[Harry Callahan]

(Original post by Flying Cookie)
Why do you keep ignoring my point?

Last time: perceived healthy foods are unhealthy too.

You got any proof? People who eat 'healthier' foods don't end up as sickening messes, though.

[Flying Cookie]

(Original post by Harry Callahan)
You got any proof? People who eat 'healthier' foods don't end up as sickening messes, though.

The proof is blatant. You go in any little store or supermarket and pick up 5 different meals you think people perceive as healthy. Check the labels. Red sat fat, fat or salt, if not red sugars.

Why do you think the traffic light labelling system exists? If most food were generally healthy, there would have been absolutely no need at all for it. It's a compromise to deal with intrinsically unhealthy food. Another example: saturated fat is not needed by the body, and is wholly unhealthy. Pick up 20 random savoury products (IE not sweet) from a shop. Most if not all will have saturated fat.

[Harry Callahan]

(Original post by Flying Cookie)
The proof is blatant. You go in any little store or supermarket and pick up 5 different meals you think people perceive as healthy. Check the labels. Red sat fat, fat or salt, if not red sugars.

Why do you think the traffic light labelling system exists? If most food were generally healthy, there would have been absolutely no need at all for it. It's a compromise to deal with intrinsically unhealthy food. Another example: saturated fat is not needed by the body, and is wholly unhealthy. Pick up 20 random savoury products (IE not sweet) from a shop. Most if not all will have saturated fat.

Of course, ready meals are unhealthy. What's your point? It's a generally known fact that ready meals are full of fat and salt.

Cooking meals from fresh with ingredients that you know are healthy is the basic idea. Is that so hard for people to comprehend?

[Publius]

(Original post by Flying Cookie)
Smoking is repulsive, disgraceful and unhealthy. Do you think smokers on benefits contribute to the healthcare system?!

If smoking was alrite, why the hell is it BANNED in public places?

In your opinion, and you have no right to indoctrinate your individual opinion upon others like you just have. Just because you believe something is so, does not make it so. Smokers on benefits contribute to the healthcare system because they buy cigarettes and therefore pay the absurd tax that is levied on them. The tax revenue received from cigarettes is at least double that expended by the NHS treating 'smoking related illnesses' (such a vague bracket that it basically encompasses anyone that smokes and gets ill).

It is banned because nosy, invasive do-gooders such as yourself feel the need to tell everyone else how to live their lives. This is not your, or the governments responsibility however, and you should both quite frankly mind your own damned business. They would probably be entirely banned by now if the government didn't desperately need the revenue it provides.

You want to live until you're basically an antique, i get it, really - but becoming a decrepit invalid 90-year old is really not a great deal of fun either imo.

[aqquaintance_sport]

It is not acceptable to bully somebody because of their weight. This can be very damaging to a child. Fat people will recieve more abuse then the average person in any circumstance.

Fat people are insulted on a daily basis. I used to be fat (when i was 15) so i know how it feels. imagine how you would feel to be called Ugly all the time.

[Harry Callahan]

(Original post by aqquaintance_sport)
It is not acceptable to bully somebody because of their weight. This can be very damaging to a child. Fat people will recieve more abuse then the average person in any circumstance.

Fat people are insulted on a daily basis. I used to be fat (when i was 15) so i know how it feels. imagine how you would feel to be called Ugly all the time.

They shouldn't eat so much then. It's a self-inflicted state.

[aqquaintance_sport]

(Original post by Harry Callahan)
They shouldn't eat so much then. It's a self-inflicted state.

That's like me saying 'If you don't want to get hit by a car and killed, you shouldn't cross the road'.

'If you don't want to get raped, don't dress in 'that manner'

Would you also shy away from disabled people who were crippled whilst driving? you wouldn't justify abuse to the disabled and blame them for being in a car in the first place?

[Harry Callahan]

(Original post by aqquaintance_sport)
That's like me saying 'If you don't want to get hit by a car and killed, you shouldn't cross the road'.

