Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of that…she’s doing yoga. That is a healthy activity. But all you can see is an opportunity to shame.

Throwing out some picture of a person posing in yoga position for a photo doesn’t mean healthy.

A drugged out hippie could be posing in a yoga move and you would think, hey a least it’s healthy? Really? They could even say they are a yoga teacher focusing on the drugged out experience, but hey it must be healthy right?

But here you are, certain that she can’t be fat. Because you know. Based solely on her appearance, you know she’s unhealthy. You’re the one with the inside track and everyone else is fooling themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of that…she’s doing yoga. That is a healthy activity. But all you can see is an opportunity to shame.

Throwing out some picture of a person posing in yoga position for a photo doesn’t mean healthy.

A drugged out hippie could be posing in a yoga move and you would think, hey a least it’s healthy? Really? They could even say they are a yoga teacher focusing on the drugged out experience, but hey it must be healthy right?

But here you are, certain that she can’t be fat. Because you know. Based solely on her appearance, you know she’s unhealthy. You’re the one with the inside track and everyone else is fooling themselves.

Why the splitting of hairs? Being FAT is UNHEALTHY.

Check out the CDC website and the information it has regarding Covid and being fat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of that…she’s doing yoga. That is a healthy activity. But all you can see is an opportunity to shame.

Throwing out some picture of a person posing in yoga position for a photo doesn’t mean healthy.

A drugged out hippie could be posing in a yoga move and you would think, hey a least it’s healthy? Really? They could even say they are a yoga teacher focusing on the drugged out experience, but hey it must be healthy right?

But here you are, certain that she can’t be fat. Because you know. Based solely on her appearance, you know she’s unhealthy. You’re the one with the inside track and everyone else is fooling themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of that…she’s doing yoga. That is a healthy activity. But all you can see is an opportunity to shame.

Throwing out some picture of a person posing in yoga position for a photo doesn’t mean healthy.

A drugged out hippie could be posing in a yoga move and you would think, hey a least it’s healthy? Really? They could even say they are a yoga teacher focusing on the drugged out experience, but hey it must be healthy right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it isn’t. And taking health cues from Cosmo is frightening.

Thing is: she could be healthy. You really, truly don’t know. You’re just making the snap judgment that since she’s fat, she must be unfit and unhealthy and that’s just not so. You’re as likely to find a skinny fat person whose insides are totally unhealthy or a thin person who is thin as a result of disordered eating, but those skinny fat people don’t come in for your scorn and you would only have sympathy for an unhealthy thin person. So really all you are is a fat shamer. You looked at a fat person and made a snap judgment and I bet you feel pretty pleased with your ignorance.

Oh please! These lady made the cover to appeal to the 42% of adults in this country that are obese - so that they will buy what Cosmo is selling. It is a marketing gimmick. And no - you are not likely to find a skinny fat person. Good grief - you do get yourself health news from Cosmo! Marketers can do what the want - does not and will not change the fact that obesity is a huge health issue in this country. If Covid did not prove that to you - you can’t be educated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems as if you health nuts want to penalize overweight people for their choices. If that is the intent let's get right to the point and tax people on their BMI. On January 1st everyone reports to their local IRS office for a weigh in. Tax rate for the year is determined by BMI. Bingo, just what you wanted.

No, I want to penalize junk food companies for providing a toxic product, like we have successfully done for the tobacco companies and alcohol companies. I don't want to subsidize agribusiness, which is what leads directly to obesity.

Your definitions of junk food and toxic products are going to be different than my definitions so my BMI proposal is much cleaner and gets right to the heart of the matter.

So you are just an idiot. Since you are slow: Your personal definition of junk food is wholly irrelevant. Legislators come up with a standard definition, like they did for tobacco.

You seem totally ignorant of the legislative process, though, and I do not feel like educating you in science AND government. Man, though, your education failed you somewhere along the line.

My education was quite good we just disagree about the degree to which the federal government should be meddling in our lives. I don't want the Feds to be my Mom. Thankfully neither your junk food Tax or my BMI tax will ever be implemented.

Are you 13? You write like a kid who just read Ayn Rand for the first time.

In any event, eventually there will be taxation and much higher regulations on junk food, assuming there isn't a pill developed to "cure" obesity. There will just have to be another generation of people who die prematurely and terribly first. But sugar and junk food is going the way of tobacco.

There are many parallels to Big Tobacco here, and the pattern is the same (and agribusiness knows it). Eventually the number of people harmed by agribusiness will get to the point that it can't keep public opinion on its side. But it's going to take at least another generation of deaths.

