How do we solve the fat people problem, Veeky Forums?

While your remark is based on humor it does touch on the real root of the problem of obesity in first world nations.

That being transportation, more specifically commuting to work and the type of work itself.

The rise of obesity appears to be more or less the result of a shift of the average type of work done and the longer commutes that are associated with it.

The joke however is that all the promoted programs (both good and bad) to solve obesity on a large scale seem to ignore this essential fact. For instance you could force all children to eat healthy foods and do exercise daily to keep them in shape. But how much good will that do once they get into their mid twenties and older going into the job market and are forced to spend less time exercising and more time on the road and at work?

you could start by not eating waffles and pancakes for breakfast. Seriously the fuck is up with Murica's breakfast, I had to go to NY for work and every breakfast I had was so incredibly heavy

Ban HFCS. Obesity was pretty constant until it was used commonly in food in the 1980s, at which point obesity followed the rise of HFCS.

nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n7s/fig_tab/ijo2008248f2.html

How about if we don't ban things or introduce harsh regulations? People should have the right to be fat. If you want to provide people with better education on how to eat properly, I'm all for that, but America is supposed to be the Land of the Free, not Land of the Regulated.

Legalize killing anyone who weighs over 250lbs

>People should have the right to be fat. If you want to provide people with better education on how to eat properly, I'm all for that, but America is supposed to be the Land of the Free, not Land of the Regulated.
Idk I think the government has a duty to step in and protect people if there's significant risk of harm and the free approach isn't working, as with banning lead in children's toys and petrol and whatnot.

So if I want to be fat, should that be illegal?

No I don't support criminalizing wants/thoughts no matter what the kind.

They can go back to lower weights, we know this is possible. But they won't, and this is what we do not understand. Some ideas include permanent metabolic damage due to dieting. And poor lifestyle choices to get there in the first place.

Normal people do not have the strength to stop obesity. It is projected that their will be 1 billion obese people by 2025. The ONLY way to get this to stop is to FORCIBLY stop it. We have tried educating (which doesn't work because nobody wants to learn, and the generalized ideas are bad for human psychology see the dieter's paradox research for more information), we have tried encouraging physical activity, but the people simply lack the will to MAINTAIN long term goals. The only long term solution is government enforced weight management

>People are not doing what I want them to do
>Let's force them to do it! Fuck freedom!

>>People are not doing what I want them to do
>>Let's force them to do it! Fuck freedom!
Does this shameless rhetoric equally apply to all laws? I mean you're literally claiming that all laws are unjust.
To answer your question: yes sometimes freedoms must be abridged for the well functioning of society, as has been the case since we developed enough to record history.

The idea is that you're supposed to let people do what they want, until it harms someone else. Laws should prevent me from harming you, but we don't need laws to prevent me from harming myself. If I want to eat jumbo honey buns all day and grow up to 400 pounds, that should be my right.

>If I want to eat jumbo honey buns all day and grow up to 400 pounds, that should be my right.
Well sure, but we could make it illegal for anyone to sell you a jumbo honey buns or help you make jumbo honey buns, on the grounds that it would constitute doing you harm.
Wanna guess how many people can be assed making jumbo honey buns themselves?

what about that study on mice that seemed to show that the mice were infecting each other with obesity

livescience.com/36130-obesity-infectious-mice-fatty-liver-disease.html

might not be as simple as we think

It's not harming someone to sell them a honeybun; it's harming them to eat it.

Should we mandate what people are allowed to eat? What if we guess wrong and end up forcing people to eat something bad? What if a powerful food company lobbies the government and has their food designated as the officially allowed food? We would all end up eating corn, soy, and canola. Do you prefer to have other people make your decisions for you?

You can eat whatever the fuck you like, as long as you make it yourself. :^)

>What if a powerful food company lobbies the government and has their food designated as the officially allowed food?

>eating corn, soy, and canola

You know. Corn, soy, and canola would be guaranteed healthier than the average Americunt's diet. Even disregarding the nonsensical slippery slope + tacitly accepting the influence of corporate lobbyists in Washington which by itself is fucking scary to see out of a typical American. Are you not frightened by how bad it is right now without inventing these ridiculous fantasies?

PROTIP: If they don't eat it, you don't get paid.

The powerful food companies already lobby the government. Leaving things as they are means letting them continue to get away with it, and that people will grow ever-fatter.