'If you don't want to get raped, don't dress in 'that manner'

Would you also shy away from disabled people who were crippled whilst driving? you wouldn't justify abuse to the disabled and blame them for being in a car in the first place?

No, it's not. It's nothing of the sort. You make yourself fat, whereas you don't get yourself run over. Same with being raped, you don't rape yourself.

Your argument holds no water, I'm afraid.

[Publius]

lol that had to be one of the worst arguments i've ever heard.

[Flying Cookie]

(Original post by Publius)
In your opinion, and you have no right to indoctrinate your individual opinion upon others like you just have. Just because you believe something is so, does not make it so. Smokers on benefits contribute to the healthcare system because they buy cigarettes and therefore pay the absurd tax that is levied on them. The tax revenue received from cigarettes is at least double that expended by the NHS treating 'smoking related illnesses' (such a vague bracket that it basically encompasses anyone that smokes and gets ill).

It is banned because nosy, invasive do-gooders such as yourself feel the need to tell everyone else how to live their lives. This is not your, or the governments responsibility however, and you should both quite frankly mind your own damned business. They would probably be entirely banned by now if the government didn't desperately need the revenue it provides.

You want to live until you're basically an antique, i get it, really - but becoming a decrepit invalid 90-year old is really not a great deal of fun either imo.

Do you accept that fact that smoke from cigarettes can be unpleasant and unhealthy? Do you accept the fact that public spaces must be suitable for everyone? Do you accept the fact that more people do not smoke than smoke?

If yes, then the public ban is perfectly justified; if no, then you are deluded.

[Kiss]

What a load of crap coming from the left wing crybabies. Political Correctness is already strangling this country to death, we shouldn't need to ban words we use on a daily basis. Fascist hypocrites.

[hungryaardvark]

(Original post by aqquaintance_sport)
It is not acceptable to bully somebody because of their weight. This can be very damaging to a child. Fat people will recieve more abuse then the average person in any circumstance.

Fat people are insulted on a daily basis. I used to be fat (when i was 15) so i know how it feels. imagine how you would feel to be called Ugly all the time.

You say 'used to be fat'. This means that the bullying (unpleasant though I'm sure it was) motivated you to go and do something about it. Saying that you can't legally refer to an obese person as 'obese' suggests somehow that being obese is not only normal, but a sort of ground state of being, like being short or black. We should avoid encouraging this state of mind.

There are a minority who literally have no control over their own weight, but they are just that: a minority. For proof, look at the obesity rates. They've gone up drastically (some estimates say by 3 fold, some by more). If this all came down to genetics, then there should be no increase at all. The percentage increase we've seen (plus a little more) over the last ~100 years or so gives an idea of the proportion of people who are avoidably obese.

Seriously. I spoke to someone a while back who claimed that there was no scientifically established link between eating excessively/having a sedentary lifestyle and body fat percentage. Depressing.

Whilst I'm here...

(Original post by Publius)
It is banned because nosy, invasive do-gooders such as yourself feel the need to tell everyone else how to live their lives. This is not your, or the governments responsibility however, and you should both quite frankly mind your own damned business. They would probably be entirely banned by now if the government didn't desperately need the revenue it provides.

You want to live until you're basically an antique, i get it, really - but becoming a decrepit invalid 90-year old is really not a great deal of fun either imo.

But the main concern isn't with people smoking in their own homes (go ahead with that). It's that people who don't want to smoke have little option in the matter, because if someone is smoking in an enclosed space (such as a restaurant or a pub or similar) the smoke spreads all over the place. It's impossible to avoid without standing outside. I've heard people claiming that second-hand smoke doesn't have any health effects (which sounds a little dubious to me, and is NOT the scientifically established viewpoint) but even if there were no negative consequences from second hand smoke, it's bloody unpleasant for a non-smoker. Kill yourself at whatever rate you choose, but please, don't drag the rest of us into an early grave with you.

[Publius]

(Original post by Flying Cookie)
Do you accept that fact that smoke from cigarettes can be unpleasant and unhealthy? Do you accept the fact that public spaces must be suitable for everyone? Do you accept the fact that more people do not smoke than smoke?

