[emilie18]

This is absolutely ridiculous.

There's a reason why people get teased for being overweight - it is the result of undesirable traits like greediness, laziness, etc. Only a tiny proportion of fat people are fat due to medical reasons, and yet we as a country spend millions on obesity-related illnesses that could be saved if people exercised a bit more, ate a little less.

It is pure laziness in the vast majority of cases.

It's equally hurtful to be called an "anorexic bitch" if you happen to be a little bit skinnier than average, and yet I highly doubt that they will make this into a hate crime!

[Ps3SuperSRG]

I read some article that said the whole idea behind the recently proposed tax on pastry was in fact to stop some people from eating all the pies.


This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

[Oktem_Returns]

(Original post by Ps3SuperSRG)
I read some article that said the whole idea behind the recently proposed tax on pastry was in fact to stop some people from eating all the pies.


This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

A rather reckless measure which would negatively affect all non-fat people who want to buy one. They should instead simply ban the obese from pie shops.

[Ps3SuperSRG]

(Original post by Oktem_Returns)
A rather reckless measure which would negatively affect all non-fat people who want to buy one. They should instead simply ban the obese from pie shops.

Gd idea,it'll probably help them lose weight too.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

[Publius]

(Original post by Flying Cookie)
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.

I'm trying to distinguish some sort of coherent point amongst the mangled ramblings that constitutes your post. Your first appears to be trying to say that restaurants, pubs, bars etc. cannot cater their business solely to smokers? That is utter fatuity and has absolutely nothing to do with what i was saying; you speak as someone that is making up and amending their argument on the fly, and it shows (that cumulative effect thing shows that you have very little biological understanding, and should therefore stop preaching nonsense as if it were gospel). For instance disease linked with smoking is not at all predictable, there is nothing predictable about cancer as it is by definition random mutations, you only increase your chances of a mutation through smoking and could smoke until you were 80 and die of something unrelated to it (as you could also smoke for 10 years of your life and die at 50 in a smoking related heart attack). Stop perpetuating fallacies.

What does a nurse and A&E have to do with anything? Doing any job is preventable if you choose not to do it (seriously, what a stupid point).

In fact, i really cannot be bothered to dissect your post further (and trust me, i could find a dozen holes in that catastrophe), as it shows that you are quite clearly incapable of understanding anything that i have written, and that anything i could offer to persuade you would only fall on deaf ears, as you have already made up your mind about something you are in fact thoroughly ignorant of.

In summation: i suggest you read, and re-read more earlier post at least 10 times because you have failed to grasp anything, and i do not have the time or patience to argue with an uneducated moron.

(Original post by Converse Rocker)
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.

Right, so you basically agree with me then? That smokers should be allowed to congregate inside, as long as it is in a smoking establishment. No one is suggesting forcing people to inhale unwanted cigarette smoke. However you could quite easily have a state of conditions where someone who did not wish to be exposed to any indoor cigarette smoke could quite easily never be exposed to it if they so desired; this could be easily achieved without the addition of an arbitrary ban on smoking in all places that are accesible to the general public.

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by Publius)
Right, so you basically agree with me then? That smokers should be allowed to congregate inside, as long as it is in a smoking establishment. No one is suggesting forcing people to inhale unwanted cigarette smoke. However you could quite easily have a state of conditions where someone who did not wish to be exposed to any indoor cigarette smoke could quite easily never be exposed to it if they so desired; this could be easily achieved without the addition of an arbitrary ban on smoking in all places that are accesible to the general public.

Okay, I understand what you mean a bit more now. The problem used to be that everywhere was a smoking establishment, but if they had certain places that allowed smoking, it wouldn't bother me all that much because I just wouldn't go.

Would the owner decide?

[Stacey-]

Because more often than not, people are fat out of pure greed and it's disgusting. It's also seriously unhealthy for them.

[green.tea]

[aljolson]

(Original post by chrislpp)
So instead of better educating kids in school and following trends and practices in countries like Sweden which have extremely low levels of obesity, we should be accepting people for ''how they are''.


http://www.financialpost.com/todays-...986/story.html

Following murrika once again.

Is this a "cross-floor endeavor by Eric Pickles and John Prescott?

[RandomPeopleDancin]

Perhaps instead of wasting their time by banning the words 'obese' and 'fatty' etc, the government could actually help to tackle the root of the problem. Supermarkets ect are always promoting the cheap, fatty food but make fruit and healthier alternatives more expensive and hardly ever on offer.

[green.tea]

The people who thought this up want sacking. We're supposed to be making cuts and these people clearly have lots of free time which then results in others wasting their time on rubbish like this. As for the charity i vote we introduce an idiot tax to take away the spare cash of the people who donate to them. More tax money, less useless government officials and less wasted time. Increased value all round.

