SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Hacker wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

I am still in favor of a fat tax. Allow people to eat whatever the fuck they want, but issue a tax for obesity.

Here is how I see it working....

I'm not sure if I agree with this. On one hand it's a drastic reform that would severely help our country.
But on the other it infringes on a persons right to life... Even if they are hanging onto it by a thread

How exactly does it infringe on someone's right to live? If they choose to be a fat fuck, they become one, they simply pay for it instead of me paying for it.

We should start taxing Mosques too. If you choose to be Muslim you can be, you simply pay for it. (You shouldn't be paying for either of these situations, which is the issue. If people were thrown to the wolves as they should be, you probably wouldn't give a shit at all)

I'm not sure the point you are making, but I do think that religions should not be tax exempt.

Posted: Aug 17 2010 02:54 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

If people were thrown to the wolves as they should be, you probably wouldn't give a shit at all

Did you just endorse "RELEASE THE HOUNDS!" as a viable political strategy?

If not, I'm stealing it. There's no problem that can't be solved by releasing the hounds.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Syd Lexia wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

If people were thrown to the wolves as they should be, you probably wouldn't give a shit at all

Did you just endorse "RELEASE THE HOUNDS!" as a viable political strategy?

If not, I'm stealing it. There's no problem that can't be solved by releasing the hounds.

Posted: Aug 17 2010 03:03 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

If people were thrown to the wolves as they should be, you probably wouldn't give a shit at all

Did you just endorse "RELEASE THE HOUNDS!" as a viable political strategy?

If not, I'm stealing it. There's no problem that can't be solved by releasing the hounds.

Mr. Burns releases the hounds on every charity that comes to his door: Feed the Children, Save the Whales, even Release the Hounds!

And yes, that would be a viable political strategy.

Joined: Nov 03 2006 Posts: 763

Another way for people to learn as oppose to letting them die is teaching them, or some sort of punishment.

Secondly, even if the link is correct, I still think it's the parent's responsibility, and if we keeping holding parents hands then we're going to hurt our society as a whole.

Posted: Aug 17 2010 03:11 pm

There's nothing to teach. I'm pretty sure even honest to God retards know that fast food is unhealthy. They made their choose, they can die with it.

Banned Joined: Sep 13 2008 Posts: 3129

JonSnow wrote:

Another way for people to learn as oppose to letting them die is teaching them, or some sort of punishment.

Secondly, even if the link is correct, I still think it's the parent's responsibility, and if we keeping holding parents hands then we're going to hurt our society as a whole.

Good job dumbass, you've repeated everything that's been discussed in this topic in two lines

Joined: Nov 03 2006 Posts: 763

I think that's an accomplishment. Maybe they should just let me explain everything. Just 2 lines, huh.

Posted: Aug 17 2010 03:17 pm

I've had my monthly fill of serious discussion.

The obesity rate seems to have sky-rocketed right around the time I was born... its possible that I'm the cause.

Posted: Aug 17 2010 03:22 pm

Rogue Hippo wrote:

I've had my monthly fill of serious discussion.

The obesity rate seems to have sky-rocketed right around the time I was born... its possible that I'm the cause.

Fuck, Hippo, quit making fatties. To be honest, I think that there's always going to be fat people around as long as there's low cost alternatives to eating a balanced meal and plenty of justifications to avoid actually losing weight. I don't think obesity is an illness or a disability, it's just people not taking care of themselves. As for fat kids and Happy Meals, it's the parents' fault, and since I'm not breeding, I'm not going to fucking handle it. If you'd run the bastards around once in a while and stop fucking pandering to them all the time, shit'd be okay. That was my initial point, and I'm sticking with it.

Posted: Aug 17 2010 03:28 pm

Sounds like what I'm about to say has already been discussed, but I don't think banning Happy Meals will noticeably lessen childhood obesity.