Honestly half the shit people eat now-a-days isn't fit for human consumption and should be legally classified as such.

I'm the guy you replied to. I'm not advocating for government legislation against obesity, I am simply answering OP's question because it is literally the only realistic answer to his question

Okay. Sorry if I misinterpreted you, then.

>Are you not frightened by how bad it is right now without inventing these ridiculous fantasies?
It is bad, certainly. My tax dollars pay for subsidies for foods I don't even buy. I'm essentially paying for something I don't want. And I certainly don't want it to become worse.

I like freedom. I like the ability to do what I want, as long as it does not harm someone else. I also like the ability to pay someone else to do something, like make jumbo honey buns.

Granted, I don't actually eat jumbo honey buns, but I like that I have the ability to do so.

Do you think it is acceptable to force someone to do something, because you believe they will benefit from it? Is freedom unimportant?

Parkinsons is apparently caused by bacteria. I wouldn't be surprised.

>Do you think it is acceptable to force someone to do something, because you believe they will benefit from it? Is freedom unimportant?
Not that guy but; sometimes, yes. And no freedom isn't unimportant. But other things are also important, like not having half the country be obese fucks.

>But other things are also important, like not having half the country be obese fucks.
Why is that more important than freedom?

Underrated post, this is clearly the best solution

Of which freedom do you speak though? Merely saying freedom implies that to give up hamburgers is equivalent to giving up all rights in their entirety, which is quite hyperbolic.

>How do we solve the fat people problem
Well.. Trump could declare a state of emergency and ration the food supply.

The freedom to eat what I want.

Realistically, I don't think the government would be able to implement correct laws to make people healthy. But that's beside the point, because it's unjust. If someone does something that does not harm you, you should not be able to stop them.

Just make it where fats can't get benefits for being fat.
I don't care if someone is fat, let them be as long as people are paying for it.

>The freedom to eat what I want.
I don't see that anywhere in the constitution fatty mcfatfuck.

>But that's beside the point, because it's unjust.
I disagree with your notion of justice.

>If someone does something that does not harm you, you should not be able to stop them.
Seeing fat people offends me, that constitutes harm, therefore we can ban fat people.

yeah lets leave business and trade unregulated, in fact since America is so free let's outright let everyone do whatever the fuck they want huh

>I don't see that anywhere in the constitution fatty mcfatfuck.
I don't see the right to use a computer anywhere in the constitution, either. Generally, things are permitted unless explicitly banned, not vice versa.

>I disagree with your notion of justice.
Clearly. Granted, we can't logically prove what is most "just," but I'm disappointed that you don't seem to value the freedom of your fellow man as much as I do.

>Seeing fat people offends me, that constitutes harm, therefore we can ban fat people.
Hmm. Seeing people who look a certain way offends me, so we will ban those people. Certainly that can't turn out poorly. Right, Hitler?

I thought America was supposed to be about freedom and free trade.

>I don't see the right to use a computer anywhere in the constitution, either. Generally, things are permitted unless explicitly banned, not vice versa.
That's not how it works. How it works is congress can make laws on a whim on anything under federal jurisdiction unless explicitly forbidden by the constitution. And no, there's nowhere in the constitution which forbids congress from regulating food. In fact the FDA is a fairly clear-cut example of this.

>I thought America was supposed to be about freedom and free trade.
When it works. When it doesn't work, when people are being harmed unnecessarily and fruitlessly, we regulate.

Ok I agree with this for the most part, but I suggest we auction off a quota of lard-ass licenses to woman who promise to deliver delicious BBW porn.

>How it works is congress can make laws on a whim on anything under federal jurisdiction unless explicitly forbidden by the constitution.
Sure, that's how it works, but that's not necessarily a good thing, and it does not necessarily agree with the idea of this being Land of the Free.

The federal government also banned marijuana, which appears to be a mistake, considering how much it helps certain people.

>When it works. When it doesn't work, when people are being harmed unnecessarily and fruitlessly, we regulate.
Like how we banned marijuana. Except that led to many people being unable to receive treatment that would benefit them, and also put many people in jail for a victimless crime. I don't like knowing that my tax dollars pay for incarcerated potheads. I also don't want my tax dollars to pay for incarcerated fat people.

