Texas hospital refuses to hire overweight people

[donnay]

Texas hospital refuses to hire overweight people
33 mins ago

​A Texas hospital already facing a lawsuit for discrimination has again made itself the target of intense criticism over its hiring practices. The Citizens Medical Center in Victoria, Texas, says it won't hire anyone considered overweight, declaring that applicants must have a body mass index less than 35. Only Michigan and six U.S. cities have laws against weight-related hiring practices, so the policy could be legal -- at least for now. Last year, the hospital was sued by three cardiologists of Indian descent who said they had been discriminated against, so if you're an overweight Indian doctor looking for a job we strongly suggest you apply elsewhere.

http://now.msn.com/living/0404-hospital-bans-hiring-overweight.aspx

[angelatc]

SO who cares? Private property rights. They shouldn't have to hire anybody for any reason.

[donnay]

Next they won't take patients that are overweight...you know property rights and all. :rolleyes:

[Stupified]

35 BMI.... Sweet Jesus, let's not set the bar too high America.

[impaleddead]

Next they won't take patients that are overweight...you know property rights and all. :rolleyes:

Part of freedom is being able to hire and serve whoever you want. Why do you think Paul is against the Civil Rights act.

If i was hiring a model and some fatty came in you think i should have to hire them? Or maybe i should have to hire the crippled person for my construction job, wouldn't want to discriminate against the disabled. Get real.

[Blueskies]

Few points (note: this is coming from someone who once weighed 300+ lbs)

1) A BMI of 35 is a LOT. It's not just a few extra pounds. You have to be quite fat to have a BMI that high.
2) If you're that fat, it WILL affect your job performance if you have do any physical activity at all
3) These workers cost more to insure
4) I don't know why they have to be explicit about it. Likewise, it's dumb to pass laws protecting things like this. If you have a policy against hiring people that heavy, the hiring manager can always come up with some excuse: not enough experience, didn't like the personality, etc. etc.

[tod evans]

I'm all for it!

It's their right as employers to say we don't want fat people or smokers or non-English speakers or people who dye their hair.

[RickyJ]

If someone can do the job at 400 plus pounds and they are reliable, then I hardly think a sick patient that only wants to get better cares as long as they get the treatment and care to help them. The Hospital has the right to be this way, but they might be find it hard to fill all their open positions with such a policy.

[Sublyminal]

If someone can do the job at 400 plus pounds and they are reliable, then I hardly think a sick patient that only wants to get better cares as long as they get the treatment and care to help them. The Hospital has the right to be this way, but they might be find it hard to fill all their open positions with such a policy.


You ever see a 400lb+ person try to do this type of work? In a hospital setting you have to always be on your toes and on the move. Overweight people need to sit and catch their breath and then there are those that can only walk for 30 min at a time.

[QuickZ06]

Should they need a law, I don't think so. I think telling the hiring staff anyone who weighs 400+ should not be hired.

[donnay]

I agree someone that is grossly obese will have a hard time getting around, no doubt. I just happened to look at the BMI score and thought that was a bit over the top.

[Keith and stuff]

I don't think this would have happened without DC being so involved with state issues. I blame DC politicians for this.

[James Madison]

35 BMI.... Sweet Jesus, let's not set the bar too high America.

BMI sucks. My BMI is around 27, and I'm less than 15% body fat. Doesn't take into account muscle and body type.

[donnay]

I don't think this would have happened without DC being so involved with state issues. I blame DC politicians for this.

Very good point. Yeah let's not hire people based on their merits.

[Blueskies]

BMI sucks. My BMI is around 27, and I'm less than 15% body fat. Doesn't take into account muscle and body type.

True, but 35 is extremely generous. Unless you're a pro body builder, you won't be anything close to being in shape with a 35 BMI.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Yeah I think it is their right.

[outspoken]

The government will just threaten to disallow the hospital to participate in Medicare, then watch how fast they fall into rank as an 'equal opportunity' job provider regardless of whether obesity affects productivity.

[Anti Federalist]

Thus, the value of unions.

I've been anti union so long, it kind of blinded me, but now it's becoming clear why they can serve a valuable function to push back against some of this nonsense.

[kcchiefs6465]

A B.M.I. of 35 is considered morbidly obese. A B.M.I. of 25-30 is considered overweight.

[donnay]

A B.M.I. of 35 is considered morbidly obese. A B.M.I. of 25-30 is considered overweight.


Those numbers vary...from different literature I have read. Hard to get a real fix on it.

[youngbuck]

Most people with a BMI of 35 are pretty fat, BUT there are plenty that are not. My dad, for a large period of his life, was naturally a large guy (large circumference bones, large muscles) and walked around at 6'1" 265#. Nobody would've called him fat in their right mind, and he wasn't a bodybuilder at all. BMI can be a very inaccurate gauge on measuring how obese somebody is.

I'm not saying that they employer shouldn't be able to choose who they want regardless of how stupid their criteria. But being a place full of medical professionals and all, they ought to figure out a better way of measuring level of obesity.

[seraphson]

SO who cares? Private property rights. They shouldn't have to hire anybody for any reason.

This x ∞

And herein lies the problem with tax funded *anything*. Everyone establishes a sense of entitlement; perhaps it's why everyone wants free cellphones, food, medical attention, education, housing, and more.

In a completely free nation there should be no laws that demand private business owners have to hire anyone based on anything other than their qualifications (and by the content of their character; but perhaps I'm being tautological here...) Affirmative action and equal opportunity can kiss Freedom's ass.

I can only wonder what a nation would be like without a central bank. I think there's a Godwin's law but with Central Banking instead of Nazis. Perhaps we can call it Revolution's law.

[Justinfrom1776]

Very good point. Yeah let's not hire people based on their merits.

How much merit does a fat person working in a hospital really have? If you can't take care of yourself, how the hell are you going to take care of me.. Go work somewhere else if you don't wish to watch your weight. A privately owned business has every right to discriminate to protect their healthy image.. If the patrons in the free market are that offended then they will go to another hospital and the fat free one will go out of business.. We don't need the government to solve all of our problems.

[RickyJ]

I'm not saying that they employer shouldn't be able to choose who they want regardless of how stupid their criteria. But being a place full of medical professionals and all, they ought to figure out a better way of measuring level of obesity.

Right! If they are going to use something as ridiculous as BMI to determine whether a person is too heavy or not, which is kind of crazy, there is nothing wrong with being heavy as long as you are in shape, then they are certainly not a hospital that I would feel safe going to.

Look at NFL players. Most are in tip-top shape and most also have a BMI over 35.

[The Free Hornet]

SO who cares? Private property rights. They shouldn't have to hire anybody for any reason.

If the state decides who can practice medicine, then I don't think private property rights apply. These are privileged entities not private entities. And doctors' right to set their own wage... ? Gone! When I'm free to get medical care from anyone, then you're free to set your own damn wages.

Private property? I don't know who owns it, but I do know they can take out my tonsils but my neighbor can't:


As a not-for-profit, community-owned hospital, Citizens Medical Center's financial resources stay in the community, and are reinvested in the hospital, its technology and its people.

http://citizensmedicalcenter.org/about-citizens/

Is this fat doctor not part of the community? Why not sue?

[TheTexan]

Don't like being discriminated against because you're fat? Here's an interesting idea, lose some weight.

[donnay]

How much merit does a fat person working in a hospital really have? If you can't take care of yourself, how the hell are you going to take care of me.. Go work somewhere else if you don't wish to watch your weight. A privately owned business has every right to discriminate to protect their healthy image.. If the patrons in the free market are that offended then they will go to another hospital and the fat free one will go out of business.. We don't need the government to solve all of our problems.


Why is it that this kind of issue becomes an immediate knee-jerk reaction? People going around screaming private property!!! I don't want government to intervene, nor do I want government involved in any aspect of business or our lives. That being said, it would work only if we had a truly free market, but we don't have a free market--it's the appearance of a free market. Until we resolve these issues, private property only applies to the government and it's corporate cronies. In a crippling economy where there are lots of people out of work, finding a job is hard enough.

This issue could clearly be taken to court--it's a clear discrimination case. People are not being evaluated on their merits, they are being evaluated on their appearance. The idea that a person who is overweight is necessarily disabled or less healthy than a thin person is a stereotype that leads to discrimination, plain and simple.

And who are you or anyone else to say that an over weight person isn't capable of caring for the sick and infirm? I am certainly seeing a lot of insensitive people in these threads, here of late. Sheesh.

What's next? People who wear glasses? Or people who do not have straight teeth?

[SpicyTurkey]

Why is it that this kind of issue becomes an immediate knee-jerk reaction? People going around screaming private property!!! I don't want government to intervene, nor do I want government involved in any aspect of business or our lives. That being said, it would work only if we had a truly free market, but we don't have a free market--it's the appearance of a free market. Until we resolve these issues, private property only applies to the government and it's corporate cronies. In a crippling economy where there are lots of people out of work, finding a job is hard enough.

This issue could clearly be taken to court--it's a clear discrimination case. People are not being evaluated on their merits, they are being evaluated on their appearance. The idea that a person who is overweight is necessarily disabled or less healthy than a thin person is a stereotype that leads to discrimination, plain and simple.

And who are you or anyone else to say that an over weight person isn't capable of caring for the sick and infirm? I am certainly seeing a lot of insensitive people in these threads, here of late. Sheesh.

What's next? People who wear glasses? Or people who do not have straight teeth?

I wouldn't want a dentist with f'ed up teeth.

[donnay]

Don't like being discriminated against because you're fat? Here's an interesting idea, lose some weight.

Sure thing boss. As soon as they stop tainting the foods with MSG, Aspartame, HFCS and GMO's. Oh and get rid of Bisphenol-A.


MSG linked to weight gain (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/us-msg-linked-weight-gain-idUSTRE74Q5SJ20110527)

Aspartame and Weight Gain (http://marystuart.hubpages.com/hub/Diet-Colas-and-Weight-Gain)

High-Fructose Corn Syrup Prompts Considerably More Weight Gain, Researchers Find (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm)

BPA, MSG, GMO and Other Toxins in Our Food and Water Cause Obesity (http://occupycorporatism.com/bpa-msg-gmo-and-other-toxins-in-our-food-and-water-cause-obesity/)

New Study: BPA Causes Weight-Gain (http://www.thewellnesswire.com/Purify-Your-Home/new-study-bpa-causes-weight-gain.html)

[Domalais]

What's next? People who wear glasses? Or people who do not have straight teeth?


When's the last time you saw a dental hygenist with terrible teeth?

[Bern]

Should Hooters be required to hire ugly waitresses? Should a health care facility be required to hire unhealthy caregivers?

[Acala]

in a free market, health care providers should be able to hire who they want, AND serve who they want. Period. They aren't slaves.

