all i'm saying is that i'm pretty damn lazy and even though 70% of my diet consists of generally healthy stuff (salad, pasta, sandwiches, etc.. and that's just because i happen to like that stuff, not because i'm trying to diet), i still have that other 30% of pizza, french fries, ice cream, etc... and i know people who gain weight by just LOOKING at stuff like that.


being naturally thin is something i never take for granted. i love food so much and i think it's such a tragedy when people have to really watch what they eat and turn things away like a sweet treat or a cheeseburger. it sucks. i would be fat for sure if i didn't have my metabolism.

___________________

My soliloquy may be hard for some to swallow, but so is cod liver oil.

quote:

Originally posted by notelfreak man i can't believe i tried to come off as responsible in that other thread, i am so full of shit just don't tell anyone

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX yeah i've seen her do it. i'd say about 5'4" and 300 lbs at least she is one of those people who is so fat they have an ass in front and in back

I bet she takes the biggest shits ever

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I bet she takes the biggest shits ever

i bet they float.

LOL... no doubt. people that big must go through a roll of toilet paper every other day

i do, too, but i pee a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If you are against this tax, then tell me which of the following statements you disagree with: 1. Government requires not insignificant amounts of money to fund. 2. Government could collect some portion of that money by taxing soft drink consumption 3. Taxing soft drink consumption provides people with an incentive to consume fewer soft drinks 4. There is a causal connection between soft drink consumption and obesity, or the extent thereof, in a non-negligible number of instances. 5. An incentive to consume fewer soft drinks thus provides an incentive to avoid or limit an activity that will causally contribute to obesity in a non-negligible number of instances. 6. That incentive has the potential to affect consumer behavior in at least some instances, and therefore has the potential to reduce the prevalence and/or extent of obesity relative to what they would otherwise be. 7. Obesity imposes a burden on society. 8. Less obesity imposes less of a burden on society. 9. An incentive that has the potential to result in a reduced burden on society is a potentially useful one. 10. A tax that creates a potentially useful incentive is preferable to one that does not. 11. Taxing income does not create a potentially useful incentive. 12. Therefore, taxing soft drink consumption is preferable to an income tax increase that would produce equivalent revenue. 13. Income taxes generating revenue in excess of the potential revenue that this tax may generate would still exist even if we eliminated all inefficient government expenditures. 14. Imposing this tax would thus reduce the necessary amount of income taxation by an amount roughly equal to the revenue of this tax, regardless of the efficiency of government expenditures. 15. Therefore, this tax is a good idea.

Wow, well said!

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss haha... you're an odd bird, Arbiter. Nicely laid out though. All true statements (Jerz the tax guru, can you confirm?). My beef is simply that I don't think the government should make those kinds of personal decisions. It can be a slippery slope

I see where you're coming from as well. It brings up the whole issue of "where will they draw the line?" Will they start taxing R-rated films because it contributes to some underlying societal issue, and to many people that might be a positive piece of legislation? Will they start taxing something else that another group sees as "dangerous".

However, for here and now, I think this tax is a good idea.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX yes but you don't turn into a 300 lbs human pig just because your metabolism is slow. if you had a slow metabolism you would either eat less or exercise to compensate or you would carry an extra 25 lbs. But you are not picking up an extra 150 lbs because of your metabolism, maybe in very rare cases because of some thyroid issues or something. If you really watch what someone who is morbidly obese eats over the course of an entire day you realize why they are that fat. I have seen this bitch who sits next to me literally wrap a stick of butter in a piece of bread and sit there and eat that well, in addition to the butter sandwich she does shit like if you are at lunch with her she orders something really small, I guess to make it look like she doesn't overeat. But then when she gets back to herself she will eat half a bag of oreos. god I have to stop thinking about that shit its making me sick

I agree here. Morbidly obese is not the same as having a slow metabolism and carrying around 20-30 extra pounds because of it. I get jealous of people who can eat non stop and not gain any weight, but at the same time if I maintain a decent diet with some exercise there is no way in hell I could ever get up to 300lbs and I'm a man. Fucking whale you have sitting there next to you.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss haha... you're an odd bird, Arbiter. Nicely laid out though. All true statements (Jerz the tax guru, can you confirm?). My beef is simply that I don't think the government should make those kinds of personal decisions. It can be a slippery slope

That's a valid point considering the poor track record of government in general when it comes to these kind of fact-sensitive policy decisions.

At the same time, though, there's a risk either way: if government does nothing, then the heightened risk pool (here, heavy users of soft drinks who are more likely to have health problems) gets to force everyone else to pay for the consequences of their decisions.

I assume that you'd agree that it's better to deal with things like this through tax incentives than pure regulation, i.e. banning things that we think are bad. I think that tax schemes like this strike a nice middle ground, allocating part of the risk of a government foul-up to the people who partake in the activity in question, and part to the rest of society who don't want to pay the costs (actually or supposedly) caused by the activity. Obviously, government policy mistakes will be made, but -- at least in theory -- they should roughly balance out in the end, leaving the good decisions to do their job regarding incentives while also helping keep income tax lower, while the bad ones are still just consumption taxes (which if I'm not mistaken you'd prefer to income taxes anyway).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco I see where you're coming from as well. It brings up the whole issue of "where will they draw the line?" Will they start taxing R-rated films because it contributes to some underlying societal issue, and to many people that might be a positive piece of legislation? Will they start taxing something else that another group sees as "dangerous". However, for here and now, I think this tax is a good idea.

yes, but they are also taxing G, PG, PG13 and R movies..

that damn parental guidance!

___________________
Although you are far away
I know you'll always be
Near to me
Near to me

R.I.P. DarkAngel 12-16-o9

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I assume that you'd agree that it's better to deal with things like this through tax incentives than pure regulation, i.e. banning things that we think are bad. I think that tax schemes like this strike a nice middle ground, allocating part of the risk of a government foul-up to the people who partake in the activity in question, and part to the rest of society who don't want to pay the costs (actually or supposedly) caused by the activity. Obviously, government policy mistakes will be made, but -- at least in theory -- they should roughly balance out in the end, leaving the good decisions to do their job regarding incentives while also helping keep income tax lower, while the bad ones are still just consumption taxes (which if I'm not mistaken you'd prefer to income taxes anyway).

Yeah man, I have to agree with you.... it's much better to do it as a tax scheme than to simply ban things that an agenda driven government decides. And you're right, I prefer consumption taxes to income taxes all day.