No fat people allowed?

[fourpawsonthefloor]

This is mindboggling to me. It won't address the issue at hand at all - it will simply make people that are already harshly judged, harrassed and discriminated against for their appearance even more judged.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/200 ... ll-be.html

[wingyding]

Jesus H. that's stupid.

[Angelique]

No kidding. The law will keep a health food restaurant from serving a light salad to an obese person trying to lose weight, but won't keep anyone from going to a convenience store and buying a box of Ding Dongs to scarf.

This bill will not encourage healthy eating, it will make pariahs out of people on the basis of health conditions over which they may or may not even have any control, and it's just plain stupid. Who is the government to tell private businesses what kind of customers they can and can't serve?

[JSherlock]

People should just mind their own damn business and not pass judgment on others.

[Amamelina]

I'm outraged! We fatties have the same right to eat in a restaurant like any stick! If they try to pass that bill in my state, I'll get so many people to protest it'll make your head spin.

No fatties allowed my size 14 ass. I thought we were done with the no (insert group here) allowed in the sixties. What's next? Do we go back to no Blacks? No Jews? No Japanese? All of them had such bills attached to them.

[Saint Kurt]

My only guess is that the bill is being created in the same spirit as the law that prohibits bars from serving alcohol to people who are visibly intoxicated.

The only problem is that there isn't a clear parallel.

The over-serving law has an immediate and specific purpose - to protect. Someone who is extremely intoxicated might put either themselves or others in danger. The law attempts to alleviate what would be an imminent and specific danger and though it is difficult to put into practice (different people react to alcohol in different ways and different bar tenders judge intoxication differently); it is ultimately logical and probably only invoked in extreme cases.

If that law was designed to say ... cure alcoholism (a disease with both physiological and psychological components), that would make a clearer parallel, but it would also be ridiculous.

Creating laws to combat the current trend towards "over conditioning" in this country don't make sense if they're aimed at depriving individuals of their basic rights while appearing to pass judgement upon them. Perhaps by focusing on the nutritional content of foods sold and creating educational programs about nutrition choices, we might be better served.

-e

[fixed a typo ~SK~]

[Edited on 3/2/2008 by Saint Kurt]

[wingyding]

sk> I get what you're trying to say, but the argument of 'in the same spirit' has one fatal flaw--food is not alcohol and you can't get intoxicated on it. There is no danger to others if you serve a fat guy a steak. The only thing this bill is going to do if it's passed is that it will make even bigger outcasts of people who are already shunned because of their weight.

That, and just because I am a size 22, it's NO ONE ELSE'S business to tell me what I should eat. If I want to lose weight I'll do it my way and with no input from politicians who don't know me, thanks. You want to try passing a bill like that, which, in addition to showing just how little you think about your constituency, shows how little your brain functions, then you're not going to be reelected.

[Ult_Sm86]

Originally posted by wingyding
sk> I get what you're trying to say, but the argument of 'in the same spirit' has one fatal flaw--food is not alcohol and you can't get intoxicated on it. There is no danger to others if you serve a fat guy a steak. The only thing this bill is going to do if it's passed is that it will make even bigger outcasts of people who are already shunned because of their weight.

That, and just because I am a size 22, it's NO ONE ELSE'S business to tell me what I should eat. If I want to lose weight I'll do it my way and with no input from politicians who don't know me, thanks. You want to try passing a bill like that, which, in addition to showing just how little you think about your constituency, shows how little your brain functions, then you're not going to be reelected.

But see, wingy part of what you're saying is wrong as well. Food eating habits ARE an addiction. Not for everyone and that's where the outrage is for me, that the politicians have the balls to go ahead and assume everyone has an eating disorder and they have to save everyone.
It is an attempt at making a healthy country, and with the amount of fast food and other terrible things we put in our daily consumed products, its not without valor they attempt this, but it's still obnoxious that they think it's a quick-fix.
A couple of things come to mind actually.

1) They just started putting most children's BMI's on their report cards in a lot of inner cities and sometimes private schools. As if you felt like a failure enough as a teenager right? The idea is to keep parents aware of how they're eating. The same story included how a mother sent healthy snacks with her daughter to school after the principals and nurse were giving her warnings. So she sent her a nutrigrain bar. I'm sorry did I say a nutrigrain bar?
i meant, THE WHOLE BOX. that was her snack. THE WHOLE DAMN BOX = SNACK to this lady. The school was outraged, but they can't intervene so it's really a problematic situation. They want the best for the kid but people are so uneducated on how to eat healthy, it's not even funny.

2) Most people thinking eating right is the solution, and they talk about eating habits but that's not it. Jared from subway proved that but he's sort of contracted to say it was all subway. Did subway help? Hell yes. But it was the walk to the furthest from local subway possible everyday that did most of the work. You don't just EAT better foods and slim down, you work out and get to that point, then keep a schedule and eating habit to keep it where you want it. You'd think a better idea would to make a bill that demands healthy foods be served at non-chain related restaurants? Right? If you have some Chef Boyardee from Europe and then some from America guess which one is gonna have more salt? OURS. WHY? Because we're sick. The ...not FDA some other people, (maybe it was them...or WHO) announced that Fattening foods and transfats and stuff are NO LONGER top concern.

