quote:

Nice choice of word there, “punished”. What the bloody hell do you mean by that?

By punished I mean made to pay for their mistakes. I'm not suggesting public flogging.

quote:

Are obese people out murdering people? Robbing people etc?

They are unfairly robbing me of my taxes.

quote:

I have already said in many of my posts what factors I KNOW contribute to obesity, maybe you should go and re read them for yourself, or failing that go and do some of your own research into the contributing factors to obesity.

LOL, if only you knew...........

quote:

not everything is about Biology and Physiology.

it is in terms of obesity. Obesity only has one cause, and it's 100% reversible.

quote:

Not everyone can be perfect. And Malkie, I am almost certain you aren’t either.

using poor rhetoric is weak way to try and further a debate.

However, to address you point :- no, of course I'm not perfect, however, I take responsibility for my life and my lifestyle choices.

I *choose* to be thin and healthy. I *chose* to get an education and a good job. I *choose* not to be a burden to society.

When I retire I doubt there will be a state pension, or if there is it'll be means-tested so I won't get any.

quote:

Well that pretty much sums up your stance on society then. Fair enough.

I'm glad you understand me

quote:

Yeah but with your logic/opinion the mother should do have to pay for the baby's upkeep. That's what I meant.

In my opinion she should have to. Furthermore I don't think healthy single mothers should get council flats or benefits. If you can't afford children you shouldn't have them.

Why should I pay because some girl can't keep her legs together ?

quote:

You can't continue to apply the most basic scientific principles at the social level. That would lead you to some very unrealistic conclusions

You absolutely can apply science to society - and infact I'd argue that society would be a better place if we did apply more rules to it.

There's no reason to be obese, so why should any of us tolerate it ?

There's no reason to be unemployed, so why should any of us tolerate it ?

There's no reason to be homeless, so why should any of us tolerate it ?

We (the UK) are far far too liberal and soft if you ask me.

Thanks, A-D and stuckinamatchbox. I just realised that in attempting to repost my earlier post the one which mysteriously disappeared, I omitted perhaps the most crucial section from the WHO site I referenced (though if you all read the site, I'm sure you found it yourselves ):

"WHO recognizes that the increasing prevalence of obesity is the result of changes in society. Obesity is mainly associated with unhealthy eating and low physical activity. However the problem is linked not just to individual behaviour but also increasingly to social and economic development and policies such as those related to agriculture, transport, urban planning, the environment, food processing, distribution and marketing, and education. Blaming only individuals for their obesity is no longer appropriate or acceptable. The problem is societal and governmental response is needed. To address the problem effectively, the balance between individual-focused and population-wide policy approaches must improve, based on integrated, cross-sector action."

Just to emphasise that point. The World Health Organisation is ON RECORD saying: "Blaming only individuals for their obesity is no longer appropriate or acceptable. The problem is societal and governmental response is needed.". Therefore I'd like to ask a simple "yes-or-no" question of all those opposed to my position:

Do you stand by your earlier assertion that obesity has only one cause, eating more food than your body needs, despite the above statement from the WHO?

quote:

Do you stand by your earlier assertion that obesity has only one cause, eating more food than your body needs, despite the above statement from the WHO?

well, if the obesity doesn't come from eating too much food then where does the fat come from ?

LOL Malkie, your so good at quoting people, but i have noticed that you seem to do it in order to avoid questions. Your message directed at me, all you did was quote...

What about the other points i raised in my post? Are they all b******t? I think not...

So come on are you going to have the guts to answer Joe Moeds question? Or are you just going to skirt around it like you do everything else...?

Your beginning to bore me!

quote:

well, if the obesity doesn't come from eating too much food then where does the fat come from?

Either you are ignoring my question, or you are being disingenuous in avoiding my point despite knowing perfectly well what I mean.

I have conceded that the direct cause of obesity is net energy imbalance. Obviously this is the case, no one will dispute that. What I am asking you to tell me is whether you think that overeating is the sole cause of obesity. Your above statement seems to indicate that you think so, although I notice that you managed to avoid a direct answer to my simple question. If this is the case, I was only trying to bring it to your attention that your opinion is in opposition to the collective considered opinion of the World Health Organisation. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you would care to clarify your statement above, and tell me if your answer is indeed "yes", I would be most grateful.

quote:

I have conceded that the direct cause of obesity is net energy imbalance.

thank you

quote:

What I am asking you to tell me is whether you think that overeating is the sole cause of obesity

of course it is the only cause - where else does the fat come from ?

