RE: What are your thoughts on fat acceptance?
June 7, 2017 at 9:19 am
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2017 at 10:11 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Good luck with that, the "junk food" that's making americans fat is all the shit that wic and food stamps cover.........
We've actually realized this, institutionally, and theres a big push for what are called "farm fresh stamps" - basically, assistance that can be used to buy something that -isn't- made of corn and cardboard. OFC, look at how pissy people get when they see poor people buying healthy food with their food stamps?
"OH em gee, that grifty grifter just bought seafood with his sin moneyz!"
As another poster touched on, either here or in another thread, food stamps (in actualioty, not in principle) exist to prop up industries through the ag dept, not people, and our biggest industry is unequivocally the thing making us fat...so, gordian knot?
They eat what they can afford. I'm not sure what else there is to do? Say they understand, which most or many don't..that the food they're eating isn't good for them or for their children.
Even then...what can -they- do?
-Continuing on the above, wherein some person with access to better food presents the solution "they should eat what I eat". Ignoring that they can;t afford it, do the people offering that solution realize that what they eat is heavily subsidized by those fatter poor people eating all the dietary trash? That the producers could not afford to provide them with such quality sustenance if they could not also fob off the much larger portion of lesser quality products that are an intrinsic part of their operation? That the middlemen in purchasing and procurement offset costs? That the end processor engages in loss leader models of sales? That the consumer retailer reenforces all of this in shittier products with greater shelf space to match their greater shelf life?
Imagine the lolworthy scenario in which they choose to be richer, the fatties, I mean. Suddenly you're competing with them for a limited product and the price goes up. Now even more people are cut out of the lions share, as it were.
No. No. It's lifestyle. It's choices they make. It's on them. Our entire country just suddenly chose to be fat. Thusly, we can righteously pile shame atop them. Fat shaming and sin tax, no matter how politely described...would be comic if it weren't so damned cruel - and this is coming from a guy with a high tolerance for a mean joke.
haha, ranting cuz it;s near and dear to my heart and hearth.
I know that the comparison between cigarettes and being overweight seems compelling, but I would suggest that this is due to a slight misapprehension regarding why we placed those taxes on smokes. Sure..health was the pretext, but not the purpose. The purpose was revenue generation for the state. It was so easy to demonize tobacco companies (mostly, because they acted the part) that our government found it useful and convenient to place a sin tax on..wait for it.....-the smoker-. OFC they had no actual interest in reducing smoking...they flatly depended on those taxes to pay bills. The army, a part of the federal gov..... still puts smokes on it's ration cards. Insurance companies use smoking as a way to deny benefits. The whole sorry thing just shits money for everybody. Rinse and repeat with casinos. Rinse and repeat with any "lifestyle" choice that an insurance company can deny benefits for.
The same would happen with a sin tax on being fat. The consumer would be made to pay an extra sum, but the industries would still receive ag subsidies (just like tobacco). While telling our children (and ourselves) that smoking was unhealthy worked to some extent..it didn't work quite as well in the same poor demographic that's getting poisoned while being blamed for it - and it's not like we can tell people the same thing about that food that we did with smokes..that the best way not to be a smoker, is to never start. They kindof have to eat. Oh but hell, why stop there....being gay is a "lifestyle" choice if -any- of this other shit is a lifestyle choice...and I distinctly recall there being an increased risk of some diseases x or y. Perhaps they should be made to pay a gay sin tax, for their unhealthy lifestyle decisions? Perish the thought, amiright? At the very least we should stop accepting them. I can hear the insurance adjustors now. "Are you sure you didn't get that from being gay, you know..being gay is a pre-existing condition....we have pamphlets for you, if you;d like to choose not to be unhealthy anymore...also...your premium just went up."
We've actually realized this, institutionally, and theres a big push for what are called "farm fresh stamps" - basically, assistance that can be used to buy something that -isn't- made of corn and cardboard. OFC, look at how pissy people get when they see poor people buying healthy food with their food stamps?
"OH em gee, that grifty grifter just bought seafood with his sin moneyz!"
As another poster touched on, either here or in another thread, food stamps (in actualioty, not in principle) exist to prop up industries through the ag dept, not people, and our biggest industry is unequivocally the thing making us fat...so, gordian knot?
(June 7, 2017 at 8:46 am)Regina Wrote: @Khemikal - Yes I have heard that before and it does make sense given the abundance of cheap shitty junk food. Although still, that is down to the food their are eating moreso than genetics or conditions
They eat what they can afford. I'm not sure what else there is to do? Say they understand, which most or many don't..that the food they're eating isn't good for them or for their children.
Even then...what can -they- do?
-Continuing on the above, wherein some person with access to better food presents the solution "they should eat what I eat". Ignoring that they can;t afford it, do the people offering that solution realize that what they eat is heavily subsidized by those fatter poor people eating all the dietary trash? That the producers could not afford to provide them with such quality sustenance if they could not also fob off the much larger portion of lesser quality products that are an intrinsic part of their operation? That the middlemen in purchasing and procurement offset costs? That the end processor engages in loss leader models of sales? That the consumer retailer reenforces all of this in shittier products with greater shelf space to match their greater shelf life?
Imagine the lolworthy scenario in which they choose to be richer, the fatties, I mean. Suddenly you're competing with them for a limited product and the price goes up. Now even more people are cut out of the lions share, as it were.
No. No. It's lifestyle. It's choices they make. It's on them. Our entire country just suddenly chose to be fat. Thusly, we can righteously pile shame atop them. Fat shaming and sin tax, no matter how politely described...would be comic if it weren't so damned cruel - and this is coming from a guy with a high tolerance for a mean joke.
haha, ranting cuz it;s near and dear to my heart and hearth.
I know that the comparison between cigarettes and being overweight seems compelling, but I would suggest that this is due to a slight misapprehension regarding why we placed those taxes on smokes. Sure..health was the pretext, but not the purpose. The purpose was revenue generation for the state. It was so easy to demonize tobacco companies (mostly, because they acted the part) that our government found it useful and convenient to place a sin tax on..wait for it.....-the smoker-. OFC they had no actual interest in reducing smoking...they flatly depended on those taxes to pay bills. The army, a part of the federal gov..... still puts smokes on it's ration cards. Insurance companies use smoking as a way to deny benefits. The whole sorry thing just shits money for everybody. Rinse and repeat with casinos. Rinse and repeat with any "lifestyle" choice that an insurance company can deny benefits for.
The same would happen with a sin tax on being fat. The consumer would be made to pay an extra sum, but the industries would still receive ag subsidies (just like tobacco). While telling our children (and ourselves) that smoking was unhealthy worked to some extent..it didn't work quite as well in the same poor demographic that's getting poisoned while being blamed for it - and it's not like we can tell people the same thing about that food that we did with smokes..that the best way not to be a smoker, is to never start. They kindof have to eat. Oh but hell, why stop there....being gay is a "lifestyle" choice if -any- of this other shit is a lifestyle choice...and I distinctly recall there being an increased risk of some diseases x or y. Perhaps they should be made to pay a gay sin tax, for their unhealthy lifestyle decisions? Perish the thought, amiright? At the very least we should stop accepting them. I can hear the insurance adjustors now. "Are you sure you didn't get that from being gay, you know..being gay is a pre-existing condition....we have pamphlets for you, if you;d like to choose not to be unhealthy anymore...also...your premium just went up."
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
