More rhetorical fluff. Why bother posting useless nonsense like this ?

LOL, so you've got no come back - I didn't think so.

Also, I find it amusing that you are unable to use the term rhetorical properly. Should have paid more attention in school.

quote:

My solution would be for them to approach a charity for the money required. Hence you could give 40% of your salary to a charity every month, and they could pay for healthcare of the lazy and unwilling.

But like you said, "not all fat people are lazy and unwilling". So like I said, lets not forget these are the non lazy, willing fat people who have demonstrated that they're doing all they can to loose weight under your regime. They're hardworking, tax paying citizens.

quote:

Sooner people start taking responsibility for their own choices the sooner our country can sort itself out.

That's exactly what they're doing; but under your regime, they're still being discriminated against; yes?

In fact this hypothetical non lazy, willing overweight person I've been referring to. If he/she became overweight during childhood and decided to start actively trying to loose weight in his 20s but still encounters health problems, under your regime there would be no help for them right?

quote:

I'm against my taxes being used to help the lazy and the unwilling

So what you meant to say here was "I'm against my taxes being used to help the lazy, the unwilling and anyone who hasn't maintained perfect health since the day they were born, yes?

quote:

So like I said, lets not forget these are the non lazy, willing fat people who have demonstrated that they're doing all they can to loose weight under your regime.

That statement almost contradicts itself - they clearly aren't "doing all they can" if the weight isn't dropping off.

quote:

That's exactly what they're doing; but under your regime, they're still being discriminated against; yes?

No more than the hardworking are being discriminated against in the current regime. You should discriminate against those who are causing the problems rather than punish the hardworking.

quote:

If he/she became overweight during childhood and decided to start actively trying to loose weight in his 20s but still encounters health problems, under your regime there would be no help for them right?

Exactly. It's their own fault - why should I cover for them?

quote:

So what you meant to say here was "I'm against my taxes being used to help the lazy, the unwilling and anyone who hasn't maintained perfect health since the day they were born, yes?

Yes to 'lazy', 'yes' to unwilling, but 'no' someone who hasn't maintained perfect health. Most people who are ill are that way despite their lifestyle choices. I'm only interested in punishing those who are in their situation because of their own choices.

I strongly believe that fat people should br taxed, i also believe that the parents of obese children should be taxed as it is the parents life style choice being foreced onto the children.

i think the obese should have their nil rate tax band reduced by their level of obesity, thus paying tax on their earnings sooner like it being a benfit. (I guess thats not the right word as obesity is not a benifit to anyone but you know what i mean)

quote:

quote:

quote:

Not doubt you'll whine now and say there are plenty of hard working people earning minimum wage. Well, obviously they aren't working hard enough, are they? There's nothing stopping anyone getting ahead.

More rhetorical fluff. Why bother posting useless nonsense like this ?

LOL, so you've got no come back - I didn't think so.

So if someone else thinks that what you post is rhetorical fluff, this obviously means that they simply have no comeback. However, if YOU think someone ELSE is posting rhetorical fluff, you seem to need no justification, as seen below:

quote:

quote:

It is a simple fact that some people who are on income support did not plan to be in that situation. But stuff happens in life that you sometimes can't control.

Such as ?

You continue to post rhetorical fluff, but make no attempt to actually justify your assertations.

This strikes me as a little unfair, since you haven't really made any effort to justify your assertion that "there's nothing stopping anyone getting ahead", other than through the rhetorical question "Well, obviously they aren't working hard enough, are they?". Here is an example to back up RE's statement, and to demonstrate why your statement is not entirely accurate:

I go to university with a very hard-working young man, born into a lower-class family in Lancashire. He went to a comprehensive school, his father is a colour mixer in a paint factory, and he currently has to work 40 hours a week in KFC during every holiday to pay his way through university. He has no other work options because nobody is willing to employ someone on a timetable that suits the student work schedule, a problem I've also encountered when searching for employment during holidays.

