twighead said:

Well, its not just me I'm basing this off of - its every single person I know basically. Everyone from 20-90. No one is obese. Many have children... more than one. Many are poor. All eat diets frequently similar to what I described. I work 60+ hours a week but that's besides the point. Anyone has time. Yoga etc. will SAVE you time, because you will do everything else so much more efficiently when you are mentally and physically healthy and balanced as it promotes, in the morning it will make you kick MAJOR ass because you will be so awake and pumping after your morning 15-30 minutes.
Also; do some research on the relationship between metabolism and diet, there is a fucking MASSIVE correlation between types of foods consumed and your metabolism - do you think 300 calories of MC D's is the same as 300 calories of avacado...? Which is btw, another incredible cheap food. Kale and fruit aren't expensive. Bananas and apples are cheap as fuuuuuuck.

What food would you eat though? I'm curious.

Oh yogurt is on da cheaps too such a good food

---

Mr Magenta said:

Mate, i'm pretty sure that the guy in the center of the circle is a Pokemon not a human beast.

---

DiscoBiscuitsTrip said:

It blows my mind how some people can let themselves become so obese without ever being like, ok maybe i should eat less and more healthy.

---

Quote:

Sure, an adult has every right to do that to themselves but a child has no choice but to eat what is given to him/her and can't afford to change their options for quite sometime, not to mention like their brain won't be developed fully for sometime either.

---

Quote:

They can't make clear and proper judgement. This way of eating becomes a habit and in turn a forced lifestyle as well.

---

Children aren't good at deciding to do something that will affect their distant future. They are perfectly capable of making decisions that effect themselves in the present. You eat something unhealthy, you get fat. Any child knows this and can easily make an effort to avoid eating unhealthy foods. Sure, eating unhealthy foods frequently as a child could in turn make it become a habit. Does this mean the parents are actively forcing them into an unhealthy lifestyle? no.

Quote:

I think it's harmful, the parents can see the damage on the bodies and do nothing. I do believe they should be held accountable for the physical damage. I also truly believe happiness can be better attained from a healthy lifestyle rather than a junk filled one.

---

Everyone, including the extremely incompetent children as you think they are, are very capable of realizing eating unhealthy is harmful. The parents are providing the children with food. They are not forcing this food into their throats.(ever heard of the expression, you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink) The child is culpable for his/her own obesity. Say a parent signs their kid up for a gymnastics class. The child falls and breaks their leg. The adult saw the opportunity for something bad to happen and didn't actively prevent their kid from succumbing to this "badness". They should totally be held lawfully accountable for it, right? "I'm healthy so anyone that is unhealthy can't be as happy as me." And there the complete and utter narcissism reveals itself

Quote:

However, it looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree.  We've shared our sides it'll probably just be a loop or a fight from here.

---

I will disagree with you and calmly explain why, not fight with you. But if you want to back out now, I can't say I didn't see it coming.


I would really just like some clarification on the hypothetical law you are so adamantly upholding.

Your current definition for this new law is, "giving zero interest towards your child's health and weight should be criteria for being indicted of child abuse."

Do you understand how absurd of a suggestion that is? What kind of society do you want to live in? One where a random citizen can decide how someone else parents their children? That society would, frankly, suck. The current system that we have now is proven to be a better mode of operation. Implement some laws that promote the common good while preserving individual freedom. If the kid wants to eat himself to death, that is their business and their business alone. Randoms on the internet should not be able to project their morals onto others via laws. That would be stupid.

Let's take a moment and apply your own logic to another situation. Coming from a purely biological standpoint, being fat isn't good. Not only does impede an individuals biological functions, it has other consequences as well. Being fat makes you less likely to end up with a reproductive mate(fat=ugly, blunt but true and I'll post studies to prove it if you'd like me to).

This is a problem, wouldn't you think? Certainly we would want our children to not only be able to perform their individual biological processes with the utmost efficiency, we'd like them to have physically admirable characteristics to allow them to mate and pass on their genes(biologically the only point of life.)

So ultimately, being fat impedes someone from passing on their genes to an extent. This is horrible, and needs to be fixed, correct? Laws should be passed keeping from the phenomenon occurring, correct?

You know what else impedes passing on one's genes? Homosexuality


Bottom line: There is no place for a law such as this in American society. And I am thankful for that.

Uzziel said:

I went to the store this morning and there was this kid who had to have been 230+ lbs and he was like 10-12 or something.

Jesus fucking christ........ no parent should EVER let their kid get like that.

---

Crystal G said:

No shit, people who are rich or highly educated typically aren't obese. That was what my entire point was about. People like you simply cannot understand the fact that poor people do not have access to luxuries such as gym memberships, they can't afford to go on "pale diets" or hire personal trainers, or do "juice cleanses."

A lot of people who are poor tend to have at least 3 children or more, and are working 2 full-time jobs. How exactly do you fit exercise, or even cooking, into the equation in that situation?

Also, being obese is not the same thing as being a little bit chubby. I bet there are plenty of people in your community who are in their 40's and 50's who have a little bit of a pot-belly because they are attorneys or CPA's who work 80 hours a week. Or because they recently got pregnant and had babies and gained a lot of weight, and don't have time to exercise after birth.

It's easy to stay in shape when you are young, have no children, have lots of free time, have a fast metabolism, have the energy to exercise, and don't work too many hours. Fat children and fat young adults are not acceptable, but people in their 40's or 50's who are slightly chubby, well that can sometimes happen.

Also, for people who don't work out, they should be eating LESS carbs, not more. Your quinoa advice wouldn't help them to lose weight, because they wouldn't be able to burn those carbs off unless they worked out.

---

twighead said:

For those with real motivation to live healthily and energetically on this planet all the information they need to do so by their own accord is available on the internet or at a library.

---

Cj-B said:

1.  lolwut. It's fairly easy to eat healthy on the cheap if you're not a totally apathetic fucktard. As he said farmers markets do exis

---

If anything, it's much cheaper to eat real food than sweets and takeout.

Webster10 said:

Quote:

Sure, an adult has every right to do that to themselves but a child has no choice but to eat what is given to him/her and can't afford to change their options for quite sometime, not to mention like their brain won't be developed fully for sometime either.

---

A child is fully capable of choosing to refrain from eating unhealthy foods served to them by their parents. What would any decent parent do when they see their child making a conscious effort to eat healthier? Force some big macs down their throat, right? No. Parents often support their children especially on something fundamentally positive such as eating a healthy diet. Their brain isn't fully developed until the mid twenties. Should the government control the diet of children through their mid twenties?

Quote:

They can't make clear and proper judgement. This way of eating becomes a habit and in turn a forced lifestyle as well.

---

Children aren't good at deciding to do something that will affect their distant future. They are perfectly capable of making decisions that effect themselves in the present. You eat something unhealthy, you get fat. Any child knows this and can easily make an effort to avoid eating unhealthy foods. Sure, eating unhealthy foods frequently as a child could in turn make it become a habit. Does this mean the parents are actively forcing them into an unhealthy lifestyle? no.

Quote:

I think it's harmful, the parents can see the damage on the bodies and do nothing. I do believe they should be held accountable for the physical damage. I also truly believe happiness can be better attained from a healthy lifestyle rather than a junk filled one.

---

Everyone, including the extremely incompetent children as you think they are, are very capable of realizing eating unhealthy is harmful. The parents are providing the children with food. They are not forcing this food into their throats.(ever heard of the expression, you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink) The child is culpable for his/her own obesity. Say a parent signs their kid up for a gymnastics class. The child falls and breaks their leg. The adult saw the opportunity for something bad to happen and didn't actively prevent their kid from succumbing to this "badness". They should totally be held lawfully accountable for it, right? "I'm healthy so anyone that is unhealthy can't be as happy as me." And there the complete and utter narcissism reveals itself

Quote:

However, it looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree.  We've shared our sides it'll probably just be a loop or a fight from here.

---

I will disagree with you and calmly explain why, not fight with you. But if you want to back out now, I can't say I didn't see it coming.


I would really just like some clarification on the hypothetical law you are so adamantly upholding.

Your current definition for this new law is, "giving zero interest towards your child's health and weight should be criteria for being indicted of child abuse."

Do you understand how absurd of a suggestion that is? What kind of society do you want to live in? One where a random citizen can decide how someone else parents their children? That society would, frankly, suck. The current system that we have now is proven to be a better mode of operation. Implement some laws that promote the common good while preserving individual freedom. If the kid wants to eat himself to death, that is their business and their business alone. Randoms on the internet should not be able to project their morals onto others via laws. That would be stupid.

Let's take a moment and apply your own logic to another situation. Coming from a purely biological standpoint, being fat isn't good. Not only does impede an individuals biological functions, it has other consequences as well. Being fat makes you less likely to end up with a reproductive mate(fat=ugly, blunt but true and I'll post studies to prove it if you'd like me to).

This is a problem, wouldn't you think? Certainly we would want our children to not only be able to perform their individual biological processes with the utmost efficiency, we'd like them to have physically admirable characteristics to allow them to mate and pass on their genes(biologically the only point of life.)

So ultimately, being fat impedes someone from passing on their genes to an extent. This is horrible, and needs to be fixed, correct? Laws should be passed keeping from the phenomenon occurring, correct?

You know what else impedes passing on one's genes? Homosexuality


Bottom line: There is no place for a law such as this in American society. And I am thankful for that.

---

lolno. You must've had some of the most permissive parents ever if you believe any such thing about the child having the right to choose what they eat cuz thats a big fucking assumption. As far as my parents were concerned if I refused food than I could go without. Either you eat what you're given or you get nothing. When you make no income and your parents are doing all the shopping and cooking then you get absolutely ZERO choice in your meal plan.


Haha are you seriously comparing being a fatass to being homosexual though? That's quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments for anything I've seen in quite some time now. The two situations aren't even remotely related