Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We need to stop thinking that it is a "Nanny State" mentality to implement a healthier change for our students....America's children are at a very great risk for many weight-related health problems. And we do not need people pushing the idea that Twinkies are a "health" food. We are killing ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNative34
I'm going to call it "Nanny State" mentality because it is. Sorry.
Seems that education has much more pressing matters to worry about - like how to teach children so that they actually LEARN something. After they have mastered that task, then they can stick their noses into other things.
I'm going to call it "Nanny State" mentality because it is. Sorry.
And this, the intellectual inability to digest a large chunk of information in order to formulate an opinion, leads to folks like you clutching at the knee-jerk sound-bite solution. That is why we as a society will remain fat and our life expectancy will go down... those who control our food supply count on a populace of MoNative34s. And they are right to do so.
Average women in the 50s absolutely were thinner - go look at your own family photos as evidence. The reason for the difference between then and now is our modern food supply is quite horrible, and the worst foods receive the highest amount of federal subsidies and as such are the cheapest.
Then I'm willing to entertain the notion that the chubby women in my mom's late 50s/early 60s yearbooks were cultural anomalies...when I do look through photos from that generation, I see a range of sizes and shapes, I really do.
I am completely with you on the issues having to do with our food sources and marketing, and fully recognize that this comes into play on why so many MORE people are overweight. I've studied this as well, as well as the cultural/lifestyle changes that went hand in hand in the last 60 years that led to a market for cheap, fast, calorie-laden food.
At the same time, though, regardless of the fact that there was not an obesity epidemic in, say, the 1950s, there were still people of all shapes and sizes. Everyone wasn't slim. It's just that the majority were not morbidly obese. There does seem to be a pervasive mentality, too, among some (both on here and elsewhere that if you're not slim, you're morbidly obese. No middle ground.
And this, the intellectual inability to digest a large chunk of information in order to formulate an opinion, leads to folks like you clutching at the knee-jerk sound-bite solution. That is why we as a society will remain fat and our life expectancy will go down... those who control our food supply count on a populace of MoNative34s. And they are right to do so.
OOOOOhhhhhh... If I was just as intellectual and smart as you!!
I'm for letting the individual decide what they eat and what they don't. If you don't get that concept, perhaps "intellectual inability" belongs to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vilmer laktow
Leave it to a New Yorker to ramble in their own liberal nanny state worshiping self importance.
It's nothing new. They've been celebrating it for more than 5 hundred years.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, doncha know.
20yrsinBranson
Would anyone consider the women in that painting "obese"? I think they considered themselves healthy and well fed, which is why they were attractive. Skinny was for starving people.
OOOOOhhhhhh... If I was just as intellectual and smart as you!!
On this we agree.
Quote:
I'm for letting the individual decide what they eat and what they don't. If you don't get that concept, perhaps "intellectual inability" belongs to you.
An individual should have the ability to choose affordable foods which are not laden with chemicals and sugars. But I'll just re-read the first sentence of this post you've made as a reminder of why this makes no sense to you.
Then I'm willing to entertain the notion that the chubby women in my mom's late 50s/early 60s yearbooks were cultural anomalies...when I do look through photos from that generation, I see a range of sizes and shapes, I really do.
I am completely with you on the issues having to do with our food sources and marketing, and fully recognize that this comes into play on why so many MORE people are overweight. I've studied this as well, as well as the cultural/lifestyle changes that went hand in hand in the last 60 years that led to a market for cheap, fast, calorie-laden food.
At the same time, though, regardless of the fact that there was not an obesity epidemic in, say, the 1950s, there were still people of all shapes and sizes. Everyone wasn't slim. It's just that the majority were not morbidly obese. There does seem to be a pervasive mentality, too, among some (both on here and elsewhere that if you're not slim, you're morbidly obese. No middle ground.
No they weren't chubby, they were so fat they were worthy of ridicule. "Chubby" was the need to lose five pounds back in the day. When I was a kid, the child who was 10+ pounds overweight was tormented. Hell just look at the poster for the movie Stand By Me which came out in 1986. Jerry O'Connell played the fat kid and the other boys in the movie let him have it! Check him out in this, and tell me how he compares to today's "chubby" kids. He's the one on the far left:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