This man is very bright and extremely diligent, and once he gets a good degree, as he will, he will hopefully be able to get a reasonable job. Many other parents in a similar situation would've taken him out of school at 16 and put him on an apprenticeship in the paint factory, which would've given him very little opportunity for future advancement. However, he has supportive parents, who have made sacrifices to send him to an excellent university, and to give him a shot at a good career. This shows that SOME people can get ahead in life with enough work, but ONLY given the right circumstances, as opposed to your assertion that anyone can get ahead with enough work.

At the other end of the scale, I am surrounded by people who are here only because Mummy and Daddy were willing and able to pay upwards of £7000 a term to send their child to Eton or Rugby. The parents also have the appropriate contacts to get them a work placement in a law firm or a big city broker. These people are usually less intelligent and less hard-working than my friend. However, a great majority of them will end up with higher-ranking and better paid jobs than my friend. This is purely as a result of their circumstances.

I appreciate that this is one example, but I am just trying, as you keep asking others to do, to explain how it is possible for a hard-working individual to have a much lower paid job than someone less deserving.


And as for your assertion that RE was using the term "rhetorical" incorrectly:

Rhetorical (adj.): Of or relating to rhetoric.

One of the several definitions of rhetoric is:

Rhetoric (n.):Language that is pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous

RE disagrees with your statement that "anyone can get ahead in life", as do I for the reasons above. If you actually believe what you say, then from our point of view, the statement is intellectually vacuous, in the light of my example above. If, however, you do not truly believe your own statement, and are only using it for argumentaative effect, you are being insincere in your use of language. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for RE to consider your statement, made without any backing evidence I might add (which you are very fond of asking others for), to be rhetorical in nature.

quote:

Also, I find it amusing that you are unable to use the term rhetorical properly. Should have paid more attention in school.

I once made a pointless comment about how I found someone else difficult to understand, and I rightly got ripped to shreds for it, and then apologised. Your statement is utterly irrelevant, and frankly, given what I have said above about RE's use of the word "rhetorical", might be considered somewhat derisory.

As an aside, you have used the term "assertations", which is not a word, when I assume you meant to use "assertions", which is

N.B: This is NOT an invitation, to anyone, to find the mistake (which I surely will have made) in this post, and pick on it. I am not criticising malkie's use of a non-word, and so I do not think I have opened myself up to attacks upon my own use of language. I am simply pointing out that if malkie wishes to accuse someone ELSE of poor language, by using a real word in an incorrect context, regardless of whether or not we agree on the correctness of its use, he must surely avoid poor language, in this case the use of a non-word, himself.

quote:

they clearly aren't "doing all they can" if the weight isn't dropping off.

Well knowing your primary school science approach to this issue, I should've expected something that dim as a response. But like I've clearly said, the weight IS dropping off, but they've still encountered problems despite their best efforts.

quote:

No more than the hardworking are being discriminated against in the current regime. You should discriminate against those who are causing the problems rather than punish the hardworking.

So you agree, they would be being discriminated against in your regime. Plus here you are again suggesting no fat person is hardworking.

Right, so for someone who gained weight during childhood,

quote:

It's their own fault - why should I cover for them?

It's one thing implying that all fat people are lazy and unwilling (and you did imply it whether you're respectable enough to admit it or not) but to suggest that gaining weight during childhood is the child's fault, you clearly have a chip on your shoulder.

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP Joe Moed.

Its OK, Im sure we are becoming very used to it, but may I say thank you for that post Joe, and I hope it goes a long way to explain why you have had a few harsh replies yourself. Its sometimes very hard to seperate the issue from those who step forward to support them.

But likewise, I dont expect anything sensible from Malkies mouth, just another round of you aint go nothing, and further abuse and insults from the all knowing head.

quote:

But like I've clearly said, the weight IS dropping off, but they've still encountered problems despite their best efforts.

If the health issues were due to them being overweight at some point in their life then they need to be held accountable for it.

quote:

This shows that SOME people can get ahead in life with enough work, but ONLY given the right circumstances, as opposed to your assertion that anyone can get ahead with enough work............This is purely as a result of their circumstances.

