2 people are eating dinner together. One is a 5'5 250lb person eating a hamburger. The other, a 5'5 150lb person smoking a cigarette before his grilled chicken entre comes to the table. The 250 pound man says to the other guy, "Hey man, I hope you know that smoking is disgusting, bad for your health, and will kill you!" The smoker is then thinking to himself, "Yeah fattie, just keep chomping down that cholestorol and fat. Then see how healthy you are in 15 years." So why is it that the 250 pound person is allowed to make these comments to the smoker, yet the smoker is chastized for telling the overweight person to stop eating poorly? What is your take?
I would view it like this: It doesn't seem like the 250 pound man eating the burger is harming anyone else; however, the effects of second-hand smoke have been documented. If there was such a thing as "second hand obesity," then I would take the statement to be hypocritical. Also, it would also seem that just because the guy is eating himself to death, it does not necessarily detract from the weight of his statement. I would think that asserting the falcity of the statement would take some form of ad hominem tuquoque. Essentially, it boils down to the fact that cigarettes are so dangerous that they even kill people who don't smoke, lol. Oh, just for the record, I quit smoking two months ago and sometimes I want to sell my first born for a cig
The cost to society, for obesity, is absolutely enormous. The health problems that are caused by obesity cost us a fortune: Heath disease, diabetes, high blood pressure. Not to mention the cost in terms of years of productivity lost in the work force. The cost of hospital care and nursing home care. It's a major epidemic in the U.S. And, there clearly is no sign that it is letting up. If anything, it's getting worse. Obesity in children is worse than it's ever been. We were at an air show a couple of weeks ago in OK. Noticed a number of huge adults in electric wheelchairs whipping around the tarmac. I could see my tax dollars being sucked up by people who have eaten themselves into wheelchairs, and who keep on eating. I don't remember seeing this phenomenon before. end of this sermon
Save the Whales! The good Dr. brings up an interesting point. Ever notice how many more "handicapped" stickers there are in minivans and SUVs and additional, front row parking spaces to accomodate them? While i'm sure there are people whose disabilities have nothing to do with being fat, per se, i have suspected that some of them are SO ****ING FAT they can't walk to the entrance without a "handicap." Nothing in this posting is intended to be offensive to any person or being that might take umbrage, offense, or otherwise be considered slighted, denigrated or discriminated against on the basis of the statements made herein, which are entirely the subjective views of the author; such statements should not be attributed to any other person or being, and should not be quoted, referenced or otherwise indicated in any way that could be construed, interpreted or inferred to be out of context in any way. If you get my drift.
Who says a 250 lb man is obese? There are many fit men at 250 , especially athletes and others who take excellent care of their bodies. and also you didn't mention fat to body weight ratio, cholestorol and blood pressure. You failed to mention the initial health of both the smoker and the steak connisseur. Muscle weighs more than fat and just a height to weight ratio is misleading and doesn't tell all other factors inolved. Your own predjusices are coming through on the loaded question. Obesity is a problem, smoking is a problem. One is an addiction and one is a pleasure. You determine which is which. We all suffer from ANYONE who abuses any substance. Both are wicked to the self and society. same higher death & health insurance costs apply EQUALLY to the smoker. My childhood asthma was attributed to my mothers smoking, there was much cost in health care for that. Both parents died of smoking related cancers. My best friends brother had in operable throat cancer. Your initial question needs to be reworded and unloaded JD.
How many 250lb. 5'5" men or women do you know that are, by any rational measure, physically fit? You also changed the facts. There is a difference between a steak and a burger. You also seem to believe that obesity is not an "addiction" in the same sense as smoking. Not to make excuses for FWBEH (Folks with Bad Eating Habits), but there is a compulsiveness to the behavior that makes it irrational. So, i think your comments really miss the target. But, hey, i weigh 240 lbs, am 6'1'' and smoke like a fiend. So, go for it.
Eat right, don't smoke, exercise ......and you die anyway! Trust me, I'm a doctor, we have never won one yet.
