The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

cullennz said:
Someone with a better brain than me will probably pull this to bits but this is how it works completely hypothetically.

A supermarket buys 10 pellets of coke for say 100 dollars.

They are paying maybe a dollar a bottle

They sell it as a loss leader for 90 cents.

Govt says 10% tax. Supermarket says who cares it is only one cent
Click to expand...

Point of sale tax, like your VAT or our GST, it gets added at the till and paid to the tax department.
 
bit_pattern said:
Supermarkets don't administer taxes. Tax departments do that.
Click to expand...


Yes. But nothing says they have to pass them on to the customer if the cost is minimal to profit.

Extra 5 cents on the weetbix. Extra 2 cents on the baked beans

They aren't stupid
 
You think businesses are going to take a 10% hit to their profits by paying a tax on behalf of consumers, why exactly? Do you have any other examples of businesses that willingly pay additional taxes?
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
Yes. But nothing says they have to pass them on to the customer if the cost is minimal to profit.

Extra 5 cents on the weetbix. Extra 2 cents on the baked beans

They aren't stupid
Click to expand...

Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding you - are you saying that they'd simply increase the price of 'healthy' food (I don't think your examples here constitute healthy, but that's another argument) by 10% as well?
 
bit_pattern said:
Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding you - are you saying that they'd simply increase the price of 'healthy' food (I don't think your examples here constitute healthy, but that's another argument) by 10% as well?
Click to expand...

If it is so minimal not to be noticed it simply makes good business sense

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
 
cullennz said:
If it is so minimal not to be noticed it simply makes good business sense

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Still don't get your argument. Are you saying they would increase fresh food prices in response, or that they would reduce processed food prices in response?

I dunno about NZ but, if it's the former, we have a little thing called competition and consumer laws that would see them prosecuted for engaging in illegal acts of profiteering like that. If it's the latter, that's a crazy argument because no business is going to willingly pay 10% of their profits to the government of behalf of consumers.

Anyway, it was your idea, I dunno why you're arguing against it now that I've said I agree with you :confused:
 
Last edited:
Psychology can't trump genes.

The show "Half ton man" was about a guy at a fat farm, dropped 400#, cut away 150 more # of unneeded skin, lost some more, left at 220#. Parting comment from the Doc was "He'll be Baaa-ack.". Epilogue added later- "He's Baaa-ack."

Myself, I worked off 60# in three months, down to what I weighed when I was 21. Managed to keep it off for a couple years, then put 50# back on. Weight gain was at about 100 calories per day. Food has more instant gratification than busting my ass.

What we need is Antabuse for food. But that would just lead to binge-purge ?
 
The Atheist said:
What a crock.

We're a long way into the thread, and several facts remain right from the start:

Carbs in less carbs used = weight gain, loss or stability.

People do not need to eat more carbs than they need.

Their problem is psychological. If they could cut down on food, they wouldn't be obese.

<snip>

Personally, I don't give a flying what size people are. If they want to be enormous, more power to them.

Just don't expect me to pay for it.
Click to expand...

We seem to be willing to pay for other psychological problems though. I have no difficulty seeing schizophrenia as a disability and contributing to its treatment.

Do you think they "want to be enormous?" I would guess they do not.
 
marplots said:
We seem to be willing to pay for other psychological problems though. I have no difficulty seeing schizophrenia as a disability and contributing to its treatment.

Do you think they "want to be enormous?" I would guess they do not.
Click to expand...

In another post he is advocating CBT. Not sure if he's aware of how much therapist charge per hour.
 
marplots said:
We seem to be willing to pay for other psychological problems though. I have no difficulty seeing schizophrenia as a disability and contributing to its treatment.

Do you think they "want to be enormous?" I would guess they do not.
Click to expand...

If someone engages in behavior with known outcomes, I generally assume those outcomes are desired. At the very least, they would consider negative outcomes an acceptable tradeoff for engaging in said behavior. Barring, of course, psychological or addiction issues.
 
bit_pattern said:
In another post he is advocating CBT. Not sure if he's aware of how much therapist charge per hour.
Click to expand...

Is there even a treatment that works reliably? I know there are tons (pun intended) out there, but I tend to think everything for hypnosis through to fat-camp don't really live up to the hype.
 
rustypouch said:
If someone engages in behavior with known outcomes, I generally assume those outcomes are desired. At the very least, they would consider negative outcomes an acceptable tradeoff for engaging in said behavior. Barring, of course, psychological or addiction issues.
Click to expand...

The problem is one of horizons. I can do something now (close horizon) because I don't appreciate the very small, but additive consequences on the distant horizon. This cigarette, or this meal, taken separately, has no measurable effect. But in the near term, I don't feel the burden of the accumulation.

So I constantly choose to cheat "just a little." I certainly do not experience this as a desire for the long-term outcome. By the time things start to spiral out of control, my habits are ingrained - one of which is making the same near-term error I've always made. Why? Because it works the other way around too: I see no immediate improvement if I forgo the next cigarette or the next dessert.