If yes, then the public ban is perfectly justified; if no, then you are deluded.

Except the ban doesn't just encompass enclosed public spaces does it? It effectively bans smoking indoors anywhere out of the home, it stops business owners being able to choose whether they desire a smoking or no-smoking enterprise. No one is forced to inhale smoke: if the health risks of second-hand smoke were well known (which they now obviously are), then there would be an abundance of places available to both smokers and non-smokers. By entering a smoking establishment, you are taking the very minor risk upon yourself just as you do every time you get in a car or ride bike (far more dangerous activities btw).

And please don't bring up anything about workers, that fallacy has been long disproven: it is a workers choice where he wants to work, and if a worker opted to work in a smoking establishment, they would be compensated for the increased risk through premium wages (Just as those who work night shifts take on the medical risks of that).

You call me deluded when you seem to be hopelessly oblivious to even what your own position is. I know your argument better than you do and you have the cheek to call me deluded, how embarrassing.

It just so happens that the market mechanism is far more effective at dealing with this problem than government is.

(Original post by hungryaardvark)
But the main concern isn't with people smoking in their own homes (go ahead with that). It's that people who don't want to smoke have little option in the matter, because if someone is smoking in an enclosed space (such as a restaurant or a pub or similar) the smoke spreads all over the place. It's impossible to avoid without standing outside. I've heard people claiming that second-hand smoke doesn't have any health effects (which sounds a little dubious to me, and is NOT the scientifically established viewpoint) but even if there were no negative consequences from second hand smoke, it's bloody unpleasant for a non-smoker. Kill yourself at whatever rate you choose, but please, don't drag the rest of us into an early grave with you.

Read above.

You are not 'dragged' into anything

[hungryaardvark]

(Original post by Publius)
Except the ban doesn't just encompass enclosed public spaces does it? It effectively bans smoking indoors anywhere out of the home, it stops business owners being able to choose whether they desire a smoking or no-smoking enterprise. No one is forced to inhale smoke: if the health risks of second-hand smoke were well known (which they now obviously are), then there would be an abundance of places available to both smokers and non-smokers. By entering a smoking establishment, you are taking the very minor risk upon yourself just as you do every time you get in a car or ride bike (far more dangerous activities btw).

And please don't bring up anything about workers, that fallacy has been long disproven: it is a workers choice where he wants to work, and if a worker opted to work in a smoking establishment, they would be compensated for the increased risk through premium wages (Just as those who work night shifts take on the medical risks of that).

You call me deluded when you seem to be hopelessly oblivious to even what your own position is. I know your argument better than you do and you have the cheek to call me deluded, how embarrassing.

It just so happens that the market mechanism is far more effective at dealing with this problem than government is.

Read above.

You are not 'dragged' into anything

Touché. My response (and I will readily admit that this isn't based on logic so much as a gut feeling) would be that, cigarette smoke being as dangerous as it is, it's going to be better for public health in the long run to get rid of indoor, public-space spaces entirely (incidentally, by that I mean an enclosed space where members of the public will likely be found, including privately-owned businesses).

Again, gut feeling. I suppose it'd be less of a problem if we had entirely privatised healthcare (since, even given that smokers actually contribute to public spending overall, they still take up hospital beds), but we don't.

[Kiss]

Here's an appropriate response to these new plans:

[ish90an]

Finally something Eric Pickles and Ed Balls can unite on!

[Flying Cookie]

(Original post by Publius)
Except the ban doesn't just encompass enclosed public spaces does it? It effectively bans smoking indoors anywhere out of the home, it stops business owners being able to choose whether they desire a smoking or no-smoking enterprise. No one is forced to inhale smoke: if the health risks of second-hand smoke were well known (which they now obviously are), then there would be an abundance of places available to both smokers and non-smokers. By entering a smoking establishment, you are taking the very minor risk upon yourself just as you do every time you get in a car or ride bike (far more dangerous activities btw).

And please don't bring up anything about workers, that fallacy has been long disproven: it is a workers choice where he wants to work, and if a worker opted to work in a smoking establishment, they would be compensated for the increased risk through premium wages (Just as those who work night shifts take on the medical risks of that).