I believe that in most situations, if you really want something done, then the individual or group has a better success rate if they do it themselves instead of waiting for some higher-up organization or the government to do it for them. This is not to say that I am at all anti-government, but for smaller situations such as here where one wants to lose weight or eat healthier, I feel that they've got to get up and do it themselves instead of waiting for Uncle Sam to do it for them.

I'll say that this whole attempt has good values - I'm certainly not advocating our nation's children into eating themselves to death - but I'm sadly pessimistic that anything will change. As others have mentioned, a parent could just as well drive fifty feet down the road and stop by Burger King - which, ironically, I am eating as I type this, but I'm a ridonkulously skinny bastard so ha-ha fuckers!

GPFontaine wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

If people were thrown to the wolves as they should be, you probably wouldn't give a shit at all

Did you just endorse "RELEASE THE HOUNDS!" as a viable political strategy?

If not, I'm stealing it. There's no problem that can't be solved by releasing the hounds.

Very good, folks. Syd, I expect to see such ideals in your advertising campaign when you run for president in 2010.

Posted: Aug 17 2010 03:33 pm

aeonic wrote:

Rogue Hippo wrote:

I've had my monthly fill of serious discussion.

The obesity rate seems to have sky-rocketed right around the time I was born... its possible that I'm the cause.

Fuck, Hippo, quit making fatties. To be honest, I think that there's always going to be fat people around as long as there's low cost alternatives to eating a balanced meal and plenty of justifications to avoid actually losing weight. I don't think obesity is an illness or a disability, it's just people not taking care of themselves. As for fat kids and Happy Meals, it's the parents' fault, and since I'm not breeding, I'm not going to fucking handle it. If you'd run the bastards around once in a while and stop fucking pandering to them all the time, shit'd be okay. That was my initial point, and I'm sticking with it.

To answer what you said earlier, my parents didn't make us do stuff, we just did. I played 3 sports and Syd played 2 when we were younger. But yes, it is the parents' fault. Not all parents and kids should be punished though. If I had a kid I would wanna be able to pay 3 bucks to get them a meal AND a toy once in a while.

#edit: Actually, I would wanna get them a happy meal every week like I had. Why? Cause kids crave consistency and repetition, ala Blues Clues. Once the Friday Night Ritual was established, it 1. Gave us something to look forward to to start the weekend every week, and 2. Kept us from ever asking if we could have McDonalds, cause we knew the answer was "Go fuck yourself, you just had it Friday and are having it again this Friday".

Posted: Aug 17 2010 03:38 pm

The truth of the matter is anytime there is a hot button issue everyone wants a scapegoat, and McDonalds is ubiquitous in American Culture. Combining that with the PLEASE WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN mentality that pervades the alarmist mentality and you come to the quintessential American child's interaction with McDonalds, and inevitable target, The Happy Meal. This can be applied to anything.

Posted: Aug 17 2010 03:41 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

aeonic wrote:

Rogue Hippo wrote:

I've had my monthly fill of serious discussion.

The obesity rate seems to have sky-rocketed right around the time I was born... its possible that I'm the cause.

Fuck, Hippo, quit making fatties. To be honest, I think that there's always going to be fat people around as long as there's low cost alternatives to eating a balanced meal and plenty of justifications to avoid actually losing weight. I don't think obesity is an illness or a disability, it's just people not taking care of themselves. As for fat kids and Happy Meals, it's the parents' fault, and since I'm not breeding, I'm not going to fucking handle it. If you'd run the bastards around once in a while and stop fucking pandering to them all the time, shit'd be okay. That was my initial point, and I'm sticking with it.

To answer what you said earlier, my parents didn't make us do stuff, we just did. I played 3 sports and Syd played 2 when we were younger. But yes, it is the parents' fault. Not all parents and kids should be punished though. If I had a kid I would wanna be able to pay 3 bucks to get them a meal AND a toy once in a while.

