Jump to content
Science Forums

Obesity: Why are we getting fat? :epizza:


Recommended Posts

The virus premise is quite smart, if the goal is a new market share. What this hopes to do is create the demand for new goods and services, while not interfering with the food industries, who are also capitalizing on fat people. If you look how it adds up this all makes sense and the path is to success is clear. 

 

Here is my analysis of the situation. The government run, war against poverty, controlled by the democrats, spent trillions of dollars over 50 years, but did not change the rate of people living in poverty. 

 

What it did do was help create the demographics with the highest rates of obesity in the country. One might conclude this new virus appears to impact the poor in a greater proportion, than the general population in America.

 

This is useful since the government has the deepest pockets and has shown a willingness to spend plenty of money, even when there are no statistical results in terms of change. It is smart business plan. The only thing they may need to show is how their plan will create spin off problems so they can spend even more, sort of like the template of the original war on poverty. 

Edited by HydrogenBond
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 687
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thanks to Pamela, JMJones, and QFWFQ for your courteous replies. The replies show an intellectual power, and a clarity of thought, that leads me to infer, that you are all slim people. Am I right? I c

Does anyone else share my impression, that fat people usually seem less intelligent than slim people. When you think of the people you know, aren't most of those you'd class as "intelligent", slim, no

No, I think your partner isn't telling you a myth. I think weight gain after dieting is partly in response to stress placed on the body. When certain stressors are placed upon the body, the way your b

Posted Images

The virus premise is quite smart, if the goal is a new market share. What this hopes to do is create the demand for new goods and services, while not interfering with the food industries, who are also capitalizing on fat people. If you look how it adds up this all makes sense and the path is to success is clear. 

 

Here is my analysis of the situation. The government run, war against poverty, controlled by the democrats, spent trillions of dollars over 50 years, but did not change the rate of people living in poverty. 

 

What it did do was help create the demographics with the highest rates of obesity in the country. One might conclude this new virus appears to impact the poor in a greater proportion, than the general population in America.

 

This is useful since the government has the deepest pockets and has shown a willingness to spend plenty of money, even when there are no statistical results in terms of change. It is smart business plan. The only thing they may need to show is how their plan will create spin off problems so they can spend even more, sort of like the template of the original war on poverty. 

 

Willing to bet that the virus has a US patent on it too right? Made in a lab just to help cull the population or make it more "manageable" eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

My next door neighbour's children are all obese (not grossly - that I think has to be some kind of reaction to the food that is being eaten).  Of the grandparents and siblings on both sides, only one grandparent is overweight - the rest are thin in comparison.  He has two dogs that don't get exercised but the dogs don't get fed treats and are in a pen outside all day.  The children seem to be kept indoors and tell forced to go out into the world because of school requirements at about five years old. If they are penned up, bored and don't get any exercise then logically this would indicate that this is probably nurture rather than nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government run, war against poverty, controlled by the democrats, spent trillions of dollars over 50 years, but did not change the rate of people living in poverty.

Sidenote: that's not true. Well, it's sort of true. The issue is that the official "poverty rate" is defined by excluding government assistance. In other words, the number of people who require government assistance has not changed. However, the people who are earning less now have better homes, better food, better education, and better lives. So while it didn't change the legal "poverty rate", it did change the number of people who are cold in the winter, hungry year round, under educated, and living in impoverished conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidenote: that's not true. Well, it's sort of true. The issue is that the official "poverty rate" is defined by excluding government assistance. In other words, the number of people who require government assistance has not changed. However, the people who are earning less now have better homes, better food, better education, and better lives. So while it didn't change the legal "poverty rate", it did change the number of people who are cold in the winter, hungry year round, under educated, and living in impoverished conditions.

Lying with statistics, to make things seem different from what they are.  I like it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...