Fat and stupid in America

[havoc]

But which country wipes their ass' the most with baby whipes?

Find that answer and you got something concrete.

 

[plornive]

Some thoughts on obesity:

The causal network surrounding obesity is a lot more complex than the availability and cost of food.

Not only is food cheap and available in the US (which is fine), but the rate at which Americans consume processed foods per availability of food unit is higher in the US than in other nations in the world. The cause of obesity cannot be readily observed to my knowledge. Therefore, my distaste for obesity is not petty.

I don't want to kill fat people, and I don't personally hate them. However, it bothers me that so many people in the US are fat.

 

[ChefWide]

You must be joking. These countries have nothing even close to the availability of goods that the US has,


not to mention economies that barely rival some of our small states.



Their tax heavy economies prevent their citizens from obtaining what our "poor" citizens have, not to mention it creates a disincentive for personal success. [/B]

You win this weeks "Head so far up his ass you can tell what he had for breakfast from his ring around the collar" Award.

We have ZERO homeless, ZERO uninsured, ZERO kids shooting each other in school, 100% literacy, every product imaginable, and very robust economy with sustained (and may i say SUSTAINABLE) 6-7% growth.

Seems to me personal success would be taking care of your HEALTHY family, past and present and future generations included, as opposed to the incredibly stupid "how many SUV's you dont need, how much McCrap you can eat and how many new inches you can add to your waistline" barometer that you use for measurement.

Stick that in your corncob pipe and smoke it, Buford.

 

[plornive]

You win this weeks "Head so far up his ass you can tell what he had for breakfast from his ring around the collar" Award.

We have ZERO homeless, ZERO uninsured, ZERO kids shooting each other in school, 100% literacy, every product imaginable, and very robust economy with sustained (and may i say SUSTAINABLE) 6-7% growth.

Seems to me personal success would be taking care of your HEALTHY family, past and present and future generations included, as opposed to the incredibly stupid "how many SUV's you dont need, how much McCrap you can eat and how many new inches you can add to your waistline" barometer that you use for measurement.

Stick that in your corncob pipe and smoke it, Buford.

So what's the takehome point, put into a sentence or two?

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

Fat people in and of themselves don't bother me. It is the combination of clueless and fat. That is what bothers me.

It bothers me that people can get so far in life being totally clueless to the world around them. Being fat just flaunts it.

America's obesity problem is likely similar to its myriad of other problems that the pharmaceutical world is drooling over - problems that come up when all of your other needs are met.
I'll bet there aren't many Ethiopians with body dystrophia, or worried about their skin, or that break down and cry when the dry cleaners lose their favorite blouse.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I'm not at all an anti-SUV whiner - I think they are great and serve their purpose on occasion depending on who drives it.

Here you start of OK, but then immediately qualify your statements with criteria which "you" feel are acceptable for ownership of such a vehicle.

As for your reference to "every pathetic argument", that would appear to imply that my argument is pathetic, and therefore follows the negative path that you reference, and which you obviously believe that since it differs from your own (perhaps misguided) opinion, it is wrong.

I have heard no good argument from the anti-SUV crowd which even comes close to surpassing the basic right of private property and business freedom.

I think an SUV is absolutely essential if you are going off-road. If you live in the country where you have a long driveway that isn't paved and is hilly with large ruts in it, the Honda Civic is just not going to get you there, nor is a Porsche. You need something that has high ground clearance and ideally 4 wheel drive connected to knobby tires.
You want it to be torsionally strong for obvious reasons, and therefore the reinforced frame is going to weigh more.

That said, I think we can all agree that out of all of the SUV owners, hardly any of them actually take it off road aside from the edge of the soccer field parking lot or the occasional poor driving skills that land them up on the sidewalk.
Not to mention that the luxury SUVs that are becoming more and more prevalent largely because of their beautiful profit margin for the companies and the willing public - they would just get all scratched up were you to take them offroad - and your moch-chino might spill out of any number of the 30 cupholders inside.

