The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

The "Right" to be Fat

Be as fat as you want. Just don't ask me to contribute to your medical bills.

Proposal: a surtax for medical insurance depending on body weight over the ideal for height and age. The funds would go for taking care of the fat when their indulgence catches up with them, so the rest of us don't have to pay for their slothfulness.

note: exceptions made when doctor provides statement stating a medical condition which results in the obesity
 
Re: The "Right" to be Fat

Some people don't think that way. Some think public education is part of government brainwashing and a place where government imposes the "right thinking". Nice try though. I see you've been employing the slippery slope argument a while now.

Like the Republicans who want to repeal the law that tells the government it has to tell us the truth. THAT is a fascist move if I ever saw one.
 
Re: The "Right" to be Fat

Oh yes, the slippery slope all or nothing argument. Then lets get rid of environmental protections, seatbelts and lets bring back CFCs too. And asbestos... what right do we have to ban asbestos? That should be allowed because some company says it's fine.

The government needs to have some regulation... at a certain level. The slippery slope all or nothing argument is invalid.

- - - Updated - - -



Some people don't think that way. Some think public education is part of government brainwashing and a place where government imposes the "right thinking". Nice try though. I see you've been employing the slippery slope argument a while now.

No, the point I was trying to make is that the "I'm not paying for your bad choices," is the simplistic argument taken to the extreme. Badly. In every society that there has ever been and ever will be we all "pay," for the bad choices of some. Always. Forever. It's endemic to living in a society. We all benefit, and we all pay. There are degrees of better or worse, but that basic fact never changes.

You seem to think I don't agree with you. The Government can do a lot to help, but it can't cross the line into legally requiring "good choices," without becoming tyranny. Period. No exception to that. Do you really want to live in a country where your diet is legally enforced? You give the government that power, and it's not "slippery slope," that it will be abused, it's fucking history.
 
What of transfat restrictions? Is that taking away choices from people? What about seatbelts? Isn't that forcing a choice on people? Look, I feel the small government argument is inadequate and inconsistent.

Yes, yes, yes and yes. All of your examples take or force choices on people. What exactly is wrong with making sure people know the potential consequences of their choices and then letting them make them?
Transfat, I know its bad for me and the label says its bad for me but it tastes darn good and if I want to indulge in it from time to time why should the government interfere in that choice?

Seatbelts, you ride without one you are an idiot but do we really need cops wasting time ticketing people for being stupid instead of focusing on bad choices that pose an immediate threat to others such as speeding or reckless driving?
 
Well the reason our health care costs are so high has nothing to do with fat people, but that is another topic. I agree with you that the government should require transparency in what we are eating and how it was processed. it should also subsidize a lot more education than it does, nor do I think that school lunch programs are a bad idea.

I don't think that this law is about any of that. It's a political stunt, that won't survive legal challenge anyway.
 
Still not seeing the validity in it. The government has right to intervene in a certain extent. The government has a right to ban transfat if that can push manufacturers to produce better healthier foods. I believe this should be targeted towards big businesses rather then individuals.

Just not buying the small government argument. It's completely inconsistent and inadequate to me.

Fair enough, its simply a difference in our viewpoints on the role of government in society and when its appropriate for the rights of the individual to bend to the needs of society. My red line is simply closer to individual freedom than yours is, nothing wrong with that.
 
I'm all for personal freedoms but freedom isn't free. I expect people to pay more for their unhealthy choices such as smoking or obesity. However, denying coverage based on preexisting conditions is a no-no in my book. Before this turns into a tirade against obese people, only a small percentage (less than 5%) has obesity in their genes. Hell, I was 13lbs when I was born and am 6'3" and 170 lbs now.
 
I'm all for personal freedoms but freedom isn't free. I expect people to pay more for their unhealthy choices such as smoking or obesity. However, denying coverage based on preexisting conditions is a no-no in my book. Before this turns into a tirade against obese people, only a small percentage (less than 5%) has obesity in their genes. Hell, I was 13lbs when I was born and am 6'3" and 170 lbs now.