Exactly, it's a nice little treat for them, and it gets them out of your hair for a bit if they're being fucking crazy. I don't think it should be an every day thing, but I don't know who does either. It seems more like a punishment for parents than anything else, especially the ones who have active children. I was in Boy Scouts running around all the time, and then picked up Little League and martial arts when I was a little older. I probably could have had a Happy Meal every other day and not gained any weight. Even now at damn near 29, I'm 5'9" and about 165 to 170. I didn't go a pound over 140 until I was 24. It's all about activity, at least in my eyes, even if a child has a genetic predisposition to being fat.

Joined: Oct 19 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1479

GPFontaine wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Hacker wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

I am still in favor of a fat tax. Allow people to eat whatever the fuck they want, but issue a tax for obesity.

Here is how I see it working....

I'm not sure if I agree with this. On one hand it's a drastic reform that would severely help our country.
But on the other it infringes on a persons right to life... Even if they are hanging onto it by a thread

How exactly does it infringe on someone's right to live? If they choose to be a fat fuck, they become one, they simply pay for it instead of me paying for it.

We should start taxing Mosques too. If you choose to be Muslim you can be, you simply pay for it. (You shouldn't be paying for either of these situations, which is the issue. If people were thrown to the wolves as they should be, you probably wouldn't give a shit at all)

I'm not sure the point you are making, but I do think that religions should not be tax exempt.

Once you start taxing religions, you have start figuring how to tax different religious institutes, because surely you're going to have to tax a nondenominational mega-church differently than you are the small congregation of a small Native American religion. Once you start making these decisions, you start bureaucratically creating separate fiscal relationships between the government and the various institutions of religion. Now what's happened to your separation of church and state?

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

I just want to be able to eat what I want. I'm smart enough to take responsibility for it.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

LeshLush wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Hacker wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

I am still in favor of a fat tax. Allow people to eat whatever the fuck they want, but issue a tax for obesity.

Here is how I see it working....

I'm not sure if I agree with this. On one hand it's a drastic reform that would severely help our country.
But on the other it infringes on a persons right to life... Even if they are hanging onto it by a thread

How exactly does it infringe on someone's right to live? If they choose to be a fat fuck, they become one, they simply pay for it instead of me paying for it.

We should start taxing Mosques too. If you choose to be Muslim you can be, you simply pay for it. (You shouldn't be paying for either of these situations, which is the issue. If people were thrown to the wolves as they should be, you probably wouldn't give a shit at all)

I'm not sure the point you are making, but I do think that religions should not be tax exempt.

Once you start taxing religions, you have start figuring how to tax different religious institutes, because surely you're going to have to tax a nondenominational mega-church differently than you are the small congregation of a small Native American religion. Once you start making these decisions, you start bureaucratically creating separate fiscal relationships between the government and the various institutions of religion. Now what's happened to your separation of church and state?

Easy, tax them the same way you tax a corporation. Tax universities too.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Hacker wrote:

...This is bullshit

"Mom I want a happy meal" "No" "BUT I WANT IT" "okay I'll get you one to shut you up"
People need to learn how to be parents again. Telling your damn kid "No" and then taking them to a place other than McDonald's shouldn't be a problem.

It really bugs me that we live in such an egotistical generation that causes people to blame something that fueled their actions rather than their lack of self control.

If your kid is a fat fuck because you take him to McDonald's to avoid cooking, or because it's convenient then it's your own damn fault.

On the issue of California having new nutritional standards for meals that come with toys, I say responsibility lies with the parents and not the corporation

I am not saying this isn't true but the government are clearly taking the next best course of action.

If parents won't take care of their kids health then they take away the incentive for buying the food.

I know as a kid i always wanted happy meals so i could get the toy despite it usually being a plastic piece of crap which was thrown in the bin after 2 months.

Joined: Oct 19 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1479

GPFontaine wrote:

LeshLush wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Hacker wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

I am still in favor of a fat tax. Allow people to eat whatever the fuck they want, but issue a tax for obesity.