Why do you need to begin every post with an insult? We are just having a discussion here.
I think you need to spend some time outside of your DC bubble. The rest of the country doesn't share your elitist views on food. Food choices will continue to evolve over time but there will be no big government intervention as you predict. Very few people see the need to have the Feds in their kitchen.

You didn't answer the question about your age, and you still sound like a teenager.

I'm not in DC. And where I am, people are talking about this. It's coming. But it will take more deaths for it to happen, just like what happened with tobacco.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it isn’t. And taking health cues from Cosmo is frightening.

Thing is: she could be healthy. You really, truly don’t know. You’re just making the snap judgment that since she’s fat, she must be unfit and unhealthy and that’s just not so. You’re as likely to find a skinny fat person whose insides are totally unhealthy or a thin person who is thin as a result of disordered eating, but those skinny fat people don’t come in for your scorn and you would only have sympathy for an unhealthy thin person. So really all you are is a fat shamer. You looked at a fat person and made a snap judgment and I bet you feel pretty pleased with your ignorance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems as if you health nuts want to penalize overweight people for their choices. If that is the intent let's get right to the point and tax people on their BMI. On January 1st everyone reports to their local IRS office for a weigh in. Tax rate for the year is determined by BMI. Bingo, just what you wanted.

No, I want to penalize junk food companies for providing a toxic product, like we have successfully done for the tobacco companies and alcohol companies. I don't want to subsidize agribusiness, which is what leads directly to obesity.

Your definitions of junk food and toxic products are going to be different than my definitions so my BMI proposal is much cleaner and gets right to the heart of the matter.

So you are just an idiot. Since you are slow: Your personal definition of junk food is wholly irrelevant. Legislators come up with a standard definition, like they did for tobacco.

You seem totally ignorant of the legislative process, though, and I do not feel like educating you in science AND government. Man, though, your education failed you somewhere along the line.

My education was quite good we just disagree about the degree to which the federal government should be meddling in our lives. I don't want the Feds to be my Mom. Thankfully neither your junk food Tax or my BMI tax will ever be implemented.

Are you 13? You write like a kid who just read Ayn Rand for the first time.

In any event, eventually there will be taxation and much higher regulations on junk food, assuming there isn't a pill developed to "cure" obesity. There will just have to be another generation of people who die prematurely and terribly first. But sugar and junk food is going the way of tobacco.

There are many parallels to Big Tobacco here, and the pattern is the same (and agribusiness knows it). Eventually the number of people harmed by agribusiness will get to the point that it can't keep public opinion on its side. But it's going to take at least another generation of deaths.

Why do you need to begin every post with an insult? We are just having a discussion here.
I think you need to spend some time outside of your DC bubble. The rest of the country doesn't share your elitist views on food. Food choices will continue to evolve over time but there will be no big government intervention as you predict. Very few people see the need to have the Feds in their kitchen.

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of that…she’s doing yoga. That is a healthy activity. But all you can see is an opportunity to shame.

Anonymous wrote:She's a full-figured gal!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it isn’t. And taking health cues from Cosmo is frightening.

Thing is: she could be healthy. You really, truly don’t know. You’re just making the snap judgment that since she’s fat, she must be unfit and unhealthy and that’s just not so. You’re as likely to find a skinny fat person whose insides are totally unhealthy or a thin person who is thin as a result of disordered eating, but those skinny fat people don’t come in for your scorn and you would only have sympathy for an unhealthy thin person. So really all you are is a fat shamer. You looked at a fat person and made a snap judgment and I bet you feel pretty pleased with your ignorance.

NP—this woman has a lot of fat around her midsection where doctors will absolutely tell you that fat accumulated there contributes to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. it’s not a character judgment, just cold hard scientific fact. No one brought up skinny fat people or eating disordered people so why are you bringing them up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it isn’t. And taking health cues from Cosmo is frightening.

Thing is: she could be healthy. You really, truly don’t know. You’re just making the snap judgment that since she’s fat, she must be unfit and unhealthy and that’s just not so. You’re as likely to find a skinny fat person whose insides are totally unhealthy or a thin person who is thin as a result of disordered eating, but those skinny fat people don’t come in for your scorn and you would only have sympathy for an unhealthy thin person. So really all you are is a fat shamer. You looked at a fat person and made a snap judgment and I bet you feel pretty pleased with your ignorance.