[specsaregood]

I wouldn't want a dentist with f'ed up teeth.

Why? It isn't like they can fix their own teeth. I think a better criteria would be, "I wouldn't want a dentist with kids with f'ed up teeth."

[Acala]

Why is it that this kind of issue becomes an immediate knee-jerk reaction? People going around screaming private property!!! I don't want government to intervene, nor do I want government involved in any aspect of business or our lives. That being said, it would work only if we had a truly free market, but we don't have a free market--it's the appearance of a free market. Until we resolve these issues, private property only applies to the government and it's corporate cronies. In a crippling economy where there are lots of people out of work, finding a job is hard enough.

This issue could clearly be taken to court--it's a clear discrimination case. People are not being evaluated on their merits, they are being evaluated on their appearance. The idea that a person who is overweight is necessarily disabled or less healthy than a thin person is a stereotype that leads to discrimination, plain and simple.

And who are you or anyone else to say that an over weight person isn't capable of caring for the sick and infirm? I am certainly seeing a lot of insensitive people in these threads, here of late. Sheesh.

What's next? People who wear glasses? Or people who do not have straight teeth?

You are correct that we are far from a free market. But that is all the MORE reason to allow health care providers to exercise discretion in who they hire. Since I have fewer choices in this situation than in a free market, I want them to be the best possible choices. Hugely obese people simply cannot perform up to par in any activity that requires movement. They also suffer from impaired immune systems, chronic, inflammation, etc. Why would you NOT want them excluded from a physically active job in which there is chronic exposure to pathogens?

Some discrimination makes sense.

Oh, and by the way, I also want my insurance carrier to be able to exclude the obese, smokers, and stress monkeys from coverage. I make a LOT of effort, and spend a bit of coin, to eat right, exercise, and manage my stress. I shouldn't be forced to subsidize the health care of those who don't. Discrimination? You bet. If they don't like it I would be happy to show them FOR FREE how to get back on the road to good health practices.

[donnay]

in a free market, health care providers should be able to hire who they want, AND serve who they want. Period. They aren't slaves.

Indeed...that only applies to a free market of which we do not have.

[LibertyEagle]

Indeed...that only applies to a free market of which we do not have.

Ah, but Texas is a right-to-work state.

[angelatc]

If the state decides who can practice medicine, then I don't think private property rights apply. These are privileged entities not private entities. And doctors' right to set their own wage... ? Gone!

Is this fat doctor not part of the community? Why not sue?

He's perfectly free to start a private practice. It didn't say the state was refusing to license overweight physicians.

[angelatc]

Next they won't take patients that are overweight...you know property rights and all. :rolleyes:

I've been fired as a patient. It was the MDs right to refuse to treat me.

[brandon]

Misleading headline. BMI of over 25 is overweight. Those people are still being hired. It's only the morbidly obese with BMI's of over 35 that aren't being hired.

[Acala]

Indeed...that only applies to a free market of which we do not have.

So since we don't have a totally free market its okay to use yet MORE force to make people do what YOU think they should do? I disagree. By that rational we will forever be moving in the wrong direction.

[ctiger2]

Next they won't take patients that are overweight...you know property rights and all. :rolleyes:

Patients are CUSTOMERS. I wouldn't hire fat-asses either if I owned a hospital. Frankly, I chuckle whenever I see a fat medical care professional. It looks bad to the customers if 50% of the staff are Obese and they're telling the customers to lose weight to improve their overall health too.

[donnay]

You are correct that we are far from a free market. But that is all the MORE reason to allow health care providers to exercise discretion in who they hire. Since I have fewer choices in this situation than in a free market, I want them to be the best possible choices. Hugely obese people simply cannot perform up to par in any activity that requires movement. They also suffer from impaired immune systems, chronic, inflammation, etc. Why would you NOT want them excluded from a physically active job in which there is chronic exposure to pathogens?

Some discrimination makes sense.

Oh, and by the way, I also want my insurance carrier to be able to exclude the obese, smokers, and stress monkeys from coverage. I make a LOT of effort, and spend a bit of coin, to eat right, exercise, and manage my stress. I shouldn't be forced to subsidize the health care of those who don't. Discrimination? You bet. If they don't like it I would be happy to show them FOR FREE how to get back on the road to good health practices.

Lot's of people do not understand that the foods they are eating are making them over weight. I know a lot of people who exercise and "think" they are eating right that are still gaining weight. I listed on the page before the things that are causing obesity in this country!

It's health care providers today,...the bar is being set here folks and it's a trap. There is a lot more things we have to overcome before we can move this country in the right direction. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. It's a loaded gun pointed at all of us. When we jump on the bandwagon of this discrimination, we open the door for other discrimination. I wished people could see this.

[donnay]

Ah, but Texas is a right-to-work state.

Correct--but still controlled, and not a truly free market. I have owned businesses in Texas.

[specsaregood]

//

[angelatc]

Patients are CUSTOMERS. I wouldn't hire fat-asses either if I owned a hospital. Frankly, I chuckle whenever I see a fat medical care professional. It looks bad to the customers if 50% of the staff are Obese and they're telling the customers to lose weight to improve their overall health too.

Let the market work. You sure have a point, but obese patients might feel that a rail thin unable to properly relate to their struggle to lose weight. Having a Rubenesque appearance might enable a nurse or doctor to "reach" a patient who likely already feels isolated. This place would have as much right not to hire skinny people as vice versa/

More importantly, the markets big enough that more than one model can work.

[Acala]

Lot's of people do not understand that the foods they are eating are making them over weight. I know a lot of people who exercise and "think" they are eating right that are still gaining weight. I listed on the page before the things that are causing obesity in this country!

It's health care providers today,...the bar is being set here folks and it's a trap. There is a lot more things we have to overcome before we can move this country in the right direction. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. It's a loaded gun pointed at all of us. When we jump on the bandwagon of this discrimination, we open the door for other discrimination. I wished people could see this.

I have no policy problem at all with people discriminating in every realm of life - where they work, who they hire, where they shop, who they associate with, who they live near, and so on. Not only that, but they should be free to discriminate in those areas for ANY REASON AT ALL. Stupid reasons. Irrational reasons. Hateful reasons. ANY REASON AT ALL. It is called freedom and sometimes it isn't pretty. But it beats tyranny hands down.

Furthermore, freedom tends to correct stupid discrimination through economic punishment.

[smithtg]

sounds like the HR person messed up here... It seems they could have just made a physical a hiring requirement? That pretty much drops 95% of the people with a BMI that high

[oyarde]

I'm all for it!

It's their right as employers to say we don't want fat people or smokers or non-English speakers or people who dye their hair. I have not tried dying my hair yet , the only employer I ever worked for that had hair color rules was the Army.

[asurfaholic]

My boss doesn't hire black people because he doesn't trust them. And our customers wouldn't feel comfortable with it either. Is it a sad state of affairs? Ya, but should he be FORCED to hire someone he doesn't want to hire? No. Pure and simple, its his business and he can hire who he wants, and he can also choose not to hire someone for what ever reason he chooses.

Freedom isn't a person being entitled to whatever job they want. Its a two way street.

[oyarde]

I've been fired as a patient. It was the MDs right to refuse to treat me. What did you do :) ?

[oyarde]

Should Hooters be required to hire ugly waitresses? Should a health care facility be required to hire unhealthy caregivers? I have never been in a Hooters

[Titus]

I still think that this discrimination is ok. This discrimination is related to the ability to do that job. The job is providing medical services. Those who are unhealthy do sound hypocritical giving health advice. This is part of the reason that women can choose to have a woman gynecologist. Sometimes, there are real differences.

Now, not hiring someone because of their BMI to do heavy lifting or clerical work when they have shown themselves capable is a different matter. The law allows for these "real differences" in discrimination for almost all forms of discrimination but for race, religion, and other rights that get "strict scrutiny" under the Constitution.

Acala, I feel like I have to respond to your post. A business may actually be forced to discriminate if economic forces reign. In the sixties, many business discriminated across the south. People would NOT patronize restaurants if a black person could be there. Economics was forcing the opposite result. I would fear the South would go back to such a result if economics was the reason to permit private discrimination.

[pcgame]

..

[AGRP]

They could just require a fitness test. They could just lie and not hire them after seeing them during the interview process. Many companies require applicants to be able to lift around 50 lbs on a regular basis and that filters a lot of "unfit" people out. At least the hospital was honest and the public can vote with their visits if they don't mind. At least the public can protest if they do mind.


sounds like the HR person messed up here... It seems they could have just made a physical a hiring requirement? That pretty much drops 95% of the people with a BMI that high

Yep.

[oyarde]

I need a mailing address for this hospital

[oyarde]

I saw a bumper sticker I can send them for the front door

[TheTexan]

Sure thing boss. As soon as they stop tainting the foods with MSG, Aspartame, HFCS and GMO's. Oh and get rid of Bisphenol-A.

Excuses. If you're fat, you've got only yourself to blame. There are some (rare) exceptions, such as legitimate health disorders. But these are rare.

[pcgame]

..

[Domalais]

Excuses. If you're fat, you've got only yourself to blame. There are some (rare) exceptions, such as legitimate health disorders. But these are rare.

It's the chemtrails.

[maskander]

SO who cares? Private property rights. They shouldn't have to hire anybody for any reason. LOOK HERE LOOK HERE, Justification for being a douche bag, It's in our constitution! Let me see, it should say something here about overweight people and discrimination.

[specsaregood]

LOOK HERE LOOK HERE, Justification for being a douche bag, It's in our constitution! Let me see, it should say something here about overweight people and discrimination.

You don't need the constitution to be a douchebag. It is your natural right.

[eduardo89]

You don't need the constitution to be a douchebag. It is your natural right.

I agree. That's my justification.

[specsaregood]

I agree. That's my justification.

If you don't exercise your rights, you lose them.

[Acala]

Acala, I feel like I have to respond to your post. A business may actually be forced to discriminate if economic forces reign. In the sixties, many business discriminated across the south. People would NOT patronize restaurants if a black person could be there. Economics was forcing the opposite result. I would fear the South would go back to such a result if economics was the reason to permit private discrimination.

Now THIS is an interesting issue. Please consider the following:

1. One of the main functions of the KKK was intimidating WHITE people, especially business owners, who dared to integrate. In other words, market forces, and good old humanity, tended to push towards integration and the use of force by the KKK was needed to keep segregation in place.

2. What was the purpose of laws in the South prohibiting integration if there were no market forces or social forces pushing for integration?

As usual, the government version of history is that the people, when left to their own devices, cannot behave and so GOVERNMENT must ride to the rescue and save the day. The reality is that government LEGISLATED racism in the south and turned a blind eye to the Klan's unlawful use of force to sustain racial segregation. The Federal government rides in and replaces local government and thug-enforced racism with Federal government enforced racism (Affirmative Action and Title 7 are overtly racist). Have race relations improved as a result? Is anybody MORE free?

