting subsidies on barley during prohibition.  These ingredients go towards a infinite number of downstream applications.  

Subsidies do need to be evaluated.  Many ranchers and specialty crop growers do just fine without subsidies.  What I do think would happen is it would raise the price point on what is generally affordable food.  Raising these prices significantly would have a significantly adverse impact of the poorest sectors of our economy.  So which politician wants to play this card:  pissing off the most at need AND the farmers.  Good luck with that.....

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Could reducing/stopping government subsidies of certain "raw materials" in our food supply lead to our ability to pay less in taxes.  Empowering us as consumers with more money in our pockets to make better food purchases?  When I have extra cash to burn, I just shop better and eat better.  Just the way capitalism is.  When I have less cash to work with, I shop worse and eat worse and am thankful the government made that crap I just consumed slightly more affordable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BabaYaga

BabaYaga 15302

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Could reducing/stopping government subsidies of certain "raw materials" in our food supply lead to our ability to pay less in taxes. 

I'd have to circle back, but I thought most of the subsidies were around $20B /yr.  It's not all direct handouts.  Some are, but much of it is insurance, risk coverage, and price drop coverage.  The VAST majority (80%+ of the total last I saw) went to food stamps.  

If you think this would drive down taxes, I have a bridge to sell you.  The govt. would just spend it on something else.  I'm all for it.  It's a massive market distortion.  Nor do we have any actual data to indicate they are even necessary?  Of that money given direct - most go to the big corporate farms, not the mom/pop shops that need it the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABSR

ABSR 5319

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

I'd have to circle back, but I thought most of the subsidies were around $20B /yr.  It's not all direct handouts.  Some are, but much of it is insurance, risk coverage, and price drop coverage.  The VAST majority (80%+ of the total last I saw) went to food stamps.  

If you think this would drive down taxes, I have a bridge to sell you.  The govt. would just spend it on something else.  I'm all for it.  It's a massive market distortion.  Nor do we have any actual data to indicate they are even necessary?  Of that money given direct - most go to the big corporate farms, not the mom/pop shops that need it the most.

No, no!  They could put the money into the same "lock box" that has our social security money.  Just think of all that money safe in the "lock box!"

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16946

Posted
Posted
At what point is massive caloric intake promoted as a part of a healthy lifestyle by the government?
I'm not a proponent of prohibition. Simply showing that your argument that Government should police vices is idiotic. 
Here is the current dietary guidelines per our government - Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025
As noted early on in the text, the vast majority of those evaluated were not following dietary guidelines since around 2005 and it shows.
The vast majority of people I speak to about weight loss are not interested in changing their habits as they are happy with their choices. Suggesting the government should step in to put grants/money towards foods that are healthy to move the consumers choices away from unhealthy foods would be very similar to say making it more difficult to purchase alcohol. Are you also a proponent of state run stores like Utah?
I get it, a huge swath of our population is lazy. And without someone making decisions for them, they won't change their mind. I'm just of the mind that if that patient wants to partake in a vice and it isn't against the law, so be it. I have no right to tell someone how to live their life as long as it doesn't intrude on other's rights.

Lead off strawman.

Followed by anecdotes, including how no one wants to talk with you about their diet. Gee, I wonder why?

Now just close with some trope hoping you will get a nod. smh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89737

Posted
Posted
On 7/8/2021 at 2:28 PM, MoJames said:

I get it, a huge swath of our population is lazy. And without someone making decisions for them, they won't change their mind. I'm just of the mind that if that patient wants to partake in a vice and it isn't against the law, so be it. I have no right to tell someone how to live their life as long as it doesn't intrude on other's rights.

I could give two shits if they want to shove their faces full of Big Macs for the rest of their lives, it's just that for a lot of them the eventual health bills will be far more than they can afford, and so somebody else (the rest of us) are going to pay for it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25980

Posted
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I could give two shits if they want to shove their faces full of Big Macs for the rest of their lives, it's just that for a lot of them the eventual health bills will be far more than they can afford, and so somebody else (the rest of us) are going to pay for it.

winner.

It's like the fuckheads that ride motorcycles that don't like wearing a helmet.  I say that the law should be that helmets are mandatory, unless you post a bond or carry insurance or something in an amount adequate to cover the cost of wiping your drool and changing your shitty diapers for the rest of your miserable vegatative live. 

The states with the largest % of population on welfare/SSDI etc also are the fattest states with the highest diabeetus rates (hello SEC...I'm talking to you...I'm looking at the Mountain West, but I'm talking to you). 

Edited by Gil Bang
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89737

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

the fattest states with the highest diabeetus rates (hello SEC...I'm talking to you...I'm looking at the Mountain West, but I'm talking to you). 

And also the highest rates of incest (can't spell incest without SEC).

Not sure on the background of why that is, and it could be the availability heuristic kicking in, who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, F250 said:

A lot of people don't know that Fat Bottomed Girl is a Queen song.

The song put the end of the sexual revolution on overdrive. Everyone started grabbing ass. Ladies as well, and they would dig in and squeeze. Cougars prowled back then. This song unleashed a steady stream of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:


Exactly. Well, add some coração de galinha, bolas de muçarela, e linguiça.
 

I know this isn't Domincan Spanish, but I read this in Kennan Thompson/David Ortiz's voice and I'm cracking up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...