Insurance companies cannot cover preexisting conditions without government support of some kind. That is why Obama care requires everyone to buy insurance at disproportionate rates, in excess of a premium based on individual risk. That excess premium is then supposed to compensate the insurance companies for insuring preexisting conditions. Obviously, if someone has a preexisting illness, then the company either charges a premium at least equal to the persons expenses, or it loses money, probably large amounts.
I think this impulse to change and control versus not change and allow people to do what they want is a basic psychological difference between liberals and conservatives.

To return to the topic of the thread, I have always said liberalism is a totalitarian impulse and that they will never be able to stop regulating. The soda law just proves my point, to me at least. And no, there is no Republican tit-for-tat. Republicans do not go much beyond traditional western morality-- yes sex. Seriously, Republicans do not have the impulse to control individual choices, and that shows up so well in the responses here. The Conservatives say let people make their own choices. Liberals say, lets find a way to control.
 
Note that I said "deliberately". I am *not* talking about denying healthcare to all fat people. I am talking about denying healthcare to those people who say "fuck that, i am obese but i do want my 5 litres of soda every day, just because". The kind of people who protest against measures where their already obese children won't get extra fries in school anymore.

Oh and being gay, I wouldn't consider an "unhealthy lifestyle". Being someone who says "Oh I bareback, 'cause it's so much more fun .. and bug-chasing is a thrill" .. now that's a different kind of deal .. and yes, actually someone who does that doesn't deserve any healthcare, either.

I think they do deserve healthcare. Just in the psych ward, with a door that locks from the other side. Why "bug chasing" isn't grounds for being made a ward of the state is a mystery to me.
 
Excess consumption of red meat causes colon cancer. Eat as much as you want. Just don't ask me to contribute to your medical bills.

BTW that should be "...Just don't ask me to contribute to PAYING your medical bills..."

Since there is no single payer here, we all pay out the ass for our own medical coverage - those of us who have it - by that argument we should stop people from driving cars, it's unhealthy to so do, we should stop people from associating with other people, you expose yourself to pathogens that way - and hell I'M NOT paying for someone who recklessly puts himself in the way of pathogens, that's a CHOICE he made. Fuck him.

Fuck all of them, I'm just out for me, the government should ban anyone who does anything that costs ME MONEY! That's what government is for, to stop people from doing things I think are stupid. Fuck humanity, my checkbook might be impacted.


Fuck you too for reading this, you're straining your eyes and I'm NOT paying for your glasses since you were too stupid to know that eye strain comes from stupidly peering at computer screens. Not to mention the carpel tunnel you obviously are getting, I'm not paying for that either.

...yeah right...

Hear!Hear!
This is exactly what it boils down to "I got mine fuck you"
Thats why I often bring up the whats next after the authoritarian types get this? Test everyone to see who is going to get Alzheimer's disease when they age and deny them healthcare because it will cost the other policy holders for long term care?
Right now its medical health regarding disease but next the focus will be on the incredible cost of long term trauma care because of wreckless leisure affairs. How about football or boxing. Play all the football you want but when you get your teeth knocked out or a brain injury I'm not paying for that.
:=D:
 
Insurance companies cannot cover preexisting conditions without government support of some kind. That is why Obama care requires everyone to buy insurance at disproportionate rates, in excess of a premium based on individual risk. That excess premium is then supposed to compensate the insurance companies for insuring preexisting conditions. Obviously, if someone has a preexisting illness, then the company either charges a premium at least equal to the persons expenses, or it loses money, probably large amounts.
I think this impulse to change and control versus not change and allow people to do what they want is a basic psychological difference between liberals and conservatives.

To return to the topic of the thread, I have always said liberalism is a totalitarian impulse and that they will never be able to stop regulating. The soda law just proves my point, to me at least. And no, there is no Republican tit-for-tat. Republicans do not go much beyond traditional western morality-- yes sex. Seriously, Republicans do not have the impulse to control individual choices, and that shows up so well in the responses here. The Conservatives say let people make their own choices. Liberals say, lets find a way to control.

LOL

None are so blind...

Both Democrats and Republicans want to restrict individual liberty -- they only thing they disagree on is which liberties.

BTW, Conservatives DO say to let people make their own choices. That shows that Republicans are not conservatives.
 