As usual, the government version of the Civil Rights struggle is a big fat lie. The original freedom fighters - Martin Luther King, the NAACP, and the long-fogotten SNCC were focused primarily on getting equal treatment under the law, not getting special privileges. But instead of simply enforcing laws against the Klan's use of force and requiring the repeal of laws that discriminated based on race, the Federal government set up a system of perpetual, institutionalized racism. Do you suppose the plan was to create a controlled, but perpetual race-based schism in the population? I'm quite sure of it.

[eduardo89]

Acala, the problem is when government institutionalizes racism and does not prosecute violent crimes. A business should have every right to deny a black person (or white person, Jew, Muslim, gay, etc) service if the owner wishes. However, government has no right to make classrooms all black or all white. To make buses only for one race, to forbid a certain class from using a water fountain...also when a private group or an individual uses violence to impose segregation, the government must step in and prosecute those actions. If a store owner peacefully puts up a sign saying "Whites only" that is his right. If he uses violence then it's not ok. Likewise if someone uses violence to try and desegregate his business it's not ok.

[specsaregood]

If a store owner peacefully puts up a sign saying "Whites only" that is his right.

The flipside of that argument being -- as long as the store owner uses absolutely NO public services to run his store. Electricity, water, sewage, trash service. if its paid for with public money....

[azxd]

OMG OMG OMG
Knee Jerk Knee Jerk Knee Jerk

HR has an idiot working within the ranks ... End of story.

[Revolution9]

When we jump on the bandwagon of this discrimination, we open the door for other discrimination. I wished people could see this.

Discrimination is a good thing. It helps me determine that 10W-40 is not to be substituted for olive oil in salads.

HTH
Rev9

[Acala]

Acala, the problem is when government institutionalizes racism and does not prosecute violent crimes. A business should have every right to deny a black person (or white person, Jew, Muslim, gay, etc) service if the owner wishes. However, government has no right to make classrooms all black or all white. To make buses only for one race, to forbid a certain class from using a water fountain...also when a private group or an individual uses violence to impose segregation, the government must step in and prosecute those actions. If a store owner peacefully puts up a sign saying "Whites only" that is his right. If he uses violence then it's not ok. Likewise if someone uses violence to try and desegregate his business it's not ok.

I agree 100%.

But then I think the role of government should be so small that it would have very few opportunities to discriminate.

[Acala]

The flipside of that argument being -- as long as the store owner uses absolutely NO public services to run his store. Electricity, water, sewage, trash service. if its paid for with public money....

So, the fact that the government runs a monopoly by force on various essential services and you have no choice but to use them means you must give up your freedom and let government tell you who you must associate with? I think there are some flaws with this line of thinking.

[specsaregood]

So, the fact that the government runs a monopoly by force on various essential services and you have no choice but to use them means you must give up your freedom and let government tell you who you must associate with? I think there are some flaws with this line of thinking.

Yeah, that is the argument. If you have services for your business subsidized by the public then you have to agree to serve the entire public. It isn't really MY position but its the flipside to the argument and it is a valid one.

[Acala]

Yeah, that is the argument. If you have services for your business subsidized by the public then you have to agree to serve the entire public. It isn't really MY position but its the flipside to the argument and it is a valid one.

It is a doomsday argument for liberty because you really can't exist in this country without using some kind of government service. Indeed, it could be argued that just being physically within the borders means you are getting the benefit of defense services. The counter to the argument is that government has no business forcing services upon you and you are only subject to government regulation if you choose government services from among other freely offered non-government alternatives. Only then have you truly consented to the government service.

[Lishy]

Private property rights. If they're so butthurt they need to change the law just to get hired, then that's a clear message they should either lose some weight, or work at another hospital; Deal with it!

[eduardo89]

Can I refuse to serve fatties if I own an all you can eat buffet-style restaurant?

[Lishy]

Can I refuse to serve fatties if I own an all you can eat buffet-style restaurant?

Technically yes, but it would look bad and you would lose lotsa $$$!

Here, it's job hirings. Nurses should be in top shape because it's a VERY chaotic environment! I should know, I have friends who are nurses! Personally, I wouldn't hire someone out of shape either!

[Danke]

Can I refuse to serve fatties if I own an all you can eat buffet-style restaurant?

Would you have any customers then?

[specsaregood]

It is a doomsday argument for liberty because you really can't exist in this country without using some kind of government service. Indeed, it could be argued that just being physically within the borders means you are getting the benefit of defense services.

I think that is why those that make that argument like it so much.



The counter to the argument is that government has no business forcing services upon you and you are only subject to government regulation if you choose government services from among other freely offered non-government alternatives. Only then have you truly consented to the government service.
Yup, that's the appropriate solution to the conundrum.

[eduardo89]

Would you have any customers then?

Probably less, but my profit per customer would be higher. I'd have to do some market research before implementing that policy though.

[donnay]

My boss doesn't hire black people because he doesn't trust them. And our customers wouldn't feel comfortable with it either. Is it a sad state of affairs? Ya, but should he be FORCED to hire someone he doesn't want to hire? No. Pure and simple, its his business and he can hire who he wants, and he can also choose not to hire someone for what ever reason he chooses.

Freedom isn't a person being entitled to whatever job they want. Its a two way street.


Does your employer take public funds? Does your employer get subsidies from government?

It would be a wonderful world if we could only get government out of business, I hear ya! But they aren't and they are controlling our economy right now! Which holds many people over a barrel. When many people cannot find a job, guess what, they are going to turn to government for help.

I owned a business in Maine, and I was told that I HAD to carry insurance on my employees, it was a state mandate and to make matters worse, I had no choice which insurance company provider I wanted. So I sold my business and packed up and left, as did many others I knew who had a small business. This is happening all over the place. If it were truly a free market no one would be told what to do by government.

The transition to a free market would be first and foremost getting government out of our business. But we won't be able to make this transition with thousands of people who are out of work and on the government teet.

[specsaregood]

Does your employer take public funds? Does your employer get subsidies from government?


see, saw that argument coming from a mile away. :)

[azxd]

Probably less, but my profit per customer would be higher. I'd have to do some market research before implementing that policy though.Charge by the pound

[donnay]

I still think that this discrimination is ok. This discrimination is related to the ability to do that job. The job is providing medical services. Those who are unhealthy do sound hypocritical giving health advice. This is part of the reason that women can choose to have a woman gynecologist. Sometimes, there are real differences.


That's preemptive discrimination! How do you know a person cannot do the job when you can't get past their appearance? This country is extremely shallow and superficial. The way you hire someone is based on their merits not appearance.

You know that old sayings..."Don't judge a book by their cover."

[Acala]

Does your employer take public funds? Does your employer get subsidies from government?

It would be a wonderful world if we could only get government out of business, I hear ya! But they aren't and they are controlling our economy right now! Which holds many people over a barrel. When many people cannot find a job, guess what they are going to turn to government for help.

I owned a business in Maine, and I was told that I HAD to carry insurance on my employees, it was a state mandate and to make matters worse, I had no choice which insurance company provider I wanted. So I sold my business and packed up and left, as did many others I knew who had a small business. This is happening all over the place. If it were truly a free market no one would be told what to do by government.

The transition to a free market would be first and foremost getting government out of our business. But we won't be able to make this transition with thousands of people who are out of work and on the government teet.

The solution to a loss of freedom is never to sacrifice MORE freedom. That's how we got into this mess.

[Acala]

That's preemptive discrimination! How do you know a person cannot do the job when you can't get past their appearance? This country is extremely shallow and superficial. The way you hire someone is based on their merits not appearance.

You know that old sayings..."Don't judge a book by their cover."

Hair color is appearance. Obesity is a medical condition. But an employer should be able to discriminate on appearance as well. No matter how shallow.

If I were going to open a bar or restaurant, I would go all over town to find the most attractive, friendly wait staff I could find and then hire them away to work in my restaurant. Superficial? Yup. Would it work as a business strategy? Yup.

[eduardo89]

Charge by the pound

Then it's not really "All you can eat".

[maskander]

Then it's not really "All you can eat".Hey just do what most companies do, bait and switch lie to customers to get them in, and then have different terms than advertised.

[specsaregood]

Then it's not really "All you can eat".

I think you interpretted his comment backwards. think about it.

[Anti Federalist]

Hair color is appearance. Obesity is a medical condition. But an employer should be able to discriminate on appearance as well. No matter how shallow.

Just so I'm clear on this:

An employer can demand anything they want, correct?

Mandatory church attendance?

In house cameras and microphones to ensure compliance with company edicts and rules?

Removal of all firearms from an employee's home?

Prohibiting all political activism?

It's all on the table, correct?

[eduardo89]

Another business-related question. If I wanted to start a strip club but hire only redhead dancers, would that be legal descrimination?

[azxd]

Then it's not really "All you can eat".Sure it is ... You'd just have a variable price structure for the customers.

Weigh more = Pay more

[angelatc]

What did you do :) ?

It was a terrible doctor - sort of a production line set up. The doctor gave me medicine and told me to call if I didn't get better, or if certain symptoms developed. I got worse, so I called. At first, the nurse gave me her opinion if what was probably happening. I argued with her, because he told me specifically to call if it happened, so I wanted to make sure she told him. She told me she'd call me back, she didn't, I got worse. I called again, and said I wanted to see the doctor again because I was getting worse. She said they'd call me when an appointment cancelled. After three days, my symptoms turned into a full blown allergic reaction and I ended up back in the hospital. The doctor came in to see me there, and set up an office visit for me to see him after I got out.

When I went to that appointment, he adjusted my meds. As I was checking out, I saw the nurse calling people - she was trying to contact patients to notify them an appointment had become available, and that's when I found out their office policy was to not leave messages. That's also when I found out that they had tried to call me several times, but because one of us was on the internet (dial-up days) or in bed sleeping (because i was freaking sick - really, really, almost dead sick), and they wouldn't leave a message. So because they had a secret policy that was designed to protect their efficiency, ...I ended up in an ambulance unable to breathe.

I went off on her right then and there. There were probably 30 people in the waiting room, and I made sure every single one of them knew what happened to me - and how the combination of a nurse that wanted to play doctor combined with a policy of making sure they weren't any more available than they absolutely had to be almost killed me, the young mother of 2 kids....

When I got home, there was a message on my machine from the Doctor, and he I would be happier with another doctor. And he was right!

I've heard of people getting fired for smoking, too. It seems that doctors would want their patients to be unhealthy, but that's apparently not always the case.

[azxd]

Just so I'm clear on this:

An employer can demand anything they want, correct?

Mandatory church attendance?

In house cameras and microphones to ensure compliance with company edicts and rules?

Removal of all firearms from an employee's home?

Prohibiting all political activism?

It's all on the table, correct?No one forces you to accept the job.

[specsaregood]

...

[azxd]

Another business-related question. If I wanted to start a strip club but hire only redhead dancers, would that be legal descrimination?Only if you're stupid ... This HR person was stupid, and that's the only reason this is a story.

[eduardo89]

I've heard of people getting fired for smoking, too.

That's illegal in most states. I started a thread with a list of them.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?369549-Smoking-and-Employment

[Anti Federalist]

No one forces you to accept the job.

Uh huh.

And when every employer does it?

[Acala]

Just so I'm clear on this:

An employer can demand anything they want, correct?

Mandatory church attendance?

In house cameras and microphones to ensure compliance with company edicts and rules?

Removal of all firearms from an employee's home?

Prohibiting all political activism?

It's all on the table, correct?

Yup. Don't like it? Work somewhere else.

[Anti Federalist]

You should have tried some real off the wall requests. Like mandatory donkey-show attendance.

Very reasonable if you're in the animal husbandry business.

[azxd]

I've heard of people getting fired for smoking, too.

That's illegal in most states. I started a thread with a list of them.
More stupid people ... It's insanely easy to fire someone and have no repercussions for the action.

A smart business person knows this.
A stupid one makes national news.

[Anti Federalist]

Yup. Don't like it? Work somewhere else.

And when there is no other place to work?

[Acala]

Uh huh.

And when every employer does it?

You start a business that doesn't and get all the best employees to work for you.

I'm a little surprised that you have been around here this long and don't yet understand how the market regulates itself.

[azxd]

Uh huh.

And when every employer does it?Then you can cry for the rest of your life, and it won't make a bit of difference.

[Acala]

And when there is no other place to work?

Are you serious?

[Acala]

And when there is no other place to work?

You go crying to government to save you I guess. Is that the plan?

[eduardo89]

And when there is no other place to work?

Unemployment benefits. Or cut of your leg and get disability checks.

[azxd]

And when there is no other place to work?You need to make your own decisions about your life and how you will survive within modern society.

[Anti Federalist]

You start a business that doesn't and get all the best employees to work for you.

I'm a little surprised that you have been around here this long and don't yet understand how the market regulates itself.

I tried.

One of the reasons I couldn't make a go of it, is because insurance companies, that are demanding a lot of this nonsense, would not insure me.

So, tyranny is perfectly OK, just so long as it has a profit motive attached to it.

Got it.

[Anti Federalist]

Unemployment benefits. Or cut of your leg and get disability checks.

Da.

[donnay]

You go crying to government to save you I guess. Is that the plan?


That is the globalists plan.

[azxd]

I tried.

One of the reasons I couldn't make a go of it, is because insurance companies, that are demanding a lot of this nonsense, would not insure me.

So, tyranny is perfectly OK, just so long as it has a profit motive attached to it.

Got it.So you've decided to give up on yourself, and just sit around and complain ?

[Acala]

Just so I'm clear on this:

An employer can demand anything they want, correct?

Mandatory church attendance?

In house cameras and microphones to ensure compliance with company edicts and rules?

Removal of all firearms from an employee's home?

Prohibiting all political activism?

It's all on the table, correct?

I assume you know that it was not at all uncommon for employers in the past to have posted lists of acceptable conduct for employees IN THEIR OFF HOURS? Typically they required honest, well-mannered, sober behavior as the employee was a reflection on the company even in the off hours. And, low and behold, the world did not become a nightmare of over-bearing employers. It actually wasn't a bad thing.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you serious?

Yes, very serious.

You cannot see this?

You cannot see the wave of businesses that have instituted say, drug testing policies, when there is no law requiring them to do so?

[Anti Federalist]

I assume you know that it was not at all uncommon for employers in the past to have posted lists of acceptable conduct for employees IN THEIR OFF HOURS? Typically they required honest, well-mannered, sober behavior as the employee was a reflection on the company even in the off hours. And, low and behold, the world did not become a nightmare of over-bearing employers. It actually wasn't a bad thing.

The coal miners of West Virginia might disagree with that.

Just as an example.

[Acala]

I tried.

One of the reasons I couldn't make a go of it, is because insurance companies, that are demanding a lot of this nonsense, would not insure me.

So, tyranny is perfectly OK, just so long as it has a profit motive attached to it.

Got it.

You are unclear on the concept. Tyranny involves the use of force by the state. Nobody forces you to take a particular job.

[Anti Federalist]

So you've decided to give up on yourself, and just sit around and complain ?

Of course, it's what communists do best.

[eduardo89]

Yes, very serious.

You cannot see this?

You cannot see the wave of businesses that have instituted say, drug testing policies, when there is no law requiring them to do so?

I personally would drug test every employee and perspective employee. Don't really care if you smoke pot, but I'm not hiring anyone who does heroin or meth, regardless of their current job performance.

[Acala]

Yes, very serious.

You cannot see this?

You cannot see the wave of businesses that have instituted say, drug testing policies, when there is no law requiring them to do so?

It was, of course, government that started it. But the rule still applies - don't like it? Don't work there. Nobody ever promised you a job that you like. Or if they did, they lied. You have no right to work.

[Anti Federalist]

You are unclear on the concept. Tyranny involves the use of force by the state. Nobody forces you to take a particular job.

I disagree.

The corporate world exercises pwoer through the state.

Do this or go to jail.

Do this or starve in the street, where you'll go to jail.

I fail to see the difference.

[specsaregood]

Tyranny involves the use of force by the state.
I thought the role of government was to protect liberty. It is a valid viewpoint to say what you do in your non-work hours is part of your liberty.

[Anti Federalist]

It was, of course, government that started it. But the rule still applies - don't like it? Don't work there. Nobody ever promised you a job that you like. Or if they did, they lied. You have no right to work.

So then you are opposed to "right to work laws".

And organized labor that forces contractual concessions to prevent this kind of nonsense, presents no problem, correct?

[specsaregood]

I personally would drug test every employee and perspective employee. Don't really care if you smoke pot, but I'm not hiring anyone who does heroin or meth, regardless of their current job performance.

And don't forget dude, it makes it easier to know who to talk to when you need to score.

[AGRP]

You have no right to a job. If we actually had a free market then there would be plenty of jobs for everyone and we wouldn't be bickering about who employers want to hire. Should we go after coffee houses next for their blatant discriminatory hiring practices of only hiring younger attractive girls?

[Anti Federalist]

And don't forget dude, it makes it easier to know who to talk to when you need to score.

I LOLed

[Acala]

The coal miners of West Virginia might disagree with that.

Just as an example.

You have fallen for a fallacy. The same fallacy, by the way, that is used to justify child labor laws. "Oh, the working conditions were so horrible!!!" Yes, yes they were. Except in comparison to the life they left behind on the farm where they were freaking starving to death. Not everyone gets to choose between life in the penthouse and life on the beach. Sometimes the choice is life working hard here or life working hard there. Working for shitty boss A or shitty boss B. Government is not the answer. You should know that.

[Acala]

I thought the role of government was to protect liberty. It is a valid viewpoint to say what you do in your non-work hours is part of your liberty.

If you choose to waive that right in order to take a job, it isn't a violation of your liberty. It is a choice.

[Acala]

So then you are opposed to "right to work laws".

And organized labor that forces contractual concessions to prevent this kind of nonsense, presents no problem, correct?

I am opposed to "right to work" laws. I have no problem with organized labor but NOT if they use force.

[donnay]

You are unclear on the concept. Tyranny involves the use of force by the state. Nobody forces you to take a particular job.


http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu/trieb/Image1.gif


Fascist corportocracy has consumed this country. Government partners have done a bang-up job knock out small businesses because we have allowed it.


The whole purpose it to take this country down. Bring it to third world status!

[azxd]

Yes, very serious.

You cannot see this?

You cannot see the wave of businesses that have instituted say, drug testing policies, when there is no law requiring them to do so?Life isn't fair, but you can make of it what you want, if you want.

[azxd]

The coal miners of West Virginia might disagree with that.

Just as an example.Yet again ... No one forced them to accept the job.

[angelatc]

That's illegal in most states. I started a thread with a list of them.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?369549-Smoking-and-Employment

I meant fired as a patient.

[Acala]

I disagree.

The corporate world exercises pwoer through the state.

Do this or go to jail.

Do this or starve in the street, where you'll go to jail.

I fail to see the difference.

Hahahahaha. Well, the truth is seeping out. You really don't have a problem with government thugs using violence to make people do things they don't want to do so long as it is YOUR values and interests the thugs are protecting.

[azxd]

Of course, it's what communists do best.Typical, and expected of you ... I am starting to understand why there is such difference of opinion between us.

You look for excuses, and I look for opportunities.

[azxd]

I disagree.

The corporate world exercises pwoer through the state.

Do this or go to jail.

Do this or starve in the street, where you'll go to jail.

I fail to see the difference.There is a river that needs to be filled ... Please stand by it.

[specsaregood]

If you choose to waive that right in order to take a job, it isn't a violation of your liberty. It is a choice.

I agree in principle. But I am a pragmatist. In our current reality, we have a corporatist fascist state. Large businesses and Govt are attached at the hip and its not ending anytime soon. So I'm opening to hearing other arguments about how we can make it a better country for people to live in even if i'm opposed to them ideologically.

[donnay]

Typical, and expected of you ... I am starting to understand why there is such difference of opinion between us.

You look for excuses, and I look for opportunities.


Then you better become a lobbyist. Because you can't make a living on your own the way the country is now.

[azxd]

Fascist corportocracy has consumed this country. Government partners have done a bang-up job knock out small businesses because we have allowed it.


The whole purpose it to take this country down. Bring it to third world status!More piss poor excuses.

I expect this from people who think there deserve something because they breath, but I secretly hope they stop breathing, because they are a burden to self, and are to lazy to do more than complain about their troubles.

[Acala]

I agree in principle. But I am a pragmatist. In our current reality, we have a corporatist fascist state. Large businesses and Govt are attached at the hip and its not ending anytime soon. So I'm opening to hearing other arguments about how we can make it a better country for people to live in even if i'm opposed to them ideologically.

The answer is always MORE freedom and LESS government. Whenever it is proposed to use government to curtail one freedom in order to fix a problem created by government curtailing another freedom, you always end up with more government and less freedom. That is how we got here. We need to go in the other direction. More freedom, always.

[heavenlyboy34]

FWIW, unless you have a desk job or something, you're not going to fare well at a hospital. Most people are walking long distances all day. Nurses have the extra "burden" of pushing folks in wheelchairs/gourneys throughout the day. My mom was a lab tech ~40 years ago and couldn't have done it if she had been obese.

[azxd]

I meant fired as a patient.I understood you, and am glad you are able to see both sides of the situation.