That's a weak cop-out used by people with no gumption.

There's nothing stopping anyone taking a hold of their own lives and achieving anything they want to. Nothing at all.

People give up too easily, or settle for less than they can achieve - that's not my problem.

quote:

Your statement is utterly irrelevant, and frankly, given what I have said above about RE's use of the word "rhetorical", might be considered somewhat derisory.

Not really, I'm getting tired of RE's constant "non-posting" - he contributes nothing to the discussion, and only posts personal attacks or slights towards myself - you should see his posts that were deleted.

So, I merely posted asking for a bit more substance, and a little less rhetoric.

Furthermore, I'm tired of having my questions ignored yet being expected to answer everyone else's questions.

Repeatedly I've asked others if they think it's a good idea for the state to support the lazy and unwilling using the earnings of the non-lazy and willing.

Why don't I get an answer ?

Similarly I've also asked if people are happy they their earnings go to support the lazy and unwilling.

I was told that "one day you might be lazy and unwilling, and *then* you'll be happy for the states help", to which I responded asking for examples as to why I'd end up needing the states help at some point - but I haven't received a single example.

You people are happy to throw the insults around ("simpleminded bafoon" from RE for example), because you have no reply to my simple questions.

quote:

quote:

This shows that SOME people can get ahead in life with enough work, but ONLY given the right circumstances, as opposed to your assertion that anyone can get ahead with enough work............This is purely as a result of their circumstances.

That's a weak cop-out used by people with no gumption.

There's nothing stopping anyone taking a hold of their own lives and achieving anything they want to. Nothing at all.

People give up too easily, or settle for less than they can achieve - that's not my problem.

Firstly, this is a slight misquote, although I appreciate that you were only trying to avoid quoting unnecessarily huge chunks of my post. The "purely a result of their circumstances" bit at the end was talking about how the children of rich parents often end up with earnings which are above what they deserve purely on an intellectual or effort basis. It was not referring to how children of lower social classed parents end up with lower earnings.

Nonetheless, I feel I ought to rephrase what I said earlier. It is true that in our society, there is some degree of social mobility, i.e.: it is theoretically possible for any individual, regardless of their origins, to become successful. However, by saying "There's nothing stopping anyone taking a hold of their own lives and achieving anything they want to. Nothing at all.", you are, I believe, oversimplifying things.

If, as you keep insisting, our society allows any individual who wishes it to take hold of their life and do something with it, we really ought to see some kind of redistribution among the social classes over time. Here is an interactive graphic from the New York Times, which demonstrates that this does not happen in a totally meritocratic way.

In short: There is some possibility for someone from a lower class to move up in life. However, it is far less likely that a person from a poorer background will become successful than a person from a richer background. Unless you believe that children from poorer backgrounds are innately less enterprising than their richer counterparts, this cannot be put down solely to individual causes.

You may choose to refute the evidence of the New York Times' graphic, but let it be noted that I have sought out evidence in an attempt to prove that life is not a totally even playing field at the outset, as you, correct me if I'm wrong, seem to suggest it is. I appreciate that you think others have not been forthcoming in trying to prove their points, and so you have been reluctant to acquiesce to their demands for proof. However, I have now made an effort to provide evidence for my side, so even if you feel they don't deserve an answer from you, I think I do.

quote:

quote:

Your statement is utterly irrelevant, and frankly, given what I have said above about RE's use of the word "rhetorical", might be considered somewhat derisory.

Not really, I'm getting tired of RE's constant "non-posting" - he contributes nothing to the discussion, and only posts personal attacks or slights towards myself - you should see his posts that were deleted.

So, I merely posted asking for a bit more substance, and a little less rhetoric.

Fair enough, I can see that his posts are sometimes not very constructive, and do sometimes contain rhetoric (Sorry, RE, but they do...)

However, I was referring to the post in which RE accused you of using rhetoric too. By some definitions of the word, you have done, as I explained above. Yet you told him he ought to learn how to use the word correctly.

In other words, I wasn't trying to defend RE's posting, I was simply saying that your counter, which involved poking fun at RE's use of the word "rhetorical", was out of place.


I realise you have written more in a subsequent post, but I have to go out now, so I'll reply to the rest of it tomorrow morning, hopefully. (I hope the accusations in that post of non-responses to questions, and insults, do not apply to me, though )

Joe Moed - thanks for posting that NYTimes article. However, it bluntly proves my point that anyone can turn their life around - there's nothing stopping anyone (who wants to) getting anywhere.

Roll over the bottom fifth, and you'll see that some of them ended up in the top fifth in the space of a single year. What's stopping more people achieving that, other than their own gumption?

quote:

However, it is far less likely that a person from a poorer background will become successful than a person from a richer background.

But life isn't about probability, life is about taking control of your own life and changing it. It's not about coin tossing.

quote:

Fair enough, I can see that his posts are sometimes not very constructive, and do sometimes contain rhetoric (Sorry, RE, but they do...)

Glad you agree

quote:

(I hope the accusations in that post of non-responses to questions, and insults, do not apply to me, though Wink)

absolutely not, you are a class-A poster (you'll noticed that RE's last insult ridden post has been deleted by the mods again)

Well done, youve got another post deleted.

Good news that they dont give any reason for such removal, which youve noticed yourself on Channel 4 forum, where you also had many removed, in fact whole topics were removed due 'to your comments.

You also got the post some content removed,but at least it saved any effort on your part (which is how you like it), for calling you 'simple minded' or the like, which you hint at all the time to everyone else that disagrees with you. Yeah great skills.

Ill leave you 'gents' to it.

quote:

Yes to 'lazy', 'yes' to unwilling, but 'no' someone who hasn't maintained perfect health

This sentence contradicts this one:

quote:

If the health issues were due to them being overweight at some point in their life then they need to be held accountable for it.

So its official. You're against your taxes being used to help anyone who hasn't maintained perfect health since the day they were born.

quote:

Most people who are ill are that way despite their lifestyle choices.

I'm going to need some evidence for that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5095708.stm

"Children from poorer backgrounds, children in care, asylum-seeker children and those who have witnessed domestic violence, are all at particular risk of developing mental health problems, the report says."

If one of these kids overate as a coping mechanism, Malkie would make sure they were culled in early adulthood.

If they choose to overeat then they need to be held accountable. Doesn't matter what the root cause of them wanting to overeat is - I'm not prepared to pick up the bill.

I resent your comment that I'm suggesting they be culled - where did that outburst come from?

Just because I advocate that people become responsible for their own lifestyle choices doesn't mean I think they should all be put down. To suggest that says more about you than it does about me.

quote:

So its official. You're against your taxes being used to help anyone who hasn't maintained perfect health since the day they were born.

My misunderstanding of your use of the word 'maintained'. My 'maintained' I simply mean "has had", whereas I believe you are using 'maintained' to mean being more proactive in looking after your health.

Just to clarify - if you are the cause of your own health problems then you need to pay.

quote:

Most people who are ill are that way despite their lifestyle choices.

evidence ?

Certainly - for example read -

quote:

The evidence base for public health informing policy at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. American Journal Of Preventive Medicine. Volume 29, Issue 3 , October 2005, Pages 227-233

The CDC assessed evidence for public health intervention (ie what people could change to prevent disease), and concluded that "Preventable fractions were found for 31 (4.4%) of the interventions.". Furthermore it also states that "For 31 conditions, 194 modifiable risk factors were identified, and attributable fractions were found for 65 (33.5%)."

So, only 4.4% of diseases could be prevented by lifestyle changes, and only 33.5% of diseases could be modified by lifestyle changes.

Alternatively read :-

quote:

Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet. Volume 360, Issue 9343 , November 2, 2002, Pages 1347-1360

Which states that :- "Childhood and maternal underweight (9.5%), unsafe sex (6.3%), high blood pressure (4.4%), tobacco (4.1%), and alcohol (4.0%) were the leading causes of global burden of disease."