I still disagree with you there, Corny. By what standard should the government or insurance agency deny coverage to a gay man with HIV because of how he contracted it? Does he have to verbally say he loves to bareback with anonymous strangers to deny coverage? Who makes that call? Everyone deserves health care.

Yes everyone deserves healthcare. What I want to say is, that this doesn't give you a free pass for recklessly endangering your health. Most insurances don't pay for dangerous stuff like free climbing already.
And of course it's more wishful thinking with the barebackers than anything else. Of course it will be next to impossible to prove anything. Still, I have a problem with people who are a danger to themselves, others and our society, asking for help afterwards. Not even the laziest bum, actively and purposely ruins his health.
 
This is exactly what it boils down to "I got mine fuck you"

Ain't it the sad truth?

Which is what I was saying earlier. We're all on board with making the other guy pay for what we consider his bad decisions but always seem to think our own are above reproach.

We seem to have moved from looking at someone less fortunate and saying "there but for the grace of God go I" to "fucking loser, you're in my way and I've got someplace to be."
 
No, not "I have mine; fuck you!"

More like "I'll give you whatever you need. Not whatever you want."

And if somebody isn't doing what he can for himself, he doesn't need my help. I'm not paying for someone's lung cancer treatment so he can still afford to buy cigarettes. Same principle either in a private system with coverage premiums, or a public system with tax funding.

Help yourself first, then go to your neighbour.

The same goes in principle for anything else people can do for their health. It's just a question of figuring out how accurately we can determine the costs. With smoking that's fairly clear. If they can do it with sugary drinks, great!
 
The dangers of second hand smoker have been grossly exaggerated if not entirely fabricated. Some places have prohibited smoking in parks and on beaches. Liberals can never be expected to stop before going too far. There can never be enough regulation for them.
 
The dangers of second hand smoker have been grossly exaggerated if not entirely fabricated. Some places have prohibited smoking in parks and on beaches. Liberals can never be expected to stop before going too far. There can never be enough regulation for them.

this thread isn't about 2nd hand smoke - the negative effects of which have been WELL documented

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke


as for the "right" to be fat, a couple of posters above are suggesting that a diabetic is a "fucking loser" - that's so off base

feeling sorry for someone who overeats/eats badly/gets sick due to their own habits ........ it doesn't mean we should pay for their health care IF they don't act responsibly

and stopping kids from drinking 32-48 oz sodas is not depriving them of "rights" - it's a red herring

it's a simple stupid safety issue where society (esp. kids) will benefit
 
and stopping kids from drinking 32-48 oz sodas is not depriving them of "rights" - it's a red herring

This law says nothing about limiting the about of soda you drink, it doesn't even attempt to stop you from drinking 32-48 oz of soda. It doesn't do anything at all except futz with the package size. You are trying to assert that this is a simple safety measure - well, it does not attempt to do a single damn thing about how much soda you are actually drinking. You aren't going to be thinner if you drink two instead of one. Period. End of story.

The rest of that is just bunk, and has been exhaustively covered.
 
Mayor (of NYC) Bloomberg is looking to pass legislation that bans "big soft drinks" - sugary ones ? 16 oz. It has been the topic of much debate/sarcasm, etc.

One of the "arguments" is that people have a right to be unhealthy/fat, etc.

Like that's a good thing?

I for one, while I embrace personal freedoms, think this is a good thing on many levels

1 - so that kids don't get obese - which is a big problem - for their health and well being and happiness,etc.

2 - health care costs impact can be staggering

wondering what you all think about this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/megan...-on-sugary-drinks_b_1563108.html?ref=politics

Dear Gawd, where to start?

A snippet from the linked article above:

We have a responsibility as parents and advocates to keep our kids safe from things that harm them. If we aren't going to do that job, then the government has every right to protect future generations from an epidemic of obesity that could cause serious health problems and reduce the lifespan of our younger generations.

That's absurd! The Government is part of the problem.

For NYC Mayor Bloomberg to suggest that limiting sugaring drinks to 16oz, is like offering a bandaid for a severe mortal wound.

I work in the retail food industry, (not fast food, there's a distinct difference), but in the industry that's involved with "feeding people," grocery stores, mega-marts, convenience store, and Corporate Agriculture/Food Industry is already stacking the deck against Americans, or anyone else who's desire it is to eat healthy.