Did you even read my post there buddy? I am simply detailing a common occurance and am wondering why it is politically correct to denegrate a smoker and not someone who eats too much. Both have SERIOUS health risks. Loaded question? What are you even talking about? My question is very straightfoward and to the point. Explain to me how my question is prejudiced and/or loaded. Also, I did not give exact details about the people in the scenario because it is a GENERALIZATION. Even when two people are complete strangers this type of situation occurs all of the time. Jeff, here is my question verbatim: So why is it that the 250 pound person is allowed to make these comments to the smoker, yet the smoker is chastized for telling the overweight person to stop eating poorly? What is your take?" You may not smoke cigarettes, but I am beginning to think you may smoke other things...Get off the sauce (whether it be liquor or BBQ).
Long story short. The guy smoking is physicallt affecting everyones health by killing everyone else around him due to second hand smoke. The fat guy is doing no one else around him any physical harm. He may not be the best thing in the world to look at but no one is perfect.
Long before Penn & Teller got on it, I knew Second Hand Smoke propaganda was Bull****. Second Hand Smoke opponents have not a clue what they're talking about. True, there is a slight increase in mortality among those who die of lung cancer - with second-hand smoke being attributed to the cause of death. *But(t)*, here's how that 25% increase breaks down: 1 out of every 100,000 nonsmokers: dies of lung cancer has not been around second-hand smoke. 1 out of every 80,000 nonsmokers: dies of lung cancer has been around second-hand smoke, but this doesn't mean the second-hand smoke contributed to the death; It means these 2 individuals had been around smokers at some point in their lives - yet their deaths are attributed to Second Hand Smoke. <Personal aside>- you know, didn't lead a sheltered existence.<Personal aside> Let's break that down, shall we? 4/400,000 = 1/100,000 die of Lung Cancer, lead sheltered existence 5/400,000 = 1/ 80,000 die of Lung Cancer, lead unsheltered existence 9/400,000 Nonsmokers die of Lung Cancer - all "causes" Again - the 1/80,000 deaths are attributed to Second-Hand smoke. Let's suppose that isn't Bull****. That means the chances of dying of Lung Cancer from Second Hand Smoke have increased over that over non-smokers by 1 in 400,000 (Refer to previous paragraph). Methinks the chances of someone getting lung cancer from inhaling gas fumes at a gas station are higher, let alone bus fumes at a bus stop, yet you won't find that in the statistics. Ban buses and their stops! One asks why, then, all the hoopla from the EPA? Because smokers pay a lot of your taxes which result in huge source of tax revenues for governments. That's why the EPA came up with the Bull**** numbers regarding passive smoke. *Everyone I know has a big but(t)* In closing, you non-tobacconists keep your filthy Aflatoxins, Alcoholic Beverage Consumption, 4-Aminobiphenyl, Analgesic Mixtures Containing Phenacetin, Inorganic Arsenic Compounds, Asbestos, Azathioprine, Benzene, Benzidine, Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds, 1,3-Butadiene, 1,4-Butanediol Dimethylsulfonate (Myleran®), Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds, Chlorambucil, 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (MeCCNU), bis(Chloromethyl) Ether and Technical-Grade Chloromethyl Methyl Ether, Chromium Hexavalent Compounds, Coal Tar /Pitches, Coke Oven Emissions, Cyclophosphamide, Cyclosporin A, Diethylstilbestrol, Dyes Metabolized to Benzidine, Erionite, Steroidal Estrogens, Ethylene Oxide, Melphalan, Methoxsalen with Ultraviolet A Therapy, Mineral Oils, Mustard Gas, 2-Naphthylamine, Nickel Compounds, Radon, Respirable Size Crystalline Silica, Solar Radiation, Soots, Strong Inorganic Acid Mists Containing Sulfuric Acid, Exposure to Sunlamps or Sunbeds, Tamoxifen, 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD); "Dioxin", Thiotepa, Thorium Dioxide, Vinyl Chloride, Ultraviolet Radiation, Broad Spectrum UV Radiation and Wood Dust away from me.