I realise you are talking about *why* people eat, but that's completely irrelevant - I'm tired footing the bill of the obese, and it's time they stumped up.

quote:

I have conceded that the direct cause of obesity is net energy imbalance.

thank you

quote:

What I am asking you to tell me is whether you think that overeating is the sole cause of obesity

of course it is the only cause - where else does the fat come from ?

quote:

quote:

I have conceded that the direct cause of obesity is net energy imbalance.

thank you

There's no need to thank me. If you look back, it's pretty much the first thing I said on this thread.

quote:

quote:

What I am asking you to tell me is whether you think that overeating is the sole cause of obesity

of course it is the only cause - where else does the fat come from ?

At least you have finally acknowledged the true intent of my question and answered it sincerely. For this I thank you. As long as you recognise that your opinion is in opposition to the vast body of medical opinion, you are perfectly entitled, as always, to hold your own opinion.

quote:

I realise you are talking about *why* people eat, but that's completely irrelevant - I'm tired footing the bill of the obese, and it's time they stumped up

I find the use of the term "completely irrelevant" significant in this statement.


Earlier, I was challenged on my views, and asked whether I would pay for a smoker's cigarettes, or a shopaholic's credit bill. I have to admit, this was a very difficult question (Sorry if it looked like I was ignoring you, Twinkle...). It has caused me to do some serious thinking about my stance, which is the principal goal of any debate, to challenge one's own views. In response: when comparing, for example, smoking and obesity, we can compare the action and the resultant disease. The difference, as I see it, is that neither the smoker nor the obese person wants cancer, of the lung or heart respectively. However, the smoker, if directly challenged, will often admit that he still wants to smoke despite knowing that it harms his health, while no fat person will want to be still be fat. Despite thinking about it and coming to a conclusion of my own, I still find this a troublesome issue. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, Twinkle.

(As an aside, I have to admit that I think almost everyone here, including myself, although I think I try more than some people, could benefit from being a little less set in their ways about the issue at hand.)

However, Twinkle's challenge can apply to you, if inverted. You have said that the reasons why people eat too much are "completely irrelevant". What about the reasons why people eat too little, then? These two cases are completely comparable. Both groups of individuals are placing a burden on your tax bill, which does not concern you directly, since you are not a member of either group, and which, according to you, is self-inflicted. My question to you is therefore this:

Given your use of the phrase "completely irrelevant" to describe the reasons why people eat a certain amount, whether that be too much or too little, in order to be consistent in your stance you should regard anorexia exactly as you regard obesity. However, anorexia is a recognised mental disease, and is treated as such when diagnosed by psychiatrists. Do you then advocate taxing the anorexics to cover the medical bill for the months they spend in hospital recovering?

Oh i can sense what the answer is going to be already

quote:

As long as you recognise that your opinion is in opposition to the vast body of medical opinion, you are perfectly entitled, as always, to hold your own opinion.

Sorry, but can you show me any medical evidence which shows that obesity is caused by something other than eating too much ?

You can't, so basically my opinion is accurate.

quote:

Do you then advocate taxing the anorexics to cover the medical bill for the months they spend in hospital recovering?

If anyone wants to harm themselves they should be free to do so. However, they need to realise that they need to be accountable for their choices, and where appropriate pay up for the consequences of their choices.

For example if someone damages your property they can be ordered to pay damages. (why should I have to pay to get it repaired?)

Similarly, if someone wants to harm themselves I don't think I should have to pay for their medical bills. I'd count starving yourself as harm, and I'd also consider being obese to be harmful.

Why should I be paying their medical bills?

I'm being punished left, right and centre. I have a good job, and as a result I'm forced to pay the government £40 for every £100 I make - how is that fair ? I'm paying for single mothers, lazy unemployed people, and obese people who can't work and are constantly in need of medical care.

If I wanted a council flat, what do you think my chances would be? Yet if I was unemployed or a single mother I'd get a paid-for flat without any worry at all.

Obese people on disability benefits make make my blood boil. They can't stop stuffing their faces, and I'm left to pay their rent, medical bills and their upkeep. What do they contribute to society ? Absolutely nothing.

As I suggested above, perhaps if we showed less empathy and actually gave a little tough-love we'd progress as a society to the point where no-one was ill as a result of simple lifestyle choices.

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:
You absolutely can apply science to society

I didn't just say science, I said the basic principles of science. You've chosen to apply the most basic science of obesity and anorexia to the social (significantly more complex) level. Would you get confused when in vitro results don't correspond to in vivo results? If yes, that in my opinion would make you a very poor scientist. If no then how can you compare the basic physiology of "eating too much makes you fat" to the sociopsychology of the 'vast array of reasons and motivations that people have towards overeating'?

quote:

Originally posted by malkie: I'd argue that society would be a better place if we did apply more rules to it.

Oh dear. You're starting sound like someone we all know.

quote:

Originally posted by malkie: There's no reason to be obese, so why should any of us tolerate it ?

There's no reason to be unemployed, so why should any of us tolerate it ?

There's no reason to be homeless, so why should any of us tolerate it ?