I don't think you quite understand what Land of the Free™ means. It doesn't mean free to do as you please. It means /certain/ -very important- freedoms are guaranteed, freedoms not customarily granted to the plebes for most of human history, or even today in the vast majority of the world. It -DOES NOT- mean free to do as you please, however.

>It -DOES NOT- mean free to do as you please, however.
It should, though. Do you want to live in a world where politicians dictate what you do? Sitting in front of a computer, arguing with someone on the internet is unhealthy. Should we ban that, too?

Denmark tried to tax foods with saturated fat, to make people healthier. Except saturated fat is actually healthy, and the world is gradually coming to realize this. But certainly, if the government tries to make large-scale regulations about health, they could not possibly make another mistake, right? The government always gets things right, because they are all-knowing and immune to lobbying.

Politicians are like saints, right? Absolutely trust-worthy?

>Do you want to live in a world where politicians dictate what you do?
Well I'd personally rather we move toward a more direct democracy type setup. Keeps corruption and lobbying in check. Plus if you don't trust people to vote for the right laws how can you trust them to vote for the right representatives?

>Plus if you don't trust people to vote for the right laws how can you trust them to vote for the right representatives?
Solution: less regulation. Let people make their own decisions, and suffer the consequences of those decisions.

Direct democracy is great, but I still think we should be extremely wary of regulating each other. To pass laws good about things requires a good understanding of the issue. The average citizen knows nothing about most issues. I would not want the average citizen deciding what I can eat, because the average citizen will probably believe whatever random health article they just read on BuzzFeed.

>Article title: "Coffee causes cancer!"
>Result: coffee is banned

>Article title: "Coffee cures cancer!"
>Result: coffee drinking is required

Even in a world where my proposal was passed I think your proposal wouldn't stand a chance. It is just too weird.

If BBW porn was really in demand then the porn industry would have to find woman who were able to gain a lot, then film a lot of porn in like 6 months and then be able to lose it all in the next 6 months.

Also, BBW porn? Why? Who hurt you? Why do you like objectively unattractive women?

>Let people make their own decisions, and suffer the consequences of those decisions.

This cannot be your entire philosophy when it comes to policy. Sure, this belief is mostly benign and moral but when it comes to the topic of fat people, it falls down immediately.

In countries that offer low cost government insurance (every first world country) fat people tend to cost the government at least twice as much as skinny people, as they get more and more bullshit body problems.

Those fat people do live with their consecuences, they suffer from their diseases but in the end it is the government that pays for it.

What should we do here? Let the money still lose that money they could save if only we regulated weight?

And then take another "probem", drugs. People who do hard drugs in countries that do not prosecute them tend to get a lot of medical problems that "normal" people do not have. They are just like fat people, they cost the government more. If rehab is paid by their government insurance then that also costs.

What does that mean? Should we let people just keep getting high and then costing the country millions to get their medical help and rehab programs, or should we regulate drugs?

As more deadly luxuries appear more problems like this will arise and these deadly luxuries should be regulated intensely. Look at tobacco, legal everywhere and if you have insurance then the government has to pay for your fucking lung cancer you got for being a retard.

We need to regulate this shit. At the very least make it impossible for drug users and fat people to get any kind of government assistance.

>The average citizen knows nothing about most issues.
Well the utility of informing yourself on issues is very low (basically zero) when you're never able to actually vote on the laws. Politicians don't have a good track record of keeping to their stated intentions during elections and there is no real way of you holding them to account for failing to do so. Ergo it's pointless to even inform yourself on issues really, since you've no say in the outcome.
It seems reasonable that when given an opportunity to influence actual policy people will be more interested in informing themselves.
And it doesn't even have to be passing laws per se, even a simple veto would be quite nice.

I agree that generally we should try to let people make their own choices, and let them deal with the consequences, but obesity is threatening to be a national health crisis situation, much like smoking in the past. Realistically the purveyors of much fast food and processed foods know that their products are likely to be harmful to the people consuming them. These people are going to strain the healthcare system, which everyone is going to end up paying for one way or another.

We should treat this like we did with tobacco and ban advertising, impose a sales tax, no sales to minors, put health warnings on packaging, run ads explaining the dangers of these items, etc.

>At the very least make it impossible for drug users and fat people to get any kind of government assistance.
I think that is the solution. You can harm yourself if you want, but you have to suffer the consequences.

