Re: Report: National strategy needed to fight fat

"Manco" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Sm4Bi.424$9T5.138@trndny02...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My point is that if you provide all kinds of healthy alternatives,
there are many people who will not use them and conversely, people
wanting good health find it even with adverse conditions. Lots of
fatties around here and we have tons of fresh produce, but many people
prefer to eat junk food and too much food period. Throwing lots of
govt. money at a problem like that is not a good answer. dkw

Simple answer - they need to stop shoveling VAST quantities of junk food
in their pie holes.

Agreed. You are what you eat and the vast majority of Americans eat nothing
but packaged junk unfit for human consumption. They sit in front of a TV
and park their kids in front of DVD players with bowls of fat laden [censored].
It's disgusting and criminal on the part of American food manufacturers.

Manco said:

Quoted message said:

My point is that if you provide all kinds of healthy alternatives,
there are many people who will not use them and conversely, people
wanting good health find it even with adverse conditions. Lots of
fatties around here and we have tons of fresh produce, but many people
prefer to eat junk food and too much food period. Throwing lots of
govt. money at a problem like that is not a good answer. dkw

Simple answer - they need to stop shoveling VAST quantities of junk food in
their pie holes.

Yeah, it's nothing the government should be involved with, other than
maybe nutrition education in schools, or as below. A better approach
would be to boycott the foods that are unhealthy, if such a thing could
be organized. Think of who would profit from that and that's who would
organize it.

Question we should ask is what changed in the American diet or way of
living to cause this epidemic? Perhaps we need some dietitian activists
at work, like there are political activists.

First thing would be to decide what's causing the fat-on. There will be
lots of opinions on that. Then we need someone who will fight the sugar
lobby or whoever is causing the problem. No good getting a politician -
they get money from manufacturers and mostly they don't give a real hoot
anyway. What about someone who believes in the cause and is maybe an
active environmentalist? They would have the experience and zeal to
attack the problem. Maybe they are frustrated with saving the spotted
owl and ready for a new cause. Then, how are they going to get funded
for the good fight?

Here's a serious suggestion for discussion. Lawsuits. It is against the
law (Americans with Disabilities Act) to discriminate against someone
with a perceived disability. Precedent includes obese people in this
category. The ADA law is enforced through the courts with prosecution by
the Justice department and suit proceeds going to the victim, less
expenses.

For instance, one of the major airlines is making obese people pay for
two seats on their airline or refusing them service. That would be a
real obvious suit and there are others. Having the Justice dept front
the lawsuits costs nothing, the main risk would be cross filing and
there should be some protection available for that from the Justice
department. Any civil rights attorneys on this forum? Is this practical?

Mal

"Mal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hQ5Bi.2042$_A5.439@trndny03...

Quoted message said:

For instance, one of the major airlines is making obese people pay for two
seats on their airline or refusing them service. That would be a real
obvious suit and there are others. Having the Justice dept front the
lawsuits costs nothing, the main risk would be cross filing and there
should be some protection available for that from the Justice department.
Any civil rights attorneys on this forum? Is this practical?

Mal

The airlines have every right to do this for safety reasons. A fat person
becomes a hazardous obstruction in the event of an emergency and could cost
the lives of more worthy passengers. What if the plane is on fire and an
injured blob is blocking the only exit and cannot be moved because of their
bulk? What if a 400 pounder cannot fit through an emergency escape, gets
stuck and blocks it, thus preventing innocent people from saving themselves?
Fat people are discourteous types by nature. They deliberately block common
walkways and lumber along preventing others from getting past them. These
are real concerns for airlines because of the potential for greater losses
of passengers who would otherwise live if there were no fat people to deal
with. Tell you fatties what, if it comes down to you and me getting off a
burning jet, you're getting as many big boots in your ass as it takes to get
you through, or if you don't look like you'll fit - away from the escape
exit. They should pass a law restricting fat people of a certain size from
flying anyway.

Sata said:

"Mal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:hQ5Bi.2042$_A5.439@trndny03...

Quoted message said:

For instance, one of the major airlines is making obese people pay for two
seats on their airline or refusing them service. That would be a real
obvious suit and there are others. Having the Justice dept front the
lawsuits costs nothing, the main risk would be cross filing and there
should be some protection available for that from the Justice department.
Any civil rights attorneys on this forum? Is this practical?

