|
On March 07 2012 13:11 Balgrog wrote: Smoking doesn't make you disgusting to look at, obesity does. I personally smoke, but not alot, I play rugby, run, workout. I view obesity as disgusting. There is a difference between doing something you enjoy, and just letting yourself go. I enjoy smoking, I make sure it doesn't limit me, nobody enjoys being obese.
How fucking disgusting can you be as a person? You're a fucking disgrace to the human race. Personally I'm a guy who has zero to none body fat, I'm raised in a family which has owned a gym for over 14 years but never EVER would I be such a fucking asshole like you to look down on obese people, neverthless insult them like you.
I didn't care to look but I really hope that you're perma-banned.
On March 09 2012 12:06 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out. Tastes delicious though, and you totally get cravings when you're at a party. You can apply your logic to exactly everything anyway.. What's the point of eating? You're just gonna shit it out later anyway, and there's tonnes of harmful chemicals in food.
How about.. you eat to survive and actually make it through the day? This must be the dumbest thing I've read in a long time lol.
User was warned for this post
|
|
Smoking is plenty disgusting. Even if you manage to closet smoke and not directly harm others...you'll still have to get treated by somebody in the endgame when dying from cancer or COPD. Same goes for obesity, but at least that's possible to reverse.
|
It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments. Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers.
By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society.
|
On March 07 2012 13:11 Balgrog wrote: Smoking doesn't make you disgusting to look at, obesity does. I personally smoke, but not alot, I play rugby, run, workout. I view obesity as disgusting. There is a difference between doing something you enjoy, and just letting yourself go. I enjoy smoking, I make sure it doesn't limit me, nobody enjoys being obese.
heres my personal opinion:
when something "looks bad" i can look away, if something smells bad i can do nothing to avoid it but leave the area. if i go into a bar full of obese people my clothes won´t smell like them after i´ve left, if i go into a bar full of smoking guys ...
not to say obesity is any "better" - but i think everybody should be free to decide what to do with his/her own body if it doesn´t affect others. so you can smoke at home, in "smoking rooms" or outdoors all you want but don´t expect everybody else to inhale your fumes just because you think it´s fine. same goes for obesity, you can eat all you want and be as fat as you want but don´t expect to get any special treatment - if you´re so fat it invades your neighbors room in public transport / cinema / plane / etc. you should have to pay for extra seats or be kicked out.
same goes for health insurance costs. it should be adjusted depending on "livestyle" in a very lose way. so have a very braod "normal" or "healthy" area. but don´t expect to pay the same if you´re smoking 30 cigarettes a day and get lung cancer or are so fat you take 2 seats in the subway and get diabetes / heart problems etc.
the looks of it ? i don´t give a fuck - the "uglier" everybody around me the better i look in comparison
best regards
edit.: tldr.: what "BadgerBadger8264" said ^
|
On March 09 2012 11:59 haticK wrote: i never understood the point of smoking. you suck in thousands of harmful chemicals just to blow it back out.
Because it tastes and feels good?
Anyway, I am avid smoker for around 10 years already and in my country I haven't had any problems or issues as person who smokes. But my country has kinda weak smoking regulations and laws and smokers are generally accepted.
About health issues, I am aware there are bunch of negative health impacts but I chose to gamble - for now (recently did full medical check) I am in amazing health condition (which doesn't mean it won't change in next 10 years of course).
|
On March 13 2012 08:42 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Show nested quote +It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments. Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers. By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society. i like the way you think. i dont want to pay for other people's irresponsible decisions.
|
On March 06 2012 22:23 Marou wrote: That's an interesting parralel, France dealt and still is dealing with smoking agressively. I think the anti-smoking law are going to far (especially not being able to smoke in clubs and bars. This should be up to the owner of the place imho).
For combating obesity, there are numerous TV Campaings on how healthy you should eat. Thing is they are nowhere near the anti-tobacco TV Campaing that always have been very graphic and often shoking. When it's about eating healthy it's just rainbows and cute shits telling you to eat 5 fruits and vegetable per day. It's not as powerful as the smoking campaings for sure.