We're currently dealing with a family member who is dying of inoperable cancer ... She's been legally tossed out of 5 assisted living situations as of today, because she is a high-maintenance patient, the facilities available do not want to deal with her situation, and the family is unable to provide 24/7 care in a home environment.

But with all of this ... No one is giving up.

Side note:
She switched to our family doctor a few years ago, and was "fired" because she would not follow the doctors advice.

[specsaregood]

The answer is always MORE freedom and LESS government. Whenever it is proposed to use government to curtail one freedom in order to fix a problem created by government curtailing another freedom, you always end up with more government and less freedom. That is how we got here. We need to go in the other direction. More freedom, always.

So government and laws never result in more freedom? Does "freedom" ever come at another's expense?

[azxd]

Then you better become a lobbyist. Because you can make a living on your own the way the country is now.I am !!!
I am a lobbyist for self and family ... And we are survivors ;)

[eduardo89]

So government and laws never result in more freedom? Does "freedom" ever come at another's expense?

Freedom =/= liberty.

We give up freedom to achieve liberty.

[azxd]

Freedom =/= liberty.

We give up freedom to achieve liberty.Now that's some twisted reality.

[eduardo89]

Now that's some twisted reality.

No, freedom and liberty are different things.

In true freedom you have the freedom to do anything you want, regardless of the consequences on others. You have the freedom to kill, rape, steal, defraud, etc.

If you live within a society that recognizes the concept of liberty you do not have the right to agress against others except to protect your own rights when they are being violated. Liberty restricts your freedom to do anything whatsoever.

[heavenlyboy34]

Now that's some twisted reality. Actually, he's right-unless you're a libertine. In true liberty, you give up the freedom to do whatever, wherever you want-and abide by the NAP and private property rights. Eduardo must be having a good day-he's usually not so good at this kind of thing. ;)

[eduardo89]

Actually, he's right-unless you're a libertine. In true liberty, you give up the freedom to do whatever, wherever you want-and abide by the NAP and private property rights. Eduardo must be having a good day-he's usually not so good at this kind of thing. ;)

Is that a compliment from HB?!? I must be hallucinating :p

[specsaregood]

Freedom =/= liberty.
We give up freedom to achieve liberty.

Ok, so now how about my actual questions?

[heavenlyboy34]

Is that a compliment from HB?!? I must be hallucinating :p Nah, you're not hallucinating this time. Cherish this moment, because it may never happen again. ;) :D Save it in your blog or something or print it and frame it on your wall. :cool:

[mortepa]

I am currently at 30-35% BMI, and I can do a much more physical job than most of my coworkers with substantially less body mass. I routinely pickup large servers that weigh 50-75 pounds and rack them at head level. I currently weigh 250 lbs, and am just shy of 6 foot. So what's the big deal???? I also work for a hospital.

I have no problem with setting the standards to what you can discriminate against, but it needs to be fair for everyone. For example, a 35% BMI is NOT a fair indicator of that person's physical abilities. Saying things like, must be able to lift 75 lbs, or must be able to stand for 8 hours, or must be able to scale 5 flights of stairs without taking a breather. Comparing real world demands of the job are the only fair way to discriminate in my opinion.

[azxd]

No, freedom and liberty are different things.

In true freedom you have the freedom to do anything you want, regardless of the consequences on others. You have the freedom to kill, rape, steal, defraud, etc.

If you live within a society that recognizes the concept of liberty you do not have the right to agress against others except to protect your own rights when they are being violated. Liberty restricts your freedom to do anything whatsoever.


Many authors prefer to talk of positive and negativefreedom. This is only a difference of style, and the terms‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ are normally used interchangeably by political and social philosophers. Although some attempts have been made to distinguish between liberty and freedom (Pitkin 1988; Williams 2001; Dworkin 2011), generally speaking these have not caught on. Neither can they be translated into other European languages, which contain only the one term, of either Latin or Germanic origin (e.g. liberté, Freiheit), where English contains both.

Read the entire article - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Then add to the confusion - http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg14.html

[angelatc]

Then you better become a lobbyist. Because you can't make a living on your own the way the country is now.

Sure you can. Millions of people do it every single day.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure you can. Millions of people do it every single day.
this^^ In most cases AFAIK, it's easier to be self-employed than to have an employer.

[Cabal]

They can hire whoever they want by whatever standard they choose. Whatever the consequences of those standards, good or bad, will be of their own making; and their business will either benefit or suffer because of it.

[donnay]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

~Martin Niemöller

[tttppp]

Texas hospital refuses to hire overweight people
33 mins ago

​A Texas hospital already facing a lawsuit for discrimination has again made itself the target of intense criticism over its hiring practices. The Citizens Medical Center in Victoria, Texas, says it won't hire anyone considered overweight, declaring that applicants must have a body mass index less than 35. Only Michigan and six U.S. cities have laws against weight-related hiring practices, so the policy could be legal -- at least for now. Last year, the hospital was sued by three cardiologists of Indian descent who said they had been discriminated against, so if you're an overweight Indian doctor looking for a job we strongly suggest you apply elsewhere.

http://now.msn.com/living/0404-hospital-bans-hiring-overweight.aspx

If you can't take care of your own health, what makes you think you can take care of someone elses health?

[Anti Federalist]

Hahahahaha. Well, the truth is seeping out. You really don't have a problem with government thugs using violence to make people do things they don't want to do so long as it is YOUR values and interests the thugs are protecting.

I brought up that WV miner's comment for a reason.

I have close friend who is an old timer from way back in the hills of WV.

His dad lived through all the labor strife and corruption that surrounded the mining operations in WV years ago. Not that this sort of thing didn't happen in other places either.

I recall one night while he related how private security goons would beat and harass his dad's family and how they would literally get away with murder.

With the cops and the courts looking the other way because they were also in the pockets of the mining companies, there was no justice to be had at all. It touched off a "holler war" that is written into history:

http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html

A corrupt corporation can impose tyranny just as fast as a government can.

A corrupt and tyrannical corporate entity combined with a corrupt and tyrannical government, can do it twice as fast.

[eduardo89]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

~Martin Niemöller

As if a socialist or a trade unionist would ever speak up for you in the first place :rolleyes:

[eduardo89]

Ok, so now how about my actual questions?

To answer your question: Government, laws, social norms, and "rights" are infringements on true freedom. Total freedom is not something we are working towards. Even an-cap societies do not espouse the idea of total freedom. We conservatives/libertarians/anarcho-capitalists believe in liberty whereby we accept principles such as the NAP, the rights to life and property. We respect these "infringements" into our freedom. That is what liberty is. It's an accepted compromise not to violate the liberty of others by limiting your own freedom.

Freedom is the lack of all government, regulations, and rights. It's is the "state of nature" as described by Hobbes. To live in/with liberty you must enter a social contract to respect the rights of others and in return have the guarantee that your rights will also be respected.

[Acala]

I brought up that WV miner's comment for a reason.

I have close friend who is an old timer from way back in the hills of WV.

His dad lived through all the labor strife and corruption that surrounded the mining operations in WV years ago. Not that this sort of thing didn't happen in other places either.

I recall one night while he related how private security goons would beat and harass his dad's family and how they would literally get away with murder.

With the cops and the courts looking the other way because they were also in the pockets of the mining companies, there was no justice to be had at all. It touched off a "holler war" that is written into history:

http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html

A corrupt corporation can impose tyranny just as fast as a government can.

A corrupt and tyrannical corporate entity combined with a corrupt and tyrannical government, can do it twice as fast.

I am opposed to the use of force except in defense of self or property. So I oppose the alleged acts of the private goons, just as I oppose the acts of government goons. Where you and I differ, apparently, is that you support government goons enforcing your values by violence on some people just because they run a business. I don't. just as you have a right to choose NOT to work for any particular employer, the employer has a right not to hire you - for ANY reason. And anyone who advocates using government force to deprive an employer of that right is working on the side of tyranny.

[heavenlyboy34]

To answer your question: Government, laws, social norms, and "rights" are infringements on true freedom. Total freedom is not something we are working towards. Even an-cap societies do not espouse the idea of total freedom. We conservatives/libertarians/anarcho-capitalists believe in liberty whereby we accept principles such as the NAP, the rights to life and property. We respect these "infringements" into our freedom. That is what liberty is. It's an accepted compromise not to violate the liberty of others by limiting your own freedom.

Freedom is the lack of all government, regulations, and rights. It's is the "state of nature" as described by Hobbes. To live in/with liberty you must enter a social contract to respect the rights of others and in return have the guarantee that your rights will also be respected.

Social contract theory is silly. It would be more accurate to say "To live in/with liberty you must recognize others' rights and not initiate aggression against them". The SCT starts with the presupposition that society owns individuals or individuals owe a debt to society, which is incorrect. The rest collapses from there.

[The Free Hornet]

If you can't take care of your own health, what makes you think you can take care of someone elses health?

If I need to be stitched up or have an operation, I don't give a rat's ass about the Doctor's health unless they plan to die during the procedure. It is of zero relevance how long the Doctor lives afterwards.

Also, the doctor doesn't "take care of [my] health". They are there to do something technical and specific that I couldn't likely do for myself even if I knew how.

Just look at our diets. The bad things like excess calories are well known by a great majority of people. Eat too much, get unhealthy. However, that knowledge is not coupled with individual action for reasons of habit, addiction, culture, laziness, etc.

With regards to this ignorant hospital, other forces could be at work. They would likely be happy with Doctor Fatass they just don't want the burden of insuring Overweight Orderly or Mount Reception. Other laws might make it difficult for the policy to read "no fatties unless you are a super-smart medical wizard".

[phill4paul]

Social contract theory is silly. It would be more accurate to say "To live in/with liberty you must recognize others' rights and not initiate aggression against them". The SCT starts with the presupposition that society owns individuals or individuals owe a debt to society, which is incorrect. The rest collapses from there.

Yup. For most individuals I challenge others to produce a 'contract' which they have signed to be one with society.

[Acala]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

~Martin Niemöller

When "they" means the government, I'm with you. When "they" means somebody not hiring somebody else, I think you are talking about an entirely different scenario and nobody at all is "coming" for the fat guy who didn't get hired.

[Acala]

Yup. For most individuals I challenge others to produce a 'contract' which they have signed to be one with society.

For social contract theory to be valid, there must be a total right to secede at all levels at any time. Only then can consent be imputed.

[Cabal]

Social contract theory: I took you out for dinner, paid for you food and drinks, and drove you back home. Now you owe me sex; and I'm taking it whether you like it or not.

[eduardo89]

Social contract theory: I took you out for dinner, paid for you food and drinks, and drove you back home. Now you owe me sex; and I'm taking it whether you like it or not.

