Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Khornate25 