Your argument is weak. Again it boils down to ownership of such vehicles MUST be limited to that which you deem appropriate. It is no more rational than the person who whines because a rich man has 10, 50, or 100 cars, claiming that "why do you need so many cars?"

I don't like the SUVs - not because they guzzle gas. If someone wants to pay more for gas, more power to them - I own stock in some of the petroleum refining companies - I enjoy making money off of people.
I don't like SUVs - not because a lot of people have them. A lot of people have Honda Civics and I don't give a shit if people own them - I wouldn't want one myself, but that is different.

The reason I don't like SUVs is because it gives people with poor driving skills the impression that they are invincible. They drive too fast in bad weather because they think their car can handle it. They are bigger than those around them, so they get lackadaisical because they can. They can change lanes without looking or signaling because people have to get out of their way or suffer damage.
Their height on the road makes it easier for the driver to see around were they to put their cell phone down, take their hands off of the kid in the backseat, and face the road. But that height then puts their lights into the eye level of people driving cars. That height blocks the view of surrounding traffic for other drivers. And that height makes them more likely to roll over when they pull some dumb ass move at speeds that the tires weren't designed for - meaning that the ensuing crash puts me at danger of being part of their 4 ton ballet of shattered glass and screaming metal.

If everyone started driving Kias or Pintos, I would be equally disturbed because of their danger in crashes.
SUVs would be safe if absolutely everyone had the same thing - then the mass disadvantage in a wreck would be negated and it would only be a matter of speed and safety accoutrements on the inside.
But instead, not everyone can afford an SUV, or even wants one - so then they are put in harms way by everyone that does have one. The mass of a Excursion will always win out over the mass of a VW Golf.
Hell, everyone could drive motorcycles and it would be safer - but once you add in a car to the equation, they are no longer safe.

This idea of mass security, where everyone lives in a world without danger or fear is the crux of this argument, which again has no bearing in a free society. It is no different than the gun control advocates who scream the same argument, claiming that my possession of such a product endangers their life. The world can go round and round naming the "dangerous product" of the week and demanding stricter control or outlawing of the good itself. In the end, you wind up in a world of no choice, no opportunity, but very secure in your nothingness.

Plus you have misplaced your anger of the driver, since this is the agent of action, onto that of the inanimate object, the car. Cars do nothing, by themselves, just as guns do nothing, by themselves. So, arguing against the vehicle is no different than arguing against guns, while giving pardon to the user of the instrument. Taking away an SUV, due to the poor driving ability of the owner, only puts a bad driver in a smaller car, which you feel at least equals out the odds, somehow. Irrational egalitarinism.

As for you reference to the European argument - I am American. I have lived in America all of my life. I don't live in Europe now, and I don't live in America now.
The countries that I listed aren't even really all in Europe (granted, some are).
Why your frequent references to how you dislike what they do - misguided or not - has little or nothing to do with the arguments that are being put forth.

It is not a direct reference to countries of Europe exclusively, but a term of ideology. It is a reference to the mentality of individuals who have been immersed in socialist democracy and often times have a disdain of America for the reason that we are not "like them". Europeans are condescending to Americans because, as they, we do not have socialized medicine, very loose drug laws, tiny cars, very high gas prices, extensive business regulations, etc. Europe has been the wellspring of this political ideology and has spread to many neighboring countries and is permeating the US, also.

 

[Deterass]

I spent my Thanksgiving in America. I was surrounded by the fat and the stupid - frequently many would fill those descriptions in one loud and obnoxious flesh package.

you shoulda fit right in.

 

[ChefWide]

So what's the takehome point, put into a sentence or two?

The point? I was replying to a previous post, you can find it, I know you can...

 

[Ashamed]

deteras1 is stupid but not fat.

 

[plornive]

The point? I was replying to a previous post, you can find it, I know you can...

I probably could... can you?