Here is how I see it working....

I'm not sure if I agree with this. On one hand it's a drastic reform that would severely help our country.
But on the other it infringes on a persons right to life... Even if they are hanging onto it by a thread

How exactly does it infringe on someone's right to live? If they choose to be a fat fuck, they become one, they simply pay for it instead of me paying for it.

We should start taxing Mosques too. If you choose to be Muslim you can be, you simply pay for it. (You shouldn't be paying for either of these situations, which is the issue. If people were thrown to the wolves as they should be, you probably wouldn't give a shit at all)

I'm not sure the point you are making, but I do think that religions should not be tax exempt.

Once you start taxing religions, you have start figuring how to tax different religious institutes, because surely you're going to have to tax a nondenominational mega-church differently than you are the small congregation of a small Native American religion. Once you start making these decisions, you start bureaucratically creating separate fiscal relationships between the government and the various institutions of religion. Now what's happened to your separation of church and state?

Easy, tax them the same way you tax a corporation. Tax universities too.

The problem with that is that a corporation is a legally defined entity. To be a corporation, you have to feel paperwork with the government and meet certain requirements that are defined by the law. This levels the playing field between different types of corporations and allows the types of taxation you are referring to. Religions don't work that way. If we wanted to tax religions the same way we taxed corporations, we would have to come up with more rigorous definitions of what it means to be a religion. This would involve the government deciding what constitutes a taxable religion and what does not. Once again, no separation of Church and State.

Posted: Aug 18 2010 12:35 pm

You keep saying separation of church and state, but since that's not actually in the constitution anywhere there'd be nothing to stop them from doing that.

Alowishus wrote:

I am not saying this isn't true but the government are clearly taking the next best course of action.

If parents won't take care of their kids health then they take away the incentive for buying the food.

Wrong. If parents won't take care of their kids, then the next best course of action is to take away their kids.

Joined: Oct 19 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1479

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

You keep saying separation of church and state, but since that's not actually in the constitution anywhere there'd be nothing to stop them from doing that.

I beg to differ:

First Amendment wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

Posted: Aug 18 2010 12:49 pm

How does taxing religions establish one or prohibit the exercise of one? Considering the fact that religions are tax exempt, that means they're already defined as religions. That quote is completely unrelated.

Posted: Aug 18 2010 01:00 pm

What the First Amendment says is that the government will not establish an official, compulsory national religion, nor will it do anything to prevent the free practice of religion.

The Amendment is a direct response to the British government of the time, where you either practiced the office state religion, which was the Church of England, or you were persecuted.

For the Founding Fathers, the First Amendment was about allowing people to practice Lutheranism vs. Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism vs. Judaism. But belief in God and belief in morality were unquestionably part of the America they wanted.

As for the question of whether the Constitution allows for the taxation of religion, absolutely not. In no uncertain terms, it says:

Quote:

prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Taxation is a form of tyranny. End of story.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

You keep saying separation of church and state, but since that's not actually in the constitution anywhere there'd be nothing to stop them from doing that.

Alowishus wrote:

I am not saying this isn't true but the government are clearly taking the next best course of action.

If parents won't take care of their kids health then they take away the incentive for buying the food.

Wrong. If parents won't take care of their kids, then the next best course of action is to take away their kids.

I disagree. I can't see children getting taken away because their parents buy them happy meals. It's not like the children aren't getting fed or are getting mistreated. It's simply poor judgement regarding their health. Also i rarely hear of children only getting fed Happy Meals.

Just because a parent gives their child happy meals doesn't mean they are getting seriously mistreated in other respects.

A child getting taken away from their parents just for that is a bit harsh and honestly just ridiculous.

Posted: Aug 18 2010 01:07 pm

Is there really a scenario where a child is getting a Happy Meal for dinner or lunch more than once or twice a week?