In canada we have designated smoking areas outside clubs. Its nice because when your heatr is pounding while your dancing and drinking the last thing you want is to be constantly inhaling smoke.
|
On March 13 2012 08:42 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Show nested quote +It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments. Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers. By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society.
Yes! brilliant! Let's build a giant police state so that we can track DOWN TO THE CENT how much person x has to pay for his health insurance and other state-provided, tax-funded things. I mean fuck that idiot that worked construction all his life and now is physical wreck, he could have chosen a healthier career! I don't wanna have to pay for his stupidity! - Also I once inhaled asbestos from a site he workerd, so I say BAN all construction everywhere! (I hope you realize at this point that was sarcastic) The very reason socialized unemployment/health insurance was put into place was to allow EVERYONE regardless of their wealth, social standing, etc. etc. to take advantadge of that particular service. The trainwreck you want to replace that with is the US model of health insurance. Incedrible to see this coming from someone living in the netherlands.
edit: This "drain on society" rhetoric really worries me, especially with today's economy. If you are one of those people that has no problem yelling out on internet forums how his hard-earned tax money goes to buy some bum on welfare his alcohol: Please don't forget where you would be if it wasn't for public schools, free university education (if you are european), that no doubt a lot of childless people paid for. And one day you might need welfare, then you might not be so quick to judge other people's actions.
|
On March 06 2012 22:26 haffy wrote: I doubt anythings ever going to change in the UK. It's just too profitable to have unhealthy quick food everywhere.
I've never actually been on a diet until recently. Even though I'm still eating 2500-3000 calories a day I just can't eat anything I don't buy and cook my self. At least here in the Newcastle I can think of very few places you can go and expect to be able to eat anywhere near as healthy as when you buy your own food.
So yeah, two things need to change in my opinion. Availability of healthy food and the cost. There doesn't really need to be any laws or anything passed. People just need a choice of being able to eat healthy when they're out for a decent price in my opinion. I'm a student in the UK on an extremely limited budget and I make sure I get healthy food every 2 weeks. Just don't shop at Tesco for your food; honestly. If you want to eat healthy make use of the 69p fresh food offers at Aldi that have the best fruit and veg available.
Manchester's a complete rank hole; similar to Newcastle and wherever you go in the UK you'll just be lumbered with Sainsbury's & Tesco - both rubbish and over-priced. Even the sarnies you get at lunch are absolute tat - a Bulgarian friend admitted to me that the further away you get from England the better the food gets - so true.
I think the only healthy place to eat out in the UK is possibly Nandos; dunno what people reckon to that.
|
On March 13 2012 09:49 lazyo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 08:42 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments. Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers. By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society. Yes! brilliant! Let's build a giant police state so that we can track DOWN TO THE CENT how much person x has to pay for his health insurance and other state-provided, tax-funded things. I mean fuck that idiot that worked construction all his life and now is physical wreck, he could have chosen a healthier career! I don't wanna have to pay for his stupidity! - Also I once inhaled asbestos from a site he workerd, so I say BAN all construction everywhere! (I hope you realize at this point that was sarcastic) The very reason socialized unemployment/health insurance was put into place was to allow EVERYONE regardless of their wealth, social standing, etc. etc. to take advantadge of that particular service. The trainwreck you want to replace that with is the US model of health insurance. Incedrible to see this coming from someone living in the netherlands. in our train wreck of health care, insurance companies increase premiums for people who voluntarily screw up their health (drugs, obesity, alcoholism); i have never heard of them increasing premiums for people who choose specific professions (e.g., construction, although i can see them doing so for known dangerous professions like stuntmen, etc.).
