TOJ
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,591
- Reaction score
- 667
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Well of course not.
But I think it should be perfectly acceptable in our society to belittle obese people for being unhealthy. If we can openly show scorn for smoking, we should be consistent and show scorn for other unhealthy activities.
you must be referring to those healthy looking AIDS victims and crack heads and such :lol:On the flipside, one who is thin does not necessarily equate someone who is healthy. They can be the same out of shape lazy-assed couch potato.
that is some seriously dumb shiiteAn ongoing list of things you can legally do to make your children suffer: http://eqi.org/legal.htm
:2rofll: wtf. what a LoooooooooooooserMy mother made the wrong assumption about why he wanted the car. She told my brother he only wanted one so he could have sex in it. This hurt my brother's feelings and he has never forgotten this injury to his dignity.
Does the reason for cigarette ban, which is second hand smoke, correlate to the dangers of second hand fat?Thing is, Crippler, smoking is bad... period. There's no healthy cigarette out there that I know of that's healthy.
that is what i took it asThat site is hilarious
while back I watched Don King: Only In America"Actuarial Science"
Does the reason for cigarette ban, which is second hand smoke, correlate to the dangers of second hand fat?
The future justification for rejection of overweight persons will be to reduce one's own insurance premiums.
A standard health tolerance for height to weight ratio will be directly tied individuals to risk categories and premiums.
that is what i took it as
but from your signature, i did not take it that that is how you took it
Insurance premiums are tied to a smoking category, that is affected by private citizens interests for their collective financial risk.the reason for smoking bans are nanny state jackasses, not a genuine concern for second hand smoke
What is the limitation on state obligations to provide medical services for smoking related issues?new coup for you said:If we lived in a country with socialized medicine they could be considered a undue drain on public resources.
"Cough In Coffin Coffers"
Insurance premiums are tied to a smoking category, that is affected by private citizens interests for their collective financial risk.
If by smoking (to ill health) harms only oneself, albeit others have a concern, they have no provocation of self defense to stop it; however, what if it results in others being expected to pay money?
What is the limitation on state obligations to provide medical services for smoking related issues?
while back I watched Don King: Only In America
he is who i picture whenever i read your posts, except for his made up words
Imagine a beautiful sparrow, we'll call him humor. Imagine a plate glass window, immaculatly cleaned until it's totally transparrent. We'll call this conservatism.
Healthcare costs related to smoking are generational.So have smoking bans been shown to reduce health insurance premiums in areas that effect smoking bans? Nope, next please.