Sound fair to me. She could have opted out of dinner or paid for herself and taken a bus/cab home.

[Cabal]

Sound fair to me. She could have opted out of dinner or paid for herself and taken a bus/cab home.

So you advocate rape?

[eduardo89]

So you advocate rape?
I didn't say that. But I said its a fair contract that she implicitly agreed to. I should be able to sue her for breach of contract.

[Cabal]

I didn't say that. But I said its a fair contract that she implicitly agreed to. I should be able to sue her for breach of contract.

Yes you did. You said it was "fair to you" that 'sex, whether it is wanted or not' is entitled to someone who takes another out on a date. This is rape.

[TheTexan]

Yes you did. You said it was "fair to you" that 'sex, whether it is wanted or not' is entitled to someone who takes another out on a date. This is rape.

If you accept that there was an implicit contract, she did in fact breach the contract. This doesn't mean it's fair to rape her, but it is fair to sue for breach of contract and get your money back.

[eduardo89]

If you accept that there was an implicit contract, she did in fact breach the contract. This doesn't mean it's fair to rape her, but it is fair to sue for breach of contract and get your money back.

This.

Or the FRN equivalent value of the sex she refused to give.

[TheTexan]

This.

Or the FRN equivalent value of the sex she refused to give.

I wonder what the FRN equivalent value of sex with Jessica Alba is. I'd love to pay for her dinner.

[eduardo89]

I wonder what the FRN equivalent value of sex with Jessica Alba is. I'd love to pay for her dinner.

http://infosthetics.com/archives/one_billion_dollars2.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

If you accept that there was an implicit contract, she did in fact breach the contract. This doesn't mean it's fair to rape her, but it is fair to sue for breach of contract and get your money back.
Tacit contracts aren't enforceble in 99.999999% of cases. Eduardo's not likely to be getting nookie in this scenario-more like a facefull of mace, a tazer shot, or perhaps a bullet. ;) Srsly, if you're dumb enough to believe a woman will sleep with you just because you bought her gifts or dinner, you deserve to lose the money you spent. You may as well hand her your manhood too, since she'll just be using you as a useful idiot to get toys/money/drugs, whatever.

[eduardo]

Tacit contracts aren't enforceble in 99.999999% of cases. Eduardo's not likely to be getting nookie in this scenario-more like a facefull of mace, a tazer shot, or perhaps a bullet. ;)

Actually they are. If you go to restaurant and order food, you've entered into a contract to pay for it. If I invite a girl out on a date and I pay for everything, including transportation and alcoholic beverages, there is the expectation that she provide something in return. A goodnight kiss just isn't going to cut it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes you did. You said it was "fair to you" that 'sex, whether it is wanted or not' is entitled to someone who takes another out on a date. This is rape.
qft. Eduardo is a douche, too.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually they are. If you go to restaurant and order food, you've entered into a contract to pay for it. If I invite a girl out on a date and I pay for everything, including transportation and alcoholic beverages, there is the expectation that she provide something in return. A goodnight kiss just isn't going to cut it.
Says who? You voluntarily paid for all that. She doesn't owe you shit. If I were a lady and you treated me to all that stuff, I'd just keep stretching it out (teasing you with maybe putting out later) till you're out of money and dump you like the tool you are.

[eduardo]

qft. Eduardo is a douche, too.

I am, but in this case I'm right. If there was a tacit contract in place and she breached it, I am entitled to sue her for redress (or in this case undress ;) )


Says who? You voluntarily paid for all that. She doesn't owe you shit. If I were a lady and you treated me to all that stuff, I'd just keep stretching it out till you're out of money and dump you like the tool you are.

I'd sue you after the first date.

[heavenlyboy34]

I am, but in this case I'm right. If there was a tacit contract in place and she breached it, I am entitled to sue her for redress (or in this case undress ;) )
Except there is no tacit contract. Even if you claim there is, she could claim there isn't and would win.




I'd sue you after the first date.
You'd lose, but go ahead. ;)

ETA: I'm taking your daughter on a date the day she turns 18. ;) :D

[eduardo]

Except there is no tacit contract. Even if you claim there is, she could claim there isn't and would win.

You'd lose, but go ahead. ;)

lol, you're taking this too seriously. You know I wouldn't want a girl who puts out after the first date, where the fun in that?

The only contract that I believe does implicitly provide for all the sex I could want is marriage (although it actually isnt a contract unless you do a civil marriage).

[heavenlyboy34]

lol, you're taking this too seriously. You know I wouldn't want a girl who puts out after the first date, where the fun in that?

The only contract that I believe does implicitly provide for all the sex I could want is marriage (although it actually isnt a contract unless you do a civil marriage).
Ya, I love trolling you. :) You're more fun than the old folks around here. They usually get mad and leave after 1 or 2 posts. :( ETA: unless we're talking about civil marriage, marriage is more a covenant than a contract. She can technically refuse your advances at any time-as I understand covenant law.

[eduardo]

Ya, I love trolling you. :) You're more fun than the old folks around here. They usually get mad and leave after 1 or 2 posts. :( ETA: unless we're talking about civil marriage, marriage is more a covenant than a contract. She can technically refuse your advances at any time-as I understand covenant law.

But the Bible says your body belongs to your spouse :p


1 Corinthians 7:4

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

She can do whatever she wants with my body ;)

[tttppp]

If I need to be stitched up or have an operation, I don't give a rat's ass about the Doctor's health unless they plan to die during the procedure. It is of zero relevance how long the Doctor lives afterwards.

Also, the doctor doesn't "take care of [my] health". They are there to do something technical and specific that I couldn't likely do for myself even if I knew how.

Just look at our diets. The bad things like excess calories are well known by a great majority of people. Eat too much, get unhealthy. However, that knowledge is not coupled with individual action for reasons of habit, addiction, culture, laziness, etc.

With regards to this ignorant hospital, other forces could be at work. They would likely be happy with Doctor Fatass they just don't want the burden of insuring Overweight Orderly or Mount Reception. Other laws might make it difficult for the policy to read "no fatties unless you are a super-smart medical wizard".

Doctors don't take care of our health because they are incompetent. However, it is their job to take care of your health.

[MelissaWV]

Just when I think this place can't disgust me further, you get a thread like this that has somehow managed to decide marriage is a pass to have as much sex as you want, regardless of your partner's wishes. In fact, if they don't want to at any and all times, they are in breach of contract.

I thought the board was just populated by a few really vocal jerks. It turns out they're rapists in training, to boot.

[heavenlyboy34]

But the Bible says your body belongs to your spouse :p



She can do whatever she wants with my body ;)
Even cut it up and sell the parts? ;) :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Just when I think this place can't disgust me further, you get a thread like this that has somehow managed to decide marriage is a pass to have as much sex as you want, regardless of your partner's wishes. In fact, if they don't want to at any and all times, they are in breach of contract.

I thought the board was just populated by a few really vocal jerks. It turns out they're rapists in training, to boot.
Yep, that's Eduardo for ya. :(

[eduardo89]

Just when I think this place can't disgust me further, you get a thread like this that has somehow managed to decide marriage is a pass to have as much sex as you want, regardless of your partner's wishes. In fact, if they don't want to at any and all times, they are in breach of contract.

I thought the board was just populated by a few really vocal jerks. It turns out they're rapists in training, to boot.

Chill out. You don't have to take everything in the Internet so seriously.

[eduardo89]

Even cut it up and sell the parts? ;) :D

As long as I get half the proceeds, I guess it's fine. And depends what parts.

[heavenlyboy34]

Chill out. You don't have to take everything in the Internet so seriously.
To be fair, it's hard to tell when eduardo is kidding sometimes. ;)

[eduardo]

To be fair, it's hard to tell when eduardo is kidding sometimes. ;)

Not when I use ;) or :p or :D or /s or I'm "arguing" with you about something stupid...

Melissa just needs to chill the fuck out.

[KingNothing]

It might take private organizations holding their ground and refusing to hire fat, lazy, masses of humanity for Americans to get in shape and care about their bodies.

[MelissaWV]

To be fair, it's hard to tell when eduardo is kidding sometimes. ;)

To be fair, I stupidly think that someone who's in favor of buying a woman's sexual submission (whether it be with a ring or a lobster dinner) isn't somehow a model of proper behavior once they log off. I tend to think that what we say online is a pretty good reflection of who we are offline. I'm dumb like that. I can't imagine the few good people I've ever met talking about how marriage is a free license to kick apart your spouse's legs and take what you want regardless of what she wants.

He's not cute, he's not funny, but he's the forum hero of late. It tells me more about the state of this place than I really cared to know.

[eduardo]

It might take private organizations holding their ground and refusing to hire fat, lazy, masses of humanity for Americans to get in shape and care about their bodies.

I doubt it, it's going to take to take a collapse of the dollar brought on by massive government spending on healthcare. People won't have much choice but to slim down, they won't be able to buy much food.

[eduardo]

To be fair, I stupidly think that someone who's in favor of buying a woman's sexual submission (whether it be with a ring or a lobster dinner) isn't somehow a model of proper behavior once they log off. I tend to think that what we say online is a pretty good reflection of who we are offline. I'm dumb like that. I can't imagine the few good people I've ever met talking about how marriage is a free license to kick apart your spouse's legs and take what you want regardless of what she wants.

He's not cute, he's not funny, but he's the forum hero of late. It tells me more about the state of this place than I really cared to know.

Have I ever said that seriously? Again, you take two guys joking around on an Internet forum way too fucking seriously.

[KingNothing]

Lot's of people do not understand that the foods they are eating are making them over weight. I know a lot of people who exercise and "think" they are eating right that are still gaining weight. I listed on the page before the things that are causing obesity in this country!

No matter what people eat, if they consume 1500 calories a day, they aren't going to have a BMI of 35. They won't be morbidly obese.

[MelissaWV]

The only contract that I believe does implicitly provide for all the sex I could want is marriage (although it actually isnt a contract unless you do a civil marriage).


Have I ever said that seriously?

You said it without your little emoticons, and you certainly do keep returning to the same concept throughout dozens of posts. One would have to think you believe that. Saying "I'm just joking!" after you've said something utterly stupid and revolting is what little children do. Good to hear you admit you are not serious, though. I don't know why anyone ever has the notion you are a misogynist.

But I'm just joking!!!!

[eduardo]

No matter what people eat, if they consume 1500 calories a day, they aren't going to have a BMI of 35. They won't be morbidly obese.

It all depends on your activity level. Most active people can't function on only 1500 calories per day, I know I can't. I take about 2500-3000 per day without gaining weight. It also depends on what exactly you're putting into your body. 2500 calories of meat, raw whole milk, fresh fruits and vegetables is much better than 1500 calories of pink slime, cola, and processed carbs.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Why is there two Eduardos???