Mal

The airlines have every right to do this for safety reasons. A fat person
becomes a hazardous obstruction in the event of an emergency and could cost
the lives of more worthy passengers. What if the plane is on fire and an
injured blob is blocking the only exit and cannot be moved because of their
bulk? What if a 400 pounder cannot fit through an emergency escape, gets
stuck and blocks it, thus preventing innocent people from saving themselves?
Fat people are discourteous types by nature. They deliberately block common
walkways and lumber along preventing others from getting past them. These
are real concerns for airlines because of the potential for greater losses
of passengers who would otherwise live if there were no fat people to deal
with. Tell you fatties what, if it comes down to you and me getting off a
burning jet, you're getting as many big boots in your ass as it takes to get
you through, or if you don't look like you'll fit - away from the escape
exit. They should pass a law restricting fat people of a certain size from
flying anyway.

I suppose you have a point about airline safety. Of course the same
would apply to someone wheelchair bound or slow because they are
elderly. But don't call me a fatty, I'm not and I can boot too. Anyway,
that would seem like a justification for the rule the airline has, but
it isn't the reason they enforce it. Fat people cost more gas to haul
and inconvenience other passengers. I doubt it is a defense that would
prevail, but I'm no expert. I sure would like to hear comments from a
legal specialist in civil rights.

Mal

It doesn't take vast quantities of junk food to make one fat, all it takes
is a few extra calories every day beyond what the body uses.

Manco wrote:
| [email hidden] wrote:
||
|| My point is that if you provide all kinds of healthy alternatives,
|| there are many people who will not use them and conversely, people
|| wanting good health find it even with adverse conditions. Lots of
|| fatties around here and we have tons of fresh produce, but many
|| people prefer to eat junk food and too much food period. Throwing
|| lots of govt. money at a problem like that is not a good answer. dkw
|
| Simple answer - they need to stop shoveling VAST quantities of junk
| food in their pie holes.

Sata said:

"Mal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:hQ5Bi.2042$_A5.439@trndny03...

Quoted message said:

For instance, one of the major airlines is making obese people pay for two
seats on their airline or refusing them service. That would be a real
obvious suit and there are others. Having the Justice dept front the
lawsuits costs nothing, the main risk would be cross filing and there
should be some protection available for that from the Justice department.
Any civil rights attorneys on this forum? Is this practical?

Quoted message said:

Mal

The airlines have every right to do this for safety reasons. A fat person
becomes a hazardous obstruction in the event of an emergency and could cost
the lives of more worthy passengers. What if the plane is on fire and an
injured blob is blocking the only exit and cannot be moved because of their
bulk? What if a 400 pounder cannot fit through an emergency escape, gets
stuck and blocks it, thus preventing innocent people from saving themselves?
Fat people are discourteous types by nature. They deliberately block common
walkways and lumber along preventing others from getting past them. These
are real concerns for airlines because of the potential for greater losses
of passengers who would otherwise live if there were no fat people to deal
with. Tell you fatties what, if it comes down to you and me getting off a
burning jet, you're getting as many big boots in your ass as it takes to get
you through, or if you don't look like you'll fit - away from the escape
exit. They should pass a law restricting fat people of a certain size from
flying anyway.

Well passenger weight is also very important in terms of fuel use and
other things the plane might take, so airlines should charge on the
basis of weight anyway.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a foundation that often provides
money for health care to community health clinics and other areas
where access is a problem, and they can throw all the money they want
at the problem. Probably just funding education about healthy eating
and exercise would be as far as they will get and might be the best
use of their money though. dkw

"Sata" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Manco" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Sm4Bi.424$9T5.138@trndny02...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My point is that if you provide all kinds of healthy alternatives,
there are many people who will not use them and conversely, people
wanting good health find it even with adverse conditions. Lots of
fatties around here and we have tons of fresh produce, but many people
prefer to eat junk food and too much food period. Throwing lots of
govt. money at a problem like that is not a good answer. dkw

Simple answer - they need to stop shoveling VAST quantities of junk food
in their pie holes.

Agreed. You are what you eat and the vast majority of Americans eat
nothing but packaged junk unfit for human consumption. They sit in
front of a TV and park their kids in front of DVD players with bowls of
fat laden [censored]. It's disgusting and criminal on the part of American food
manufacturers.

Pictures are worth a 1000 words, but satire makes them even better
http://www.newstarget.com/021659.html
http://www.newstarget.com/021505.html
http://www.newstarget.com/021218.html
http://www.newstarget.com/020656.html