Er, not comparable to DIE'ING from second hand smoke. Come on guys you have all gone nuts. Yes over eating or eating **** can kill you but there is no way that viewing that is going to kill you, that breathing in the food smells is going to kill you, that the higer insurance premiumns and taxes are going to kill you. Smoking gives people cancer. I believe that is FACT. Thus breathing in second hand fumes COULD give you cancer. While Wax's post is interesting and has lovely numbers, All the second hand obesity things are not going to kill you ... where the second hand smoke MAY kill you. Pete
PSk - as an observer, I sure enjoy your posts on the alfa board (let alone here), but... Traffic Accidents in Commercial Long-Haul Truck Drivers: The Influence of Sleep-Disordered Breathing and Obesity www.somnolab.de/pdfs/sleep17619.pdf Obese drivers (body mass index 30) non-obese drivers: Significantly more accidents per 10 000 miles in past five years than non-obese (relative risk 2.22; P less than 0.03) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/archive/7084tc.htm Motor Vehicle Fatality: Risk Associated with Height, Weight and Body Mass Index http://apha.confex.com/apha/132am/techprogram/paper_86775.htm Scream Bloody Murder _____ In case you missed the point of my prior post: "25% increase" due to "second hand smoke" = 4 of every 400,000 not attributed 5 of every 400,000 attributed Again, objective EPA played loose with attributed deaths & still only came up with a "25%" increase of 1 per 400,000.
What you did not mention here is the cost of the smoker when he gets ill or the cost of the non-smoker who gets ill from second hand smoke
The smoker could have used different, less offensive dialog to inform the other man about the negative side effects of obesity, then theres a chance he would not be chastised.
Well, if you read the post carefully the smoker never actually says anything to the overweight man. He merely thinks about what he wants to say. The whole point is that it is not PC for the smoker to say anything.
Yes, the point is that both smokers and overeaters cost society, themselves and their families a fortune every year. But, seems that it's more acceptable to make fun of the smoker. Disclaimer: I have worked out three times a week for the past 23 years. I'm careful about what I eat and I don't smoke or drink. I am, however, high on life.
I was just looking over the form for MRI's, CT Scans, and Ultrasounds that our office uses to schedule patients. In big black, bold letters it states that the "Table limitations 350 pounds." Regular x-ray has the same limitations. People over 350 pounds will burn out the motors.
Smoking is considered totally inappropriate social behavior because it affects others, whether or not its a legitimate health concern for others. Its socially OK, at least in the states (or the coasts, i think inland, the attitudes are not so metro) to condemn smokers. As one musician i know crudely put it a few years ago: its ok to suck on a cock, but not on a cigarette. In any case, smokers don't benefit from the same "they are just unfortunate victims" that other unfortunates do, perhaps because-despite the addictive nature of the substance and behavior surrounding it-i think most people think its simply a matter of the person's choice. (Even though the same could be said for alot of other offensive behaviors). But, while you will find apologists for everyone and everything else, including Michael Jackson and other pedophiles, you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody taking up the cause on behalf of cigarette smokers. (Cigar smokers are a different breed, and while the same issues lurk for them, there is an attitude of the connoisseur about their activities, and they are often the focus of group get togethers, cigar dinners, etc., rather than just firing one up out in front of the ol' office building). Oh, well, I'm a smoker, i actually enjoy it, and i don't smoke indoors anymore.
Wax, If somebody dies from smoking, their problem ... if somebody smokes next to somebody else and either one dies their problem(s) ... but if somebody smokes near me, MY problem and also the same if somebody tries to crash into MY car or me (whatever the reason), MY problem - and I will be equally as excited I'm just as bad as the rest of you, ie. I look after myself and family and feel bad about all the rest, but do bugger all (although I do believe we donate to some charity to help third world children ...). Pete