|
On March 13 2012 09:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 09:49 lazyo wrote:On March 13 2012 08:42 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments. Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers. By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society. Yes! brilliant! Let's build a giant police state so that we can track DOWN TO THE CENT how much person x has to pay for his health insurance and other state-provided, tax-funded things. I mean fuck that idiot that worked construction all his life and now is physical wreck, he could have chosen a healthier career! I don't wanna have to pay for his stupidity! - Also I once inhaled asbestos from a site he workerd, so I say BAN all construction everywhere! (I hope you realize at this point that was sarcastic) The very reason socialized unemployment/health insurance was put into place was to allow EVERYONE regardless of their wealth, social standing, etc. etc. to take advantadge of that particular service. The trainwreck you want to replace that with is the US model of health insurance. Incedrible to see this coming from someone living in the netherlands. in our train wreck of health care, insurance companies increase premiums for people who voluntarily screw up their health (drugs, obesity, alcoholism); i have never heard of them increasing premiums for people who choose specific professions (e.g., construction, although i can see them doing so for known dangerous professions like stuntmen, etc.).
The construction worker was just an exeguration obviously. The dilemma is the distinction where personal responsibility starts and ends and who will judge that. What if I get hooked on the prozac my doctor prescribes me? Do they raise your premium for legal drug addiction? I should hope so, YOU certainly shouldn't pay for those filthy addicts with no self-control!
|
On March 13 2012 10:07 lazyo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 09:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 13 2012 09:49 lazyo wrote:On March 13 2012 08:42 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:It's people's own business to consume whatever type of food they want. The government should have no way to enforce consumption of the kinds of food they think people should eat. Neither should they mandate "x" amount of hours they think people should exercise. As for smoking, the owners of private property should determine what they want. For public areas, it should be left to the state and local governments. Yea. Hate to break it to you, but your behaviors affect other people. When people smoke or are obese, I have to pay more towards health insurance and my government has to spend a lot more money on them as well. Suddenly we've got people unable to work because of their obesity or their lung cancer, great, welfare for all of them! Awesome. More of my money down the drain because of your personal choice that you made for all of us. Smoking is even worse, with second-hand smoke affecting other people. Yea, it might not instantly cause lung cancer, but it sure as hell isn't benefiting anyone, and no, it's not possible to constantly avoid smokers. By your logic, we might as well legalize crack and cocain. Personal choice, right? Who cares about it costing everyone money and letting more people be a drain on society. Yes! brilliant! Let's build a giant police state so that we can track DOWN TO THE CENT how much person x has to pay for his health insurance and other state-provided, tax-funded things. I mean fuck that idiot that worked construction all his life and now is physical wreck, he could have chosen a healthier career! I don't wanna have to pay for his stupidity! - Also I once inhaled asbestos from a site he workerd, so I say BAN all construction everywhere! (I hope you realize at this point that was sarcastic) The very reason socialized unemployment/health insurance was put into place was to allow EVERYONE regardless of their wealth, social standing, etc. etc. to take advantadge of that particular service. The trainwreck you want to replace that with is the US model of health insurance. Incedrible to see this coming from someone living in the netherlands. in our train wreck of health care, insurance companies increase premiums for people who voluntarily screw up their health (drugs, obesity, alcoholism); i have never heard of them increasing premiums for people who choose specific professions (e.g., construction, although i can see them doing so for known dangerous professions like stuntmen, etc.). The construction worker was just an exeguration obviously. The dilemma is the distinction where personal responsibility starts and ends and who will judge that. What if I get hooked on the prozac my doctor prescribes me? Do they raise your premium for legal drug addiction? I should hope so, YOU certainly shouldn't pay for those filthy addicts with no self-control! the insurance companies have already done their job determining what is and shouldn't be covered (or should require a higher premium). its all risk-benefit. if certain activities increase their risk, they should be able to increase the premium. similarly, if you increase the risk to gov't health care (which causes higher risk to tax money) then you should have to take more responsibility for the cost.
as for your so-called "legal drug addiction," if its prescribed then a medical professional has determined its necessary. if you keep taking it after your doctor tells you to stop then thats on you.
|
|
Smoking is worse. Only because of second-hand smoke because smoking is completely selfish. I dont mind if you give yourself cancer but I do mind if you give ME cancer
|
|
|
|