You call me deluded when you seem to be hopelessly oblivious to even what your own position is. I know your argument better than you do and you have the cheek to call me deluded, how embarrassing.

It just so happens that the market mechanism is far more effective at dealing with this problem than government is.

Read above.

You are not 'dragged' into anything

First of all you raise the issue of business owners having the right to have a smoking business. The only type of business I can imagine which would cater for smokers-only are those centred around the act of consuming, well, cigarettes. A card shop, clothes shop, estate agents, restaurant, etc. could not possibly benefit from allowing smokers in, because the topic of their business is aimed at the whole public - that same public who mostly does not smoke, or tolerate smoke (2).

Smokers-only and smoker-tolerating people could, of course, have their own restaurants and bars. I don't think that should be illegal any more than weed shops should be. Yet the fact is that in the light of point (2), and especially in the light of discovery relating to the harmful effects of cigarette smoke, this option for business owners has been banned.

Secondly, you compare the risks of driving a car to smoking. I think they are not comparable for two reasons. Car accidents are instant and unpredictable, while disease linked with smoking is cumulative and predictable. Driving all your life will either kill you instantly at a random given point, or (as it is the most likely case) be completely harmless to you. Smoking, on the other hand, all your life will cause an accumulation of carcinogens and other substances which will most likely lead to one or more diseases. These disease could either kill you or decrease the quality of your life. Every single cigarette smoked contributes to the pool of cumulative damage in the body. The same cannot be said about driving or being in a driven car.

Thirdly, I completely agree that people should be held accountable for the jobs they choose to have. After all, no one is forcing them to choose their life's work. Some people work as miners and as a result inhale toxic substances which can lead to disease. There is no way of preventing this easily. Some soldiers die in battle. There is no way of preventing this. Some builders get injuries, and there is no way of preventing this.

Tell me exactly what job involves inhaling cigarette smoke which is not preventable?

On the same point, I agree that in certain circumstances it is acceptable to employ people in high risk positions and compensate by paying extra. However, this is not always a good strategy, as exemplified by poor people selling a kidney or other organs. These people do not decide to accept the risks, but rather are persuaded by the rewards. Equally, the employees are likely to just put up with the smoke for the pay, rather than honestly take on board the risks. Giving your life for your country, digging up metals for the industry are worthwhile activities with great communal benefits; but passively harming your health just so someone else can enjoy harming theirs due to addiction? I cannot possibly see that as worthwhile, no matter the reward.

A nurse saving lives in A&E and a barmaid pleasing smokers are two, very, different, things. It is an absolutely disgraceful and ineffective comparison.

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by Publius)
It is banned because nosy, invasive do-gooders such as yourself feel the need to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

Actually, it was banned because people like me don't want one selfish person blowing smoke all over the room. If you want to smoke where I don't have to inhale it, that's perfectly fine by me.

Like the way our college has a smoking area; I don't go near the smoking area, because that is their area to smoke, and I can't complain about it. I would complain if they started smoking in a corridor, classroom etc. It's just being courteous.

You want to live until you're basically an antique, i get it, really - but becoming a decrepit invalid 90-year old is really not a great deal of fun either imo.

Again, I don't care if you're running the risk of lung cancer/health problems, but I don't want to thanks very much.


As for the whole calling people fat thing, I think hate crime is a bit extreme. Nobody deserves to get bullied but it does seem to be a step towards just accepting obesity rather than openly combating it.

[Eva_UK]

I just dont get how people can get to being obese!!!!! Personally I think eveyone who gets to a certain bmi/weight should be forced to lose weight


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by Eva_UK)
I just dont get how people can get to being obese!!!!! Personally I think eveyone who gets to a certain bmi/weight should be forced to lose weight


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

You can't really force people to be lose weight. I guess you could argue a case for not treating obese people with NHS money, but then you have the debate of should we care for smokers, alcoholics, ridiculously drunk people on Friday nights etc. So it's a tough one to call.