That only totals up to 28.3% of disease burden.



Finally, why do my questions continue to be ignored despite me repeatedly answering all of yours?

Right so are you extending your views on obesity to childhood and maternal underweight, unsafe sex, high blood pressure, tobacco and alcohol related diseaases? So all these disease sufferers should also be taxed?

quote:

If they choose to overeat then they need to be held accountable. Doesn't matter what the root cause of them wanting to overeat is - I'm not prepared to pick up the bill.

So when the root of their overeating was based in a childhood (i.e. before mature decisions about your health can be made) you propose they receive no help despite their best efforts. How does that not confirm that you're against your taxes being used to help anyone who hasn't maintained perfect health since the day they were born?

Your spiel on your understanding of my use of the word 'maintained' is confusing. Explain yourself properly please.

quote:

I resent your comment that I'm suggesting they be culled

If someone gets fat during childhood (i.e. before mature decisions about their health can be made) and runs into trouble in their early adulthood without being able to cope financially, you're ultimately proposing they're culled since you know full well that your charity idea wouldn't be able to cope with the demand, yes?

In answer to your question, I spent most of my life living in a country where taxes went straight to the pockets of wealthy politicians. In this country where I can actually see where the taxes are going, I am more than happy to contribute. I'm currently in the first year of my PhD. Following another 2 years of work, followed by another few years of Post-doc work, I should be raking it in and when the tax man collects 40% of my wages which goes to a lot of things including various initiatives to help vulnerable people help themselves, I'll get over it.

Here's my question, would you rather the rich were richer and the vulnerable were helpless or the rich were rich and the vulnerable had more of a chance?

quote:

Right so are you extending your views on obesity to childhood and maternal underweight, unsafe sex, high blood pressure, tobacco and alcohol related diseaases? So all these disease sufferers should also be taxed?

Yes. Of course it's worth noting that alcohol and tobacco are already strongly taxed - why not extend to fat?

quote:

Your spiel on your understanding of my use of the word 'maintained' is confusing. Explain yourself properly please.

I'm just saying that we use the word "maintained" differently. I was using as meaning what health people have naturally had, whereas you were meaning it as the health people have contributed to by lifestyle choices.

If someone has maintained poor health through no fault of their own then they shouldn't be punished. If someone has maintained poor health because of their choices then they should be punished.

quote:

If someone gets fat during childhood (i.e. before mature decisions about their health can be made) and runs into trouble in their early adulthood without being able to cope financially, you're ultimately proposing they're culled since you know full well that your charity idea wouldn't be able to cope with the demand, yes?

No-one is unable to cope financially - that's a cop-out. Again, I'm not suggesting they should be culled, so stop saying that.

Under my reforms they'd have to pay for their own healthcare, if they can't then they should go to a charity for the money as there will be people like you who are "happy to contribute". Surely charities would have a wealth of extra money if we stopped paying taxes.

You inadvertantly answered another one of my questions about if you pay tax or not. You don't because you're a student - PhD stipends are non-taxable, and you'll only be paying tax on the work you do on the side (ie weekend work, or part-time lecturing) which you'll get back as a rebate. However, I'm guessing you are an over-seas student meaning you are perhaps not funded at all.

Furthermore, this means you won't have contributed taxes to this country, yet you are taking advantage of our health service. You also won't be paying council tax, yet you have your bins removed, and Police a phonecall away. If you are from overseas then you parents certainly didn't pay tax over here, whereas mine did while I was at University.

So, basically you've never paid taxes which is why you won't have an appreciation of how painful it is to see 40% of your well earned cash disappearing off to house the lazy and unwilling, while you continue to payoff student loans.

quote:

Here's my question, would you rather the rich were richer and the vulnerable were helpless or the rich were rich and the vulnerable had more of a chance?

The vulnerable ? Who are they, and what's preventing them getting ahead ?

More of a chance ? There's nothing stopping anyone making their own chances in life. Why should it be my problem?