Fat Tax

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

It's psychobabble from people who make a living out of it. Virtually everybody has a measure of free will to make wrong or right decisions.

wanting something to be so does not make it so. your assertion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

btw if "virtually everybody" has free will in your view who are the exceptions without free will? and what on earth is "a measure of free will"?

wotsthat

ninky wrote: »

alternative views are always available on every subject. doesn't make them right.

Of course. It's a reasonably interesting subject but posting Mr. Cashmore's views on this is akin to quoting David Icke's views on data protection.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

wanting something to be so does not make it so. your assertion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

btw if "virtually everybody" has free will in your view who are the exceptions without free will? and what on earth is "a measure of free will"?

ninky, if I remember rightly, your OH is an immigrant right? Does he speak good English?

I rather hope not. For his sake.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

wanting something to be so does not make it so. your assertion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

btw if "virtually everybody" has free will in your view who are the exceptions without free will? and what on earth is "a measure of free will"?

He's already explained it. The freedom to choose a banana over a cake.

Rather than intellectualising everything, how about just accepting that in relation to this subject - is it a lardarse's fault they are fat, or not - people have sufficient free will to choose a ryvita over an eccles cake, yet choose not to.

For the love of God, woman. Lighten up.

Radiantsoul

ninky wrote: »

wanting something to be so does not make it so. your assertion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

btw if "virtually everybody" has free will in your view who are the exceptions without free will? and what on earth is "a measure of free will"?

the zombie problem is pretty well known in philosophy. Virtually everyone might lack a mind.

ninky_2

wotsthat wrote: »

Of course. It's a reasonably interesting subject but posting Mr. Cashmore's views on this is akin to quoting David Icke's views on data protection.

i don't quite see how a professor of biology is akin to an ex tv presenter who failed his 11 plus and considers himself to be some sort of messiah....

Degenerate

chewmylegoff wrote: »

this sounds like an excellent idea. let's start structuring the tax band using some examples. first example:

"I am obese but perfectly fit"

suppose someone posted this nonsense, what would the tax charge be?

You can't be obese and be perfectly fit.

You can, however, have a BMI that gets classed as "obese" whilst being nothing of the sort and actually perfectly fit. Many top sportsmen competing in strength sports are in this category.

I myself am in the shape of my life (having lost a huge amount of weight and hit the gym) but still my BMI is classed as "overweight", approaching "obese". As I continue my strength training it is likely to tip back into "obese" territory.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

For the love of God, woman. Lighten up.

:rotfl:

i'm laughing my socks of here. can't you tell.

Degenerate

ninky wrote: »

i've done quite a bit of research on diet / lifestyle for various shows i've done over the years.

it made me realise that being overweight is not always about junk food. there was a significant section of overweight people who were "gourmet" foodies. they loved to cook and generally it was so-called finer foods.

i find great irony in jamie oliver being touted as someone to give out nutritional advice. he's not a nutritionist and many of his recipes are laden (at least they were) with fat and carbs. there is a myth that cooking from scratch is automatically healthy. well it's not. take anthony worrall thompson and his lifestyle induced type 2 diabetes. he's not alone. many of the tv chefs are rather portly and it's got nothing to do with snickers bars and doritos.

obesity is generally a biological illness of appetite being out of sync with needs and the inability to control that. it's an evolutionary anachronism from a time of food scarcity when to overeat at times of abundance was a good survival mechanism.

however the other thing is that it seems it is actually possible to be fit (or healthy) and fat. a more important thing to consider is that it is possible to be unhealthy and unfit whilst being the correct bmi. studies actually indicate that it is better to be (somewhat) overweight and fit (active lifestyle) than the correct body weight and unfit (inactive lifestyle). of course there are limits and morbid obesity is never going to be a good thing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/11/us-obesity-idUSN1137223820080811

basically it's all a little less intuitive than people think.

that said i personally choose to exercise and have a bmi of slightly under 22.

A Ninky post I had to thank, whatever next.

Degenerate

pinkteapot wrote: »

The floor above ours in our offices is inhabited by a PR agency. Based on the stinkiness of our loos, all the skinny minny PR girls up there are permanently on Atkins.

Atkins done properly usually results in virtually no gas or stinkyness. It cuts out all the carby stuff fermenting in your gut that makes things smell.