Salt is. This guy predicted everyone in America could be Diabetic if this keeps up by 2023. He says there's so much salt going into our foods that not only have we stopped noticing it, we've starting putting it into basic ingredients, so instead of "adding salt" the salt is added in, let's say the packet of meat, and then you're expected to add more. The thing this guy should be doing is setting a limit on salts used in meals instead of setting a limit on weight for customers. 1,100 mg's of salt in one can of Chef Boyardee, and you know what? That's not even the WORST that i've seen too. How bad is that? (I see a lot of it too, i'm on lasix so i need to watch my salt-intake.)

Anyways, thats my rant.

[NachtcGleiskette]

Originally posted by Saint Kurt
My only guess is that the bill is being created in the same spirit as the law that prohibits bars from serving alcohol to people who are visibly intoxicated.

The only problem is that there isn't a clear parallel.

The over-serving law has an immediate and specific purpose - to protect. Someone who is extremely intoxicated might put either themselves or others in danger. The law attempts to alleviate what would be an imminent and specific danger and though it is difficult to put into practice (different people react to alcohol in different ways and different bar tenders judge intoxication differently); it is ultimately logical and probably only invoked in extreme cases.

If that law was designed to say ... cure alcoholism (a disease with both physiological and psychological components), that would make a clearer parallel, but it would also be ridiculous.

Creating laws to combat the current trend towards "over conditioning" in this country don't make sense if they're aimed at depriving individuals of their basic rights without appearing to pass judgement upon them. Perhaps by focusing on the nutritional content of foods sold and creating educational programs about nutrition choices, we might be better served.

-e

As wingy said, the main issue (or a bigger issue) with alcohol, and bartenders cutting people off etc is that these people can go out and hurt other people while intoxicated. That's not the case with people who overeat.

And the biggest problem here is that people don't understand this is an illness. Not for all, but for some. And forcing change isn't going to change anything. You're just gonna get lots of angry fat people, and rightfully so.

Originally posted by Ult_Sm86

1) They just started putting most children's BMI's on their report cards in a lot of inner cities and sometimes private schools. As if you felt like a failure enough as a teenager right? The idea is to keep parents aware of how they're eating. The same story included how a mother sent healthy snacks with her daughter to school after the principals and nurse were giving her warnings. So she sent her a nutrigrain bar. I'm sorry did I say a nutrigrain bar?
i meant, THE WHOLE BOX. that was her snack. THE WHOLE DAMN BOX = SNACK to this lady. The school was outraged, but they can't intervene so it's really a problematic situation. They want the best for the kid but people are so uneducated on how to eat healthy, it's not even funny.

I honestly see nothing wrong with putting the BMI on the report card. It's an important number that people have never been so aware of before, so it could be a wake up call to children and their parents to see that number and how far it is from the average.

However, parents, just like all human beings, can be retarded. The biggest problem is NOT what people are eating, but instead the lack of education in eating well.

2) Most people thinking eating right is the solution, and they talk about eating habits but that's not it. Jared from subway proved that but he's sort of contracted to say it was all subway. Did subway help? Hell yes. But it was the walk to the furthest from local subway possible everyday that did most of the work. You don't just EAT better foods and slim down, you work out and get to that point, then keep a schedule and eating habit to keep it where you want it. You'd think a better idea would to make a bill that demands healthy foods be served at non-chain related restaurants? Right? If you have some Chef Boyardee from Europe and then some from America guess which one is gonna have more salt? OURS. WHY? Because we're sick. The ...not FDA some other people, (maybe it was them...or WHO) announced that Fattening foods and transfats and stuff are NO LONGER top concern.

Not entirely true. Truth is, eating right IS what is going to make you lose weight, and be healthier. Exercise is important as well, but simply by changing your eating habits, you CAN lose weight. It's as simple as that. Just eat better, make better choices.

[Saint Kurt]

I feel like my point wasn't clearly made but I can't see a better way to explain it.

To try and simplify what I said above:
I used the over-serving law as an example because it is a current law where a proprietor may refuse service to a customer.

The point I was making is that they don't properly parallel each other because the over-serving law was designed with an immediate result (to prevent a person from getting so drunk that they may present a danger) in mind. It's as ridiculous to think that obesity will be cured by skipping a meal in a restaurant as it is to assume the over-serving law will cure alcoholism.

If politicians feel compelled to enact laws to combat lifestyles they feel are unhealthy - they should be focusing on education and rewarding healthy choices, rather than punitive actions against individuals.

Hopefully that clarifies things. It feels like people thought I was presenting an argument for the law when I was actually in agreement that it's useless.

Thanks
-e