Why is so much of what we eat made up of high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, sodium, trans fats, partially hydrogenated soy, coconut, peanut, and milk solid fats?

Not because any of that stuff is actually good for us, nutritious, or low in calories, or hearth healthy, but because of "margin."

Not margarine, (another nasty corporate food product), but MARGIN.

Frankly, in my experience, mother nature couldn't possibly keep up with demands to produce any of the products that we eat so the "processed food industry" cuts corners by adding in a lot of scientific words, backed by corporately sponsored University Studies claiming that all of those ingredients are good for us.

Produced in mass volume, and sold to the consumer at an affordable price.

All the while those ingredients; soy beans, corn, and their byproducts; oils, sugars, wheat, grain, and so on, are subsidized commodities of the United States Federal Government.

Walk into any convenience store, or fast food chain and order a "soft drink."

Which ever flavor that you choose that comes out of that nozzle is instantly created by a system that's not directly visible to the public.

In the industry it's called a Bag In A Box, or BIB for short.

At fast food establishments and your local convenience store, your favorite soft drink arrives in pure syrup form in a bag in a box.

Post-Mix BIB Dispensing systems describes the process better than I can.

A BIB of soft drinks (Coke, Dr. Pepper, Pepsi, or whatever) costs wholesale around $25 a box.

Each cup, the smallest size at convenience stores stores begins as 32oz. and goes up from there, costs the convenience store roughly .04 cents a cup.

The ice making featuring of the dispenser has already been factored in to the cost, and at .96 a refill (if you provide your own container), or on average around $1.29 for a 32oz drink; cup, lid, straw, and plastic lid (compared to upwards of $2 or more for a single 2 liter bottle), the profit margin, is really hard to beat!

Just drink one of these a day and according to this website you've already consumed 272 empty calories.

Drink two or three of them a day, and you've already consumed close to half of the recommended daily calorie intake.

So in my view, NYC Mayor Bloomberg is just putting the cart before the horse.

And the argument could be made that he's anti-business, anti-free choice, and a socialist. ..|
 
^ Sorry chance1, I want to break this up for you because I know how board you get when you feel like you're required to read more than a paragraph or two. :p

There have been some really great points made in your thread here.

I like what loki81 said in post #4 of this thread:

loki81 said:
limiting beverage selections in schools? great.
forcing restaurants to print the calorie count right on the menu? loved it when I was in LA.

Educating the public, then allowing them to make their own choices, that would be good!

How can I argue with GhostMost in post #34?

GhostMost said:
It limits businesses therefore I disagree, if people want to be obese and be at a disadvantage in life then let them.

As usual Just_Believe18 pops in but only scratches the surface with this little factoid in post #38:

Just_Believe18 said:
We have a food network that is subsidized by the federal government and unregulated by corporations to be poisonous to our health. Yes, poisonous. Unnatural chemicals, preservatives, oils, fats, and syrups are infused and distributed into our food on a mass scale. This compounded accumulation over time has been proven in medical studies to literally add pounds of fat onto human beings that creates obesity.

And "conservatives" think that Democrats are all about "big government." :lol:

Get government and corporations out of our food and let the "free markets," and Americans decide without decisions regarding our food being made for us, then being forced to comprise on yet one more government intrusion.

I could go on with others across the political wasteland here in CE&P (many of whom that I don't always personally agree with) but have found myself going, "Wow I agree with that person!" but the long and the short of it (I know too late. Right? :kiss:), Bloomberg isn't going to do much to solve this issue by limiting soft-drinks in NYC to 16oz other than to pollute your fine city with lots of empty 16oz plastic bottles, and by making the manufacturers of those 16oz drinks rich, while forcing the Mom and Pops who own grocery and convenience stores to send their fat kids to a community college in New Jersey.

I'm just saying. ;)
 
Here in Australia, fast food outlets have recently been required to display calorie content for every item on their menu. It's sobering to see that the chocolate muffin you're contemplating has more calories than a Big Mac!

Personally, I think that Government should encourage healthy food choices, rather than restrict choice. Why not make fresh fruits, vegetables and lean meats tax free, and double the sales tax on processed foods?
 
Back
Top