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[eduardo]

You said it without your little emoticons, and you certainly do keep returning to the same concept throughout dozens of posts. One would have to think you believe that. Saying "I'm just joking!" after you've said something utterly stupid and revolting is what little children do. Good to hear you admit you are not serious, though. I don't know why anyone ever has the notion you are a misogynist.

But I'm just joking!!!!

You can think I'm a misogynist all you want. I don't give a damn to be honest. I believe in complementarian gender roles where a woman's most important role is to stay home and raise the children. Oh how horrible! What an awful person I am! Sorry that I don't buy into all your "women's liberation" feminist bullshit.

[eduardo89]

Why is there two Eduardos???

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Why not? Matt Collins has 3 accounts (that we know of), Kludge became Kluge. And once I reach another rep bar I'll start using my new account.

[donnay]

When "they" means the government, I'm with you. When "they" means somebody not hiring somebody else, I think you are talking about an entirely different scenario and nobody at all is "coming" for the fat guy who didn't get hired.

"They" meaning government.

This mentality is only going to expand...with the appearance of a free market, less and less people will be able to work. I already explained about the food additives and sugar substitutes that are causing the people to gain weight, you do not think it is deliberate? I do. Not to mention the medications people are prescribed are indeed making them pack on the weight. Less and less jobs for people to get, along with stringent regulations. We have all been born into this crap. I would like nothing more than to see people start up businesses and prosper. But government will not let that happen. I truly think the only way we can stop this is go underground and start bartering and trading amongst ourselves.

Property rights...the only property rights we have anymore is our very own body. And even then, we are being told what we can and cannot do with our own property.

The true agenda is to take this country and bankrupt it, and knock it down to third world status where everyone will be beholden to the government, then once that happens the boot will be firmly on our faces.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Why not? Matt Collins has 3 accounts (that we know of), Kludge became Kluge. And once I reach another rep bar I'll start using my new account.

Ohhh...I didn't know if someone was trying to imitate you. I knew Collinz had one other account, didn't know he had 3 total.

I wish I made more rep worthy posts, but by the time I find something interesting to post there are already 5 threads on it at RPF. :p

[eduardo89]

Property rights...the only property rights we have anymore is our very own body. And even then, we are being told what we can and cannot do with our own property.

We lost that one ages ago. We have no right to food. We have no right to water without fluoride. We have no right to smoke a certain plant. We have no right to take other mind altering drugs. We have no right to "sell" our bodies to other consenting adults. We have no right to take or not take any medication...

It's fucking sad :(

[DamianTV]

When "they" means Government, stop to think for a second, who controls the Government? The Banks and Corporations.

[eduardo89]

Ohhh...I didn't know if someone was trying to imitate you. I knew Collinz had one other account, didn't know he had 3 total.

I wish I made more rep worthy posts, but by the time I find something interesting to post there are already 5 threads on it at RPF. :p

Collins has: Matt Collins, Zanzibar and Napoleon's Shadow. Although he'll deny they're all him if you ask.

Tip for starting threads: don't look for articles on inforwars, JFKIII has more than likely already posted it. Don't go on The New American, FrankRep has more than likely posted it. Don't post things about cops, AF has already posted it. Don't post thinks about natural medicine or vaccines, donnay has probably posted it :p

[heavenlyboy34]

Why is there two Eduardos???

:confused: :confused: :confused:
One of them is a hardcore Zionist.

[donnay]

No matter what people eat, if they consume 1500 calories a day, they aren't going to have a BMI of 35. They won't be morbidly obese.

That's rather silly. How do you burn off calories. Calorie counts are ridiculous. It's carbs and protein grams people need to be aware of. Then again, they have to know about MSG, Aspartame, HFCS, GMO's and other toxins that are causing people to gain weigh rapidly and making them sick.

[eduardo89]

One of them is a hardcore Zionist in training.

Fixed that for you.

[heavenlyboy34]

When "they" means Government, stop to think for a second, who controls the Government? The Banks and Corporations.+rep

[eduardo]

The true agenda is to take this country and bankrupt it, and knock it down to third world status where everyone will be beholden to the government, then once that happens the boot will be firmly on our faces.

Yup. So many people think TPTB are the ones who will be hurt by the coming collapse, but it's completely orchestrated. They control the money supply and the politicians right now, but they don't control the people yet. Once they collapse the dollar, mayhem will ensue and that's when they swoop in and take it all over for good. That's why we have a very short window to turn things around, and every day we delay it, the closer we are to slavery.

[Son of Detroit]

That's rather silly. How do you burn off calories. Calorie counts are ridiculous. It's carbs and protein grams people need to be aware of. Then again, they have to know about MSG, Aspartame, HFCS, GMO's and other toxins that are causing people to gain weigh rapidly and making them sick.

What scientific studies have you come across that suggest your claims?

[heavenlyboy34]

Fixed that for you.
thnx. My bad.:o

[donnay]

We lost that one ages ago. We have no right to food. We have no right to water without fluoride. We have no right to smoke a certain plant. We have no right to take other mind altering drugs. We have no right to "sell" our bodies to other consenting adults. We have no right to take or not take any medication...

It's fucking sad :(


Yes indeed it is.

[heavenlyboy34]

What scientific studies have you come across that suggest your claims? Linus Pauling's body of work is a start.

[eduardo]

What scientific studies have you come across that suggest your claims?

lol are you really challenging donnay to post her evidence? Wait for the longest post you've ever seen. She doesn't just spout random bs...

[donnay]

Yup. So many people think TPTB are the ones who will be hurt by the coming collapse, but it's completely orchestrated. They control the money supply and the politicians right now, but they don't control the people yet. Once they collapse the dollar, mayhem will ensue and that's when they swoop in and take it all over for good. That's why we have a very short window to turn things around, and every day we delay it, the closer we are to slavery.


Absolutely! Fat people, skinny people, black people, white people, brown people, yellow people, young, old, tall or short, smoker, non-smoker--etc... have to open their eyes more. We are all being played like a fiddle.

[eduardo]

Absolutely! Fat people, skinny people, black people, white people, brown people, yellow people, young, old, tall or short, smoker, non-smoker--etc... have to open their eyes more. We are all being played like a fiddle.

Sadly the last 100 years of public schooling, mass media, and the phony left-right paradigm have conditioned people into allowing themselves to be played like a fiddle. Just look at things such as the Trayvon Martin shooting...that's gotten more coverage in a month than the Fed lending $15 trillion in secret has in the past 3 years!

[DamianTV]

One would think that as much as they do everything to screw us as often as possible, we should at least be entitled to a 'Courtesy Reach Around'...

[Son of Detroit]

lol are you really challenging donnay to post her evidence? Wait for the longest post you've ever seen. She doesn't just spout random bs...

I'm always up to the challenge!

[eduardo]

I'm always up to the challenge!

This isn't you, is it?

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3022/5835158019_5217186d35.jpg

In all seriousness, go on donnay's profile and click on latest threads and take a look in the "Health Freedom" section of the forum.

[Anti Federalist]

Collins has: Matt Collins, Zanzibar and Napoleon's Shadow. Although he'll deny they're all him if you ask.

Let's not forget the Truffle Shuffle.

[pcgame]

..

[eduardo]

Let's not forget the Truffle Shuffle.

Oh dear...please don't bring that one up.

[Anti Federalist]

This isn't you, is it?

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3022/5835158019_5217186d35.jpg

In all seriousness, go on donnay's profile and click on latest threads and take a look in the "Health Freedom" section of the forum.

That's just great.

I just happened to be on the phone, having a nice conversation with my wife, when she spotted this.

Damn you guys...

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/003/619/Untitled-1.jpg

[eduardo89]

lol, you're just using that as an opportunity to post a rage comic face, arent you? We all know how much you love them!

[Anti Federalist]

lol, you're just using that as an opportunity to post a rage comic face, arent you? We all know how much you love them!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/small/000/103/740/Me%20Gusta.png?1318992465

[Anti Federalist]

When "they" means Government, stop to think for a second, who controls the Government? The Banks and Corporations.

Pretty much ends the thread for me.

+rep

[Pericles]

Collins has: Matt Collins, Zanzibar and Napoleon's Shadow. Although he'll deny they're all him if you ask.



I have a hard enough time managing just one personality ....

[donnay]

What scientific studies have you come across that suggest your claims?


MSG linked to weight gain (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/us-msg-linked-weight-gain-idUSTRE74Q5SJ20110527)

Aspartame and Weight Gain (http://marystuart.hubpages.com/hub/Diet-Colas-and-Weight-Gain)

High-Fructose Corn Syrup Prompts Considerably More Weight Gain, Researchers Find (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm)

BPA, MSG, GMO and Other Toxins in Our Food and Water Cause Obesity (http://occupycorporatism.com/bpa-msg-gmo-and-other-toxins-in-our-food-and-water-cause-obesity/)

New Study: BPA Causes Weight-Gain (http://www.thewellnesswire.com/Purify-Your-Home/new-study-bpa-causes-weight-gain.html)

Cut calories and the body fights it all the way... you won’t lose weight, you’ll just become malnourished (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/health/3073295/Expert-claims-dieting-is-a-waste-of-time.html)

Counting calories may be a waste of time? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-201483/Counting-calories-waste-time.html)

Counting Calories is Unnatural (http://slowburnfitness.com/counting-calories-is-unnatural/)

Why calorie counting makes you fat (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1200993/Why-calorie-counting-makes-fat.html)

Trying To Lose Weight? Counting Calories Could be a Waste of Your Time (http://blog.mydot.com/post/Weight-Loss-Counting-Calories.aspx)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdMjKEncojQ

[eduardo89]

I have a hard enough time managing just one personality ....

His ego is big enough to fill three accounts.

Apparently the mods are no longer allowing this to be done (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/announcement.php?f=104). Wonder which of Matt's accounts will be banned...

[eduardo89]

Thanks a lot Donna, now I'm going to be up all night reading your links!! :p

[donnay]

Thanks a lot Donna, now I'm going to be up all night reading your links!! :p

You're welcome. I hope that helps some people understand, that some people are obese not because they are lazy. It's because some doctor(s) and nutritionist(s) told us 30 years ago to count calories, and that fat is bad for us and sugar substitutes are better than real cane sugar.

What we have been taught is all wrong. This obesity epidemic in this country is proof of it.


ETA: I bet a lot of people never see a skinny person drinking diet drinks.

[TheTexan]

I've never met a fat person that didn't eat too much.

[donnay]

I've never met a fat person that didn't eat too much.


Well you haven't been around then. You should get out more!

[tttppp]

Well you haven't been around then. You should get out more!

I've actually never met a fat person who got fat just by eating too much. From what I have seen, people get fat by some combination of eating the wrong foods or health problems. I've never met an obese person who just sits around eating 24/7. Because that is what it would take to get obese from simply eating too much.