We could have two options, if you want:
>Option one: follow government regulations and get public assistance
>Option two: ignore government regulations and pay for your own problems

Consuming less calories and exercising work in principle but not in practice. The real answer is getting rid of (or reducing) processed bullshit like soft drinks and fast food. Soft drink is literally poison and is not even that good. That's why cocacola etc love the whole "be active" meme; it draws attention away from the poisonous nature of their products and costs them nothing.

>implying causation
Refined sugars in general are (a large part of) the problem. HFCS, while probably one of the worst refined sugars, is still only one of many.

No, you are being retarded. No one forces soda down your throat, fatty. No one forces cakes down your throat.

>The real answer is getting rid of (or reducing) processed bullshit like soft drinks and fast food.

That would be a direct attack on capitalism and on freedom. I say that is a price too high to pay simply to have less fatties. Morality costs way less which implies executions of fat people would be better.

> Soft drink is literally poison and is not even that good.

Sure, then people just don't have to drink them if they don't want. I drink soda almost every week and I am fine. It tastes good with food. When I go to restaurants I almost have no other choice as I do not drink alcohol and the only things restaurants serve are alcohol or soda so I'll take my fucking soda, thank you very much.

ahahahah god damn fucking americans

there really is no hope

...

>That would be a direct attack on capitalism and on freedom
>not letting companies sell addictive poison you your people willy-nilly is an attack on capitalism and freedom
Nigger.

Do you favor banning alcohol and tobacco?

I would definitely ban alcohol if 60% of the country were raging alcoholics

>implying anyone said soft drinks should be banned
They just shouldn't be advertised, legitimised, facilitated and subsidised in so many ways. Neither should cigarettes. Nice strawman, though.

Food is not addictive. Soda is not addictive either.

Fast food restaurants, junk food vendors and soda producers are all playing fair in the game of capitalism.

Fast food fill a niche of literally fast food. If you are on the run you can just go there, ask what you want and magically they already have it cooked and packed so you just take it. Fast food is in natural demand and even in a world without fatties it would profitable. It is a fair business.

Junkfood is too. When you play videogames or watch movies you do not want to a full meal, you just want some popcorn or maybe a pack of chips or the night. It is in natural demand and is fair game, fatties overdosing on food is not the problem of the vendor.

The same with soda, they also fill a niche. It is a cheap drink that typically costs more than water but makes up that cost by tasting good. It also works as one of the few options for non-alcoholic drinks served in restaurants and formal events. It is fair game.

Nobody forces anyone to buy fast food every day, nobody forces anyone to drink soda with every meal. Soda should, in my view, be exclusive for events and when you go out for dinner at a nice restaurant and you do not like alcohol.

I am someone who truly enjoys the cheap pleasures of life like fast food, junk food and soda. Why do you have to take it away from me? I am skinny, I exercise, I don't fucking overdose, but I love those cheap pleasures.

The only people causing the problem of obesity are the obese people. You are fat? Literally EAT LESS. LITERALLY. CALORIES IN, CALORIES OUT. EAT LESS MOTHERFUCKER. Not even exercise is required.
EAT LESS
A
T

L
E
S
S

But they won't, and that is why they should be punished, not the businesses.

The real danger of fast foods isn't just the sugar but the salt content

Salt is very very dangerous especially to fatties who already have obesity induced high blood pressure.

Also I would like to add that the high salt content causes at lot people to drink more fluids and in fast food restaurants its sugary soda

Salt is great. It raises thyroid hormones and lowers catecholamines. The problem is too little potassium, which should be obtained in proper proportion to sodium intake. A higher intake of both is better than a lower intake of both, within reason.

hi trump

>Food is not addictive
Yeah, you're right man. All these fatties eating themselves to an early grave, they're not addicted to this shitty food, they're making a perfectly rational decision and they can stop any time they want.

Do it by programming bacteria to isolate and eliminate the fat biotic germs. Its been proven that there are "fat" and "thin" bacteria that show up in respective stomachs of those people. no reason we can't program a way to devour them and protect against future weight gain. we have the technology. youtu.be/SemLwg6xod4

this is a /pol/ thread with /pol/ opinions and does not belong on Veeky Forums

please, for the love of God, evolution is real, global warming is real, shoving people in concentration camps because you don't like their life choices is wrong, the sky is blue, please get off of Veeky Forums