This mechanism is quite powerful and broadly applicable. If I didn't pay for a superior internet connection, the accumulated wealth (6% return) would be more than $200k when I retired. But each payment seems minor at the time I make it.
 
Last edited:
bit_pattern said:
Lulwut? Confused much?
Click to expand...

No confusion there - again just stating facts, but I abbreviated it because it's been covered so may times.

If there's any thing wrong with the equation, let me know, because the science I know still says that weight gain occurs when calories in exceed calories used and weight loss occurs when calories used exceed the intake.

Nice use of "Lulwut" though. My six year old approves.

cullennz said:
That is because a sugar tax is utterly stupid.
Click to expand...

Agree entirely. All you'd do is eat further into the bank accounts of the stupid.

marplots said:
We seem to be willing to pay for other psychological problems though. I have no difficulty seeing schizophrenia as a disability and contributing to its treatment.

Do you think they "want to be enormous?" I would guess they do not.
Click to expand...

I'd be very happy to have taxes pay for psychological treatment of career fatties.

It's going to be a hell of a lot cheaper than all the hip, knee and other operations the obese will need.
 
The Atheist said:
NNo confusion there - again just stating facts, but I abbreviated it because it's been covered so may times.

If there's any thing wrong with the equation, let me know, because the science I know still says that weight gain occurs when calories in exceed calories used and weight loss occurs when calories used exceed the intake.
Click to expand...

Except you didn't say 'calories', did you? I realise it was just a non-Freudian slip, hence the 'Lulwut' response.

The Atheist said:
Carbs in less carbs used = weight gain, loss or stability.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sorry, you are dead right.



* goes to write on blackboard 100 times: "Carbs is not shorthand for calories"
 
marplots said:
The problem is one of horizons. I can do something now (close horizon) because I don't appreciate the very small, but additive consequences on the distant horizon. This cigarette, or this meal, taken separately, has no measurable effect. But in the near term, I don't feel the burden of the accumulation.

So I constantly choose to cheat "just a little." I certainly do not experience this as a desire for the long-term outcome. By the time things start to spiral out of control, my habits are ingrained - one of which is making the same near-term error I've always made. Why? Because it works the other way around too: I see no immediate improvement if I forgo the next cigarette or the next dessert.

This mechanism is quite powerful and broadly applicable. If I didn't pay for a superior internet connection, the accumulated wealth (6% return) would be more than $200k when I retired. But each payment seems minor at the time I make it.
Click to expand...

Yes, occasionally gorging will have a negligible effect, long term habits are the major influence.

As you implied, it's a matter of priorities. For some people, consistently satisfying immediate urges is more important than avoiding consequences in the future. People know that consistently overeating will result in weight gain. (Granted, there are some who object to this, but that's another matter.) If someone consistently overeats, I do assume that they have issues with self-control, foresight, and delaying gratification. They consider being overweight, and all the issues that go along with it, an acceptable trade-off. Am I wrong? Or am I being too generous in attributing rationality where there may be none?
 
rustypouch said:
Yes, occasionally gorging will have a negligible effect, long term habits are the major influence.

As you implied, it's a matter of priorities. For some people, consistently satisfying immediate urges is more important than avoiding consequences in the future. People know that consistently overeating will result in weight gain. (Granted, there are some who object to this, but that's another matter.) If someone consistently overeats, I do assume that they have issues with self-control, foresight, and delaying gratification. They consider being overweight, and all the issues that go along with it, an acceptable trade-off. Am I wrong? Or am I being too generous in attributing rationality where there may be none?
Click to expand...

I think the reasoning comes after the pattern of emotional release has already made the decision. Hindsight. I know I'm a good and decent person, and I observe that I have done X, now I need to explain to myself why X was justified, bearing in mind that I am a good and decent person.

If you've ever talked to a smoker you'll hear some interesting support - ranging from, "Yeah, but I could get hit by a bus tomorrow" to "I''ll quit when X, Y, or Z" or "Even among smokers, lung cancer is pretty rare."

And then, if you ask them whether they would recommend the habit to others, perhaps their child, I've never heard anything back other than, "No, of course not. It's better not to start."

There's a larger question on offer though. It gets at what makes for a useful and meaningful life. Health may not have an automatic value, although not dying right now does. I don't see, in my culture, an agreed upon idea of what constitutes a good death, nor a good age to die. We seem to universally worship youth and health, even though we know we won't escape the reaper.

As far as bad habits go, the best advice I've heard on it is conceptual. You and I are, right now, acting to become the human who does the activities we are doing right now. If we smoke, or overeat, we are becoming a person defined by those things. So too if we run, sit still all day, or swim a few miles after lunch. We just become the person we already act like. Collapse the horizon and recognize we are what we do. Right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom