BF2S Forums DAST Chat

the fuck is a telescreen?

i also think it's pretty funny you regard exercise and, oh i don't know, keeping fit, as "fads". or some sort of extremist thought that is being put upon everyone else. it's common fucking sense, jay. unhealthy people cost society money, and they cost human resources of other sorts, too. it's not to do with aesthetic disgust, at all. the mayor isn't part of the high-fashion/image-police brigade who wants everyone to look anorexic. it's about stopping little kids with irresponsible parents from guzzling down as much coke as their little minds want, and developing diabetes before age 14. you are drawing on a completely extreme and non-existent form of rebuttal. nobody wants to enforce perfect thin-ness. this isn't really even about 'banning' people getting fat. it's just legislating unnecessary excess of the worst kind. why does america need supersize portions, anyway? nobody else needs this disgusting symbol of over-consumption and body-hatred.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

the fuck is a telescreen?

i also think it's pretty funny you regard exercise and, oh i don't know, keeping fit, as "fads". or some sort of extremist thought that is being put upon everyone else. it's common fucking sense, jay. unhealthy people cost society money, and they cost human resources of other sorts, too. it's not to do with aesthetic disgust, at all. the mayor isn't part of the high-fashion/image-police brigade who wants everyone to look anorexic. it's about stopping little kids with irresponsible parents from guzzling down as much coke as their little minds want, and developing diabetes before age 14. you are drawing on a completely extreme and non-existent form of rebuttal. nobody wants to enforce perfect thin-ness. this isn't really even about 'banning' people getting fat. it's just legislating unnecessary excess of the worst kind. why does america need supersize portions, anyway? nobody else needs this disgusting symbol of over-consumption and body-hatred.

Again, 'healthy people' end up costing society far more money over the long run than 'unhealthy people' do. Unhealthy people die earlier. They don't have massive cancer treatments or require dozens of pills per day to sustain their lives or assistive living or paliatative care. That's why the whole argument falls apart.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

jay, poor eating habits are linked to many forms of cancer. you are in serious conjecture-bullshit mode right now. at best, what you are saying is "let fat people kill themselves". you'd rather have a society and culture that promotes and puts unhealthy food in people's faces, so that they can more efficiently kill themselves and take themselves off the national balance books. all because you think being able to drink 3 litres of coke in one sitting is an inviolable 'human right'. ok.

it's funny that you complain about "fat disgust" and the unfair "bullying" of fat people, but then you're happy to consign them the option of simply killing themselves in peace. what a gallant knight of the food court you are.

Eating is a person's choice, its no different from ODing on drugs or smoking cigarettes.

Roc18 wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

jay, poor eating habits are linked to many forms of cancer. you are in serious conjecture-bullshit mode right now. at best, what you are saying is "let fat people kill themselves". you'd rather have a society and culture that promotes and puts unhealthy food in people's faces, so that they can more efficiently kill themselves and take themselves off the national balance books. all because you think being able to drink 3 litres of coke in one sitting is an inviolable 'human right'. ok.

it's funny that you complain about "fat disgust" and the unfair "bullying" of fat people, but then you're happy to consign them the option of simply killing themselves in peace. what a gallant knight of the food court you are.

Eating is a person's choice, its no different from ODing on drugs or smoking cigarettes.

aren't there laws about drugs and smoking cigarettes?

Jay wrote:

It's their life and their choice.

but again, we're back full circle to the original ambit: human individuals form collectives called societies, and they both have a reciprocal best-interest and stake in one another. society needs fit and healthy individuals; the individual demands basic rights and freedoms in return for the benefits of labour/culture that his inclusion brings. thus certain basic laws and legislation that inevitably infringe on this 'absolute freedom' are necessitated. for someone who so often talks about naive/idealistic college students, or dogmatic 'lol professor's tell you what to think' impressionables, you sure do subscribe to whimsical utopianism of the most identikit-textbook form. strange, that.

Roc18 wrote:

-Whiteroom- wrote:

Roc18 wrote:

Eating is a person's choice, its no different from ODing on drugs or smoking cigarettes.

aren't there laws about drugs and smoking cigarettes?

My point is extending it to eating is fucking ridiculous.

why is it? a person with an addiction to drugs is different from a person addicted to food how, exactly? and many obese people ARE addicted to food, in every psychological (and even physiological) sense. there is no difference between a smackhead and a fat person that craves 12 packs of dorito chips a day. no. difference. in their illness or their mental problem. the object of desire and the 'substance' they need is different, but that's the only thing. if we legislate to protect against drug addicts and such potential problems, why not legislate the extreme fringes of junk-food/over-eating? again, nobody needs these supersize portions. they are cynical and useless in the extreme.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

It's their life and their choice.

but again, we're back full circle to the original ambit: human individuals form collectives called societies, and they both have a reciprocal best-interest and stake in one another. society needs fit and healthy individuals; the individual demands basic rights and freedoms in return for the benefits of labour/culture that his inclusion brings. thus certain basic laws and legislation that inevitably infringe on this 'absolute freedom' are necessitated. for someone who so often talks about naive/idealistic college students, or dogmatic 'lol professor's tell you what to think' impressionables, you sure do subscribe to whimsical utopianism of the most identikit-textbook form. strange, that.

No. Being a member of a society does not mean you get to legislate how other people live their lives unless they are putting other people at risk. I've never heard of someone knocking over a 7-11 for donut money.

This is America. We do things different. Individual first, then society.

So many people are on disability because they are too fat to work.

Jay wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Refined sugar is a synthetic drug, just like cocaine and distilled alcohol.


If this highly addictive and destructive substance wasn't allowed in food, there wouldn't be an obesity epidemic.

Uzi, this is the type of person that supports your arguments here in America.

no, there are many others, of different persuasions and types. and frankly they are far removed from the blatant retardation you have on display here.

Jay wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

It's their life and their choice.

but again, we're back full circle to the original ambit: human individuals form collectives called societies, and they both have a reciprocal best-interest and stake in one another. society needs fit and healthy individuals; the individual demands basic rights and freedoms in return for the benefits of labour/culture that his inclusion brings. thus certain basic laws and legislation that inevitably infringe on this 'absolute freedom' are necessitated. for someone who so often talks about naive/idealistic college students, or dogmatic 'lol professor's tell you what to think' impressionables, you sure do subscribe to whimsical utopianism of the most identikit-textbook form. strange, that.

No. Being a member of a society does not mean you get to legislate how other people live their lives unless they are putting other people at risk. I've never heard of someone knocking over a 7-11 for donut money.

This is America. We do things different. Individual first, then society.

there are loads of laws and measures in american society that infringe on the individual's freedom away from 'harming others'. how about gay marriage? society imposes its standards and morality on people in many ways. who else does abortion harm? yet you get crazy over that debate, too.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-11 19:23:44)

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

but again, we're back full circle to the original ambit: human individuals form collectives called societies, and they both have a reciprocal best-interest and stake in one another. society needs fit and healthy individuals; the individual demands basic rights and freedoms in return for the benefits of labour/culture that his inclusion brings. thus certain basic laws and legislation that inevitably infringe on this 'absolute freedom' are necessitated. for someone who so often talks about naive/idealistic college students, or dogmatic 'lol professor's tell you what to think' impressionables, you sure do subscribe to whimsical utopianism of the most identikit-textbook form. strange, that.

No. Being a member of a society does not mean you get to legislate how other people live their lives unless they are putting other people at risk. I've never heard of someone knocking over a 7-11 for donut money.

This is America. We do things different. Individual first, then society.

there are loads of laws and measures in american society that infringe on the individual's freedom away from 'harming others'. how about gay marriage?

I'm absolutely in favor of gay marriage.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Roc18 wrote:

-Whiteroom- wrote:

aren't there laws about drugs and smoking cigarettes?

My point is extending it to eating is fucking ridiculous.

why is it? a person with an addiction to drugs is different from a person addicted to food how, exactly? and many obese people ARE addicted to food, in every psychological (and even physiological) sense. there is no difference between a smackhead and a fat person that craves 12 packs of dorito chips a day. no. difference. in their illness or their mental problem. the object of desire and the 'substance' they need is different, but that's the only thing. if we legislate to protect against drug addicts and such potential problems, why not legislate the extreme fringes of junk-food/over-eating? again, nobody needs these supersize portions. they are cynical and useless in the extreme.

If people have eating disorders then the solution to me isn't to fuck up life for everyone else who doesn't have eating disorders. I personally want to eat whatever the fuck I want when I want. Someone eating unhealthily and someone with an eating disorder are different things. I eat unhealthily when I want and i'm slim but I am a healthy person overall and don't have an eating disorder.

Roc, this is price that is payed for practicing fascism-lite and calling it republican democracy.


Roc, people are brainwashed into believing that they are not in fact highly addicted to a drug which is worse for the body than heroine.

Last edited by Superior Mind (2013-03-11 19:26:55)