|
| Thread: When fat is not fat enough |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
disturbed-Gnu
Supreme Hero
Pro Bacon Vodka Brewer
|
posted April 18, 2012 08:28 PM |
|
|
Just do as us in Denmark. Put "hidden taxes" on Snacks..
I'm not thin but, not overly heavy either. I just stopped in the fitness center because it was too expensive and I was never there after 3 months. But I will say that as long as you can climb on scaffolding and ladders, pulling cables and generally perform my physical work as an electrician. so it may not be all bad when you are anti-sport, and can work while you have a little extra on your stomach?
But to comment the topic:
I think its wrong to block the "standard fatties" from working in theire field.
But you can ofcourse be too fat, wich makes my opinion kinda double moral
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 19, 2012 12:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Just do as us in Denmark. Put "hidden taxes" on Snacks..
It's not a hidden tax on snacks. It's a tax on fats and sugars and it freaking sucks big time! At least for me, because I eat a lot of high fat fish, which was already expensive.
And they're on the same time trying to encourage people to eat fish, but e.g. the cheapest cans of mackarel just increased with 1 euro (~20%), because of this tax! If it was just because the fishermen had a small catch, so they had to increase prize or because more people were eating more mackerel, it'd be cool, but no. Fishermen have to catch more mackerel to get by now, despite over fishing is already a big concern here. They get less money for more, due to this tax and then the tax hits the shops next, so they've to buy the food for more and sell it for even more and all the money goes into the pocket of the government. I would not mind if the government then at least had shown they were more effective with the money than the population as a whole, but if you ever check out what politicians use their time on, it's belittleing eachother in a blame game through the media and trying to find cases they can support while getting millions pr. year for doing what seems like practically nothing.
In a couple of years, we'll replace the current model (e.g. tax on fats) with something else. We NEVER stick to anything, we change stuff all the time, and we never ever make proper testing or let the change run through. There're so many obvious stupidities going on, but none of those are ever targeted for change, they only get changed with a million other small stuff and it all ends up with more money to managing than for actual appliance.
Take this fat thing. There's hardly any reseach which shows mono-chained fatty acids are actually bad for you, just that we haven't found any obvious beneficial apart from the obvious need of energy. But we don't know the details for long time studies, I mean how could we? Have we even known about lipids for 100 years by now? Humans live longer than that.
Quote:
But you can ofcourse be too fat, wich makes my opinion kinda double moral
The question is rather, in my opinion, what is reasonable. You can look at a person and see he looks fat, but there's no connection between looks and weight problems, because the problem with fat, unless it's an extreme case, is where the fat is positioned in the body, the level of sugar and cholesterol in the blood, etc. All of these are side effects and you can therefore be skinny fat, while a person with a lot of weight does not need to have any health problems.
It's more a question of activity than what and how much you eat, I guess. You don't want a person who goes tired in a half day, because he spend all his free time in front of the computer and therefore have very little extra energy for task outside what he's used to. Therefore when hospitals reject employing people because of looks, it is discriminating for no good purpose (though in America I suppose they're all fat by now, so there it probably doesn't even matter). I fully support that a person who owns a company should be entitled to hire whoever he wishes for whatever reason he wishes (and not hire someone else for whatever reason), but Hospitals are property of the people, because they're run through the state and as such they have to hire someone which is the best for the position, therefore discrimination like this is not okay.
Even if you could tell from a persons look if they've health problems, the problem is that there are a ton of other possible health problem and all of which an employer cannot demand to know about that it ends up being a gamble no matter what. Therefore it doesn't even make sense to take this kind of stuff into account when it comes to it.
|
| |
|
|