[Donald Duck]

Surely people would just come up with a new name?

[green.tea]

(Original post by Donald Duck)
Surely people would just come up with a new name?

[Bethy11]

I wonder if there's a thread that's anti-thin posted by fat people :-P

[pseudonymegg]

(Original post by chrislpp)
So instead of better educating kids in school and following trends and practices in countries like Sweden which have extremely low levels of obesity, we should be accepting people for ''how they are''.


http://www.financialpost.com/todays-...986/story.html

Following murrika once again.

so what, all adjectives are going to become a hate crime?

[KingMessi]

So, MP's are spending their time discussing making these words a hate crime. Meanwhile, Britain's debt is over a trillion...

[KingMessi]

(Original post by pseudonymegg)
so what, all adjectives are going to become a hate crime?

Only ones that can be interpreted as perjorative.

[Scumbaggio]

(Original post by Kiss)
You can help being fat but you can't help being black or asian. Don't get pissy if you were the last one picked in gym class.

Hilarious.

Would it make my statement any less valid if I actually was picked last?

I'm sticking to my guns, You have as much right to secretly detest fat people as you do black/asian/south asian people but you shouln't abuse any one these groups because of it.

[Harry Callahan]

(Original post by RandomPeopleDancin)
Perhaps instead of wasting their time by banning the words 'obese' and 'fatty' etc, the government could actually help to tackle the root of the problem. Supermarkets ect are always promoting the cheap, fatty food but make fruit and healthier alternatives more expensive and hardly ever on offer.

Not that old chestnut. Fatty and unhealthy foods are more expensive than fruit and veg. You can make a healthy, filling, nutritious meal for a couple of quid, whereas a takeaway or ready meal often costs in excess of a fiver.

It's laziness, plain and simple. People eat unhealthy foods because they can't be bothered to eat healthier options, there are no two ways about it.

[Flying Cookie]

(Original post by Publius)
I'm trying to distinguish some sort of coherent point amongst the mangled ramblings that constitutes your post. Your first appears to be trying to say that restaurants, pubs, bars etc. cannot cater their business solely to smokers? That is utter fatuity and has absolutely nothing to do with what i was saying; you speak as someone that is making up and amending their argument on the fly, and it shows (that cumulative effect thing shows that you have very little biological understanding, and should therefore stop preaching nonsense as if it were gospel). For instance disease linked with smoking is not at all predictable, there is nothing predictable about cancer as it is by definition random mutations, you only increase your chances of a mutation through smoking and could smoke until you were 80 and die of something unrelated to it (as you could also smoke for 10 years of your life and die at 50 in a smoking related heart attack). Stop perpetuating fallacies.

What does a nurse and A&E have to do with anything? Doing any job is preventable if you choose not to do it (seriously, what a stupid point).

In fact, i really cannot be bothered to dissect your post further (and trust me, i could find a dozen holes in that catastrophe), as it shows that you are quite clearly incapable of understanding anything that i have written, and that anything i could offer to persuade you would only fall on deaf ears, as you have already made up your mind about something you are in fact thoroughly ignorant of.

In summation: i suggest you read, and re-read more earlier post at least 10 times because you have failed to grasp anything, and i do not have the time or patience to argue with an uneducated moron.

Right, so you basically agree with me then? That smokers should be allowed to congregate inside, as long as it is in a smoking establishment. No one is suggesting forcing people to inhale unwanted cigarette smoke. However you could quite easily have a state of conditions where someone who did not wish to be exposed to any indoor cigarette smoke could quite easily never be exposed to it if they so desired; this could be easily achieved without the addition of an arbitrary ban on smoking in all places that are accesible to the general public.

You are very much welcome. This last reply of yours is admitting defeat

Insulting my biological knowledge is very premature. Smoking does do cumulative damage, and random mutations can be increased by various environmental chemical agents, some of which are present in tobacco.

Your preposterous overall stance that smokers have the right to endanger other people's health and comfort, and that businesses have something to gain from catering to a minority of smokers, or that freedom has anything at all to do with what people do in public spaces and buildings, is unsustainable.

Here comes... you, and attempts to suggest smoking has no significant ill effect on health, against a wealth of established evidence.

Finally, you failed to counter-argue any of my previous points which were clearly spelled out. I don't blame you, after all, there's no arguing with common sense, and there's certainly no arguing with facts. Facts that you learn as a biology student, and an avid reader of biology. Not being able to predict illness in an individual is irrelevant. As a population, however, illness associated with smoking is very much predictable with a high accuracy. This is the correlation, and the causative effect comes in with a proper understanding of how certain chemicals trigger disease. BTW, this understanding does exist.

P.S.: I have just noticed you called me an uneducated moron Impressive stuff!