[donnay]

I've actually never met a fat person who got fat just by eating too much. From what I have seen, people get fat by some combination of eating the wrong foods or health problems. I've never met an obese person who just sits around eating 24/7. Because that is what it would take to get obese from simply eating too much.

I have met people who have a problem with portion control during a lunch or dinner but they weren't big junk food junkies. I have actually known more skinny people who I thought had a tapeworm. They constantly ate and rarely gained any weight. It doesn't mean they were healthy either.

[kezt777]

The way I see it is if the hospital, or any other employer, decides not to hire a person based on any reason at all, they run the risk of missing out on a good employee along the line, and that's their own problem. I am not a skinny person and I am sure if I was out job hunting, some people might not want to hire me based on that, but then that's their own fault isn't it? They wouldn't give themselves the chance to know that I am a hard worker, fast learner, extremely rarely call in sick, have never taken a 'personal day' or a 'family day' in my life even though I am allowed at least one of each per year in my province, I am always on time (more like, early), and do not leave my shift unless I am nearly dead (I have only gone home sick from a job three times that I can think of and I am almost 39) and I don't demand raises, would vote against bringing in a union, etc etc etc. If the employer sees me and thinks I would not be a good job candidate based on the size of my rump - it's their loss.

But seriously, who puts that in writing as a hiring policy? lol. geez.

[tttppp]

I have met people who have a problem with portion control during a lunch or dinner but they weren't big junk food junkies. I have actually known more skinny people who I thought had a tapeworm. They constantly ate and rarely gained any weight. It doesn't mean they were healthy either.

I've met those skinny people too, who eat nothing but garbage and never gain any weight.

I've seen people eat somewhat larger portions than me, but I've never seen someone severely over eat. Which in theory, is what it would take to get obese from over eating.

[kezt777]

I've met those skinny people too, who eat nothing but garbage and never gain any weight.

I've seen people eat somewhat larger portions than me, but I've never seen someone severely over eat. Which in theory, is what it would take to get obese from over eating.

One of my very good friends is like that. She has chips and dip for breakfast sometimes, or has sat and ate two trays of Toffifee chocolates when I only ate 2 pieces - and she is skinny as a rake. However, she has no stamina at all and drives everywhere because she doesnt even want to walk a block to the park with her kids. She looks great in clothes, can buy whatever she wants, but does no physical activity. I think she is skinny because she is a very nervous, anxious person and always does things like move her foot up and down really fast bounce bounce bounce... it drives me crazy lol. My bf tries to GAIN weight and eats like a horse but is 6'1 and is happy when he tips the scale at 180 in the winter. His legs are sticks and he has no bumb lol, despite eating everything in site, late night snacking, etc. but he too is an anxious person who is always fidgeting and moving some part of his body. I told him I think he burns off fat that way lol. He does have a physical job when out in the field but the majority of the time he is sitting behind a steering wheel doing nothing but driving.

[tttppp]

One of my very good friends is like that. She has chips and dip for breakfast sometimes, or has sat and ate two trays of Toffifee chocolates when I only ate 2 pieces - and she is skinny as a rake. However, she has no stamina at all and drives everywhere because she doesnt even want to walk a block to the park with her kids. She looks great in clothes, can buy whatever she wants, but does no physical activity. I think she is skinny because she is a very nervous, anxious person and always does things like move her foot up and down really fast bounce bounce bounce... it drives me crazy lol. My bf tries to GAIN weight and eats like a horse but is 6'1 and is happy when he tips the scale at 180 in the winter. His legs are sticks and he has no bumb lol, despite eating everything in site, late night snacking, etc. but he too is an anxious person who is always fidgeting and moving some part of his body. I told him I think he burns off fat that way lol. He does have a physical job when out in the field but the majority of the time he is sitting behind a steering wheel doing nothing but driving.

I've explained this in other threads before, even if you are able to eat garbage and not gain weight, the bad food does cause health problems. In the case of your friend and bf, their anxiety is most likely a result of liver problems.

[TheTexan]

You're welcome. I hope that helps some people understand, that some people are obese not because they are lazy. It's because some doctor(s) and nutritionist(s) told us 30 years ago to count calories, and that fat is bad for us and sugar substitutes are better than real cane sugar.

What we have been taught is all wrong. This obesity epidemic in this country is proof of it.


ETA: I bet a lot of people never see a skinny person drinking diet drinks.

Are you or AF fat? Just curious.

[kezt777]

I've explained this in other threads before, even if you are able to eat garbage and not gain weight, the bad food does cause health problems. In the case of your friend and bf, their anxiety is most likely a result of liver problems.

Who knows. My bf went through a lot of tests in the fall for some strange infections (neck and finger) and then after he was burned in a fire at work and nothing showed up that concerned them - but that doesn't mean anything. Apparently both of them have been like this since they were little kids. I do tell my friend and bf that they might reap the problems of their eating habits more and more as they get older. Meanwhile my mom is almost 67 and has been over 300 lbs for about 25 years and has never spent a night in hospital other than to have me and my brother, and has only recently been having BP issues (my bp is far worse than her's, and has been since I was preg with my first child in 1997). She is not going to run around the block, but her health issues have been fewer than others I know who have never been overweight, let alone 'morbidly obese'. It will catch up to her as she ages, and it is, and I dont recommend her size combined with being short, but I have learned enough over the years to know that people should not be judged on their appearance. However I do not believe in having the govt take control of that - as I said earlier, employers could be missing out on some good staffers and that's their own problem/fault.

speaking of obesity though, my brother and I recently had a lengthy discussion about how so many people want smokers, drinkers, and fatties to stop being such a massive drain on our canadian health care system.... adding a 'fat tax' to junk food and things like that to help offset the cost. But when I looked up our medical stats, I found that the vast majority of healthcare tax money spent in this country is spent on people over the age of 65. Like a HUGE percentage. And there really seem to be fewer obese pensioners than those who are younger. My gran went from being 'pudgey' to being only 90lbs when she aged into her 80s and 90s. Perhaps one could argue that a great many of those people were obese smoking drinkers in their youth, hence needing more care as they got older - but that is pretty hard to prove. The fact is, the media keeps reporting that these groups of people with 'preventable issues' are draining the healthcare system when there seems to be dodgy 'proof' to back this up. I believe the avg per-person health care costs in Canada for those under age 65 is about $2000 each, where it's over $10,000 each for those over 65. Gee what are we going to do about THAT?

Back to the topic - I still think it's rather mental for an employer to put in print that they wont hire someone with a BMI of 35 or over. That was just asking for trouble from the start. But maybe I could pitch a fit that there are jobs around here that require people to be able to lift loads of 50+ lbs repeatedly every day and I can't lift that much, but want to work there cos there are no other jobs going... would I be able to say I was being discriminated against because I cannot lift 50lbs over and over? Or the recent job posting I saw for an old folk's home where it said applicants must have a valid driver's license, but nowhere in the job description does it say that you have to drive anywhere for anything - I don't have a license but I think I would like to switch careers in the next couple of years to working with the elderly instead of children. Should I cry out that I am being discriminated against because I hate driving and therefore do not have a license? Etc etc. Meaning that in this case and others, there is a chance for a prospective employee to change their weight (or get a license, or work out to become stronger) but instead they are calling for the employer to change the rules.

[donnay]

Are you or AF fat? Just curious.

Why because we are trying to point the issues of obesity in this country? One doesn't have to be fat to see a shift towards ostracizing and treating people like they are subhuman just because they are overweight. I have seen a lot of comments in this thread alone, that has sent chills down my spine, that some people have zero compassion for their fellow human being.

We live in a country that is quite divided. The powers that be are rubbing their hands together in sheer delight.

I do weep for our future.

[TheTexan]

Why because we are trying to point the issues of obesity in this country? One doesn't have to be fat to see a shift towards ostracizing and treating people like they are subhuman just because they are overweight.

There's a strong correlation between being fat and believing that fat people are not to blame for being fat. I haven't figured out if they are fat because they believe this, or if they believe this because they are fat. But the correlation is there.

Shrug.


I have seen a lot of comments in this thread alone, that has sent chills down my spine, that some people have zero compassion for their fellow human being.

We live in a country that is quite divided. The powers that be are rubbing their hands together in sheer delight.

I do weep for our future.

If fat people want to be fat... more power to them. But when fat people start demanding that we make sacrifices to accommodate their fatness, that's where I draw the line.

Extra weight from MSG or fructose is nothing a little exercise can't take of. Or just simply change your diet. If someone is going overweight on their current diet, it should be fairly obvious that diet isn't working for them. Noone's gotten fat eating vegetables.

This idea that "it's not their fault" simply encourages their unhealthy behavior. It is, at the end of the day, unhealthy behavior. Regardless of excuses made.

[John F Kennedy III]

25 pages?

If you're fat and want to get a job, but they won't hire you because you're fat, then lose weight. It's simple.

[libertarian4321]

You ever see a 400lb+ person try to do this type of work? In a hospital setting you have to always be on your toes and on the move. Overweight people need to sit and catch their breath and then there are those that can only walk for 30 min at a time.

Nonsense.

Hospitals hire all kinds of people, many of whom do nothing but sit at a computer all day. You don't have to be particularly fit to sit in a chair and tap on a keyboard.

[azxd]

To answer your question: Government, laws, social norms, and "rights" are infringements on true freedom. Total freedom is not something we are working towards. Even an-cap societies do not espouse the idea of total freedom. We conservatives/libertarians/anarcho-capitalists believe in liberty whereby we accept principles such as the NAP, the rights to life and property. We respect these "infringements" into our freedom. That is what liberty is. It's an accepted compromise not to violate the liberty of others by limiting your own freedom.

Freedom is the lack of all government, regulations, and rights. It's is the "state of nature" as described by Hobbes. To live in/with liberty you must enter a social contract to respect the rights of others and in return have the guarantee that your rights will also be respected.Is this an Obamanism, or did it perhaps develop out of the National Socialist Party ?

[specsaregood]

Pretty much ends the thread for me.
+rep

AF, you dont think you should have the right to decide who works/gets on your ship? for whatever reason whatsoever?

[azxd]

Actually they are. If you go to restaurant and order food, you've entered into a contract to pay for it. If I invite a girl out on a date and I pay for everything, including transportation and alcoholic beverages, there is the expectation that she provide something in return. A goodnight kiss just isn't going to cut it.If you get the chance, let us know which prison you end up in :D

[azxd]

lol, you're taking this too seriously. You know I wouldn't want a girl who puts out after the first date, where the fun in that?

The only contract that I believe does implicitly provide for all the sex I could want is marriage (although it actually isnt a contract unless you do a civil marriage).If you really believe this ... I hope someone straightens you out before someone else puts a few bullets in your body for attempting marital rape.