We (the UK) are far far too liberal and soft if you ask me.

So if the homeless, the unemployed, the obese, (the anorexic!) and the single mothers genuinely cannot take care of themselves, what (in your opinion) should happen to them? Would they have to take a 'special' shower so that the rest of us perfectly formed people wouldn't have to tolerate them anymore?

quote:

So if the homeless, the unemployed, the obese, (the anorexic!) and the single mothers genuinely cannot take care of themselves, what (in your opinion) should happen to them? Would they have to take a 'special' shower so that the rest of us perfectly formed people wouldn't have to tolerate them anymore?

There's probably a branch of society which would advocate the gas chambers, however it would be impossible to actually draw lines of who is worth keeping, and who isn't.

However, I always struggle to understand why anyone is homeless, or why we have single mothers, or why the obese can't lose weight. Hence I can't imagine why anyone would genuinely be unable to take care of themselves.

True, there are the really sick, and disabled in society who really can't take care of themselves, but for the most part their issues are not self inflicted.

I've got no time for the obese who are unwilling to change, or the lazy unemployed, or the single mother who thinks she's owed something.

I just lost a long post by clicking "reply" when I already had a reply box open, grrr.... The gist of it was this, as I have to go eat lunch:

Firstly, I find it annoying the way you ask questions and then answer them yourself before even ging me a chance to. I gave you a chance to answer mine by making them the last line of my post and waiting for a reply, why can't you?

Secondly, I wouldn't so much call your opinion inaccurate as incomplete. What you say is true, but you treat it as the scientific be-all and end-all while ignoring social and environmental scientific issues recognised by the medical establishment.

I treat the word of the WHO is synonymous with medical opinion. They have an army of epidemiologists, health scientists and other health experts working for them in order to bring about their stated goal of "the attainment, by all peoples, of the highest possible level of health".

Their site contains sentences like "Obesity is a complex condition, one with serious social and psychological dimensions" and "Blaming only individuals for their obesity is no longer appropriate or acceptable". I think this indicates that most medical experts disagree with your appraisal of the situation.

quote:

If anyone wants to harm themselves they should be free to do so. However, they need to realise that they need to be accountable for their choices, and where appropriate pay up for the consequences of their choices.

Similarly, if someone wants to harm themselves I don't think I should have to pay for their medical bills. I'd count starving yourself as harm, and I'd also consider being obese to be harmful.

Why should I be paying their medical bills?

Looks like there's not much I can do to change your opinion on this matter, then. I have to say, though, I find it slightly disturbing that you could toss aside someone who has an uncontrollable mental condition so lightly. I probably won't have as much time to argue here over the next couple of weeks (my friends finish exams on wednesday, so it's party time...) but you are being excessively stone-hearted, considering we're talking about the plight of people who are mentally ill, remember that.

quote:

There's probably a branch of society which would advocate the gas chambers, however it would be impossible to actually draw lines of who is worth keeping, and who isn't.

not part of that branch are we, Malkie? "worth keeping, and who isn't": who the hell actually talks like that?! this thread has become ridiculous. Its no longer about tax the fat, its just a thread to vent prejudices...........

I think this post has become quite pointless now. Both Joe Moed and A-D have expressed excellent points and facts on this matter.

In regards to the one who calls himself Malkie, I have personally just noticed how he likes to skirt around direct questions and air his own opinion as THE ONLY correct answer.

It is plainly obvious that Malkie is not going to change he/her mind on this. Which is very unfortunate and extremely depressing.

How a person can behave in such a way I find to be disgusting. But I have seen many people like yourself who just constantly moan about how hard done by they are.

You said :

"I've got no time for the obese who are unwilling to change, or the lazy unemployed, or the single mother who thinks she's owed something."

Well frankly, I have absolutely no time or tolerance for people like you who seem to think that only their 'opinion' counts. You presented no facts at all apart from the one that you repeated about a million bloody times. I'm not saying for one second that I came through with WHO documents or web pages that you could all go and read like Joe did... But what I did say was truth... And if you read Joes posts then you would know that.

You Malkie remind me of the piece of s**t that can often be found on the bottom of my shoe.

End of...

Thank you guys very interesting argument, very good points from both sides

quote:

The difference, as I see it, is that neither the smoker nor the obese person wants cancer, of the lung or heart respectively. However, the smoker, if directly challenged, will often admit that he still wants to smoke despite knowing that it harms his health, while no fat person will want to be still be fat.

