Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The new NFL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: country bob who wrote (12283)	1/11/2006 3:26:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89618

OT None of those things are the same as having toxic substances added to air around your face. Your psychological reaction to seeing fat people may make you feel bad, but you don't deserve any legal protection from the sight of fat people. As for taking twice as long on a buffet line, some fat people don't take too long, some skinny people take a long time. I don't think there should be any government action against "taking a long time at the buffet", and even if there should be, weight is not an ideal proxy for the behavior. Yes fat people are more likely to get hurt or have heart problems but that is mostly their business. As for government intervention, who 40 years ago would have dreamed that it would come to what it is with smoking. Nobody ever HEARD the term "second hand smoke" back then! No one might have heard the term but second hand smoke existed even if the term did not. Yes its possible that government could intervene in the same way in other areas, I would consider it to be a real danger. But I think the danger is moderate at worst in the case of strong government intervention against fat people. I do think the campaign against smoking has gone to far. Discouragement fine. Owners of bars, clubs, restaurants, ect. deciding to ban smoking, also fine IMO. But the lawsuits are not IMO a good idea, and laws requiring private businesses to ban smoking on their premises are also an example of creeping totalitarianism. There is IMO more justification for such intervention against tabacco/tabacco companies/smokers, but "more justification" does not equal "sufficient justification". Tim

To: country bob who wrote (12283)	1/11/2006 9:51:41 PM
From: CVJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89618

I'm disabled and 360 lbs. The disability came from tripping over carelessly scattered wires in the office I worked in. That happened 8 years ago. I pitched forward during the fall and landed on both knees which promptly exploded into bits and pieces that a few surgeries couldn't repair. As soon as I hit age 62, I filed for SSDI. Took over two years before I could collect any money and in the meantime the company moved our operation half to Canada and half to Mexico. Three years with state disability and unemployment instead of a job until SSDI came thru, DI followed SS by 6 months. Knees will never work again and the ankles and hips are failing too without the knees help. Fat people aren't always just weak-willed gluttons. Sometimes not be able to move at all without assistance puts on the pounds, especially if one has been active physically before being injured. Feeling sorry for oneself and eating normally as an active adult male always has is about the only therapy left that doesn't require a therapist.

To: country bob who wrote (12283)	1/11/2006 10:03:08 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89618

OT country bob, you as an employer, I think, bring up some excellent points. WRT obesity, another potential scenario which strikes fear into the very hearts and minds of employers everywhere, and their insurers, is the myriad problems with evacuation of the obese in a disaster and with getting them up and out. Same story, should the obese simply become injured or ill or otherwise incapacitated on the job. Why, I've heard of forklifts and cranes having to be used. Ask any rescue worker about this one! - Holly