This is not true, most smokers when pushed will admit that they don't know why they smoke, most don't even enjoy it, i don't know a single smoker who hasn't tried at least once to quit. I must have tried 10 times before i finally succeeded.
I think that smokers and the obese are not yet entirely comparable. The 'obesity epidemic' is a new problem. It is something that the general public is not well educated about. Everybody knows how bad smoking is for your health. It is debatable whether everybody understands what a proper healthy diet consists of. Taxing obese people is an unfair and useless idea. When it was realised how damaging cigarrettes are nobody taxed smokers, no they taxed the tobacco companies, who passed this on via increasing their prices. Then cigarrette and tobacco advertising were outlawed and a comprehensive education campaign launched to warn of the dangers. Why not go down this route for junk foods?
Also if people were somehow encouraged to cycle instead of drive everywhere we could kill 2 birds with one stone.

Your stance on society's attude towards the more vulnerable has been made clearly enough. Luckily, the 19th century has been and gone.

I see you chose to ignore the first part of my post. Here it is again.

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:
You absolutely can apply science to society

I didn't just say science, I said the basic principles of science. You've chosen to apply the most basic science of obesity and anorexia to the social (significantly more complex) level. Would you get confused when in vitro results don't correspond to in vivo results? If yes, that in my opinion would make you a very poor scientist. If no then how can you compare the basic physiology of "eating too much makes you fat" to the sociopsychology of the 'vast array of reasons and motivations that people have towards overeating'?

So far I've respected you as a very thorough and fair debater although somewhat over-opinionated, however, I get the feeling on this particular debate, you've choosing to exaggerate your stance solely to get a reaction...? Luckily you don't choose to overeat to deal with whatever issues you have that cause you to seek attention in such a way; otherwise we'd have to charge you a fee before having you locked away... (You may see this last paragraph as a personal attack indicating poor debating skills, however I think it is perfectly apt to the debate - stick that rizzla and smoke it!)

Firstly, no suprise as to how this thread has turned out, tolerance. Where???

Not the first time Malkie has shown his true colours.

Good point Niker, and one I tried to make earlier, indeed if we like to compare ciggies, booze and bad foods, why is it one is generally banned from all sports advertising, and slowly becoming all, and one is in fact a major contributor to sponsership, including McDonalds and Coca Cola. Again check out the sponsership of the world cup, we see junk foods and beer. If we are not willing to accept the differences of people, then dont market to them. Again we saw this in the mclibel program. They were told to basically not tell lies, and as long as they stopped saying things about McDonalds, there would be no problem. They were told that yes if they stopped advertising to people, that would in fact be fair. Obviously McDonalds didnt agree. You cannot doubt what advertisers are capable of, and if you so against your money being spent in this way, lobby the companies Malkie, and get them to pass over some of their hard earned cash for what they cause. They cant and wont escape their responsibility, in the same way as the ciggie manufacturers wont and havent avoided theres.

What would you like your tax revenue spent on Malkie, what is the ideal system??

quote:

What would you like your tax revenue spent on Malkie, what is the ideal system??

A system whereby people pay for the services they use, rather than the system that we current have were the successful are forced to pay for the lazy.

If you had a healthcare system where people paid for what they use then you'd see people quickly changed their lifestyle choices when faced with the bill.

I can't understand why you guys are so down on my because I'm unhappy to part with cash to look after people who are unwilling to look after themselves.

Are you all *that* liberal? Or don't any of your pay tax ?

quote:

and if you so against your money being spent in this way, lobby the companies Malkie, and get them to pass over some of their hard earned cash for what they cause.

You might notice, if you track back in this thread that is exactly what I suggested doing. Not lobbying the major companies, but putting a significant tax on any unhealthy food to force fat companies to increase prices and hopefully deter people from eating unhealthy foods.

Sounds like the US, where many people cant afford healthcare.Yes nice system although I do spot the problem, although that isnt the problem to you.

We arent all going to get ill in the same way Malkie, and until we know all the reasons why we do get ill, it seems harsh to punish just a few select illnesses, diseases or excesses. Couldnt we use the same understanding with AIDs, in fact most STDs, even with tropical diseases. Dont go to countries with malaria or yellow fever, your obviously too rich, go to Spain like everyone else. As we know, you dont seem to believe in child birth by mistake as we have the miracle of condoms, so by the same logic are all those infected with STDs/STIs also deserving of their illness?

In fact if all these people are so deserving on their 'punishment' why do we research it at all. We should just educate people not to abuse everything around them, and generally try to live a better cleaner life. In a way I agree, what I find hard to deal with is this is much the same arguement many gave to you in the animal reseacrh debate, just didnt seem to agree with it in that context.

Before we start dishing out punishment for those that use the services that we all pay our taxes so that we have(in times of emergency, and no Malkie, not just yours), we should start taxing the companies that advertise their filth to us, ban cerain products advertising at all, reduce subsidation for most foods, and begin to pay the true price for our food and drink.

I have no issue with 40% tax, its for the people that earn too much, and many would argue that have gained substanially from the society that they are from. All those things that you loathe paying for later, are things that helped you get here today.

Sort out societies ills first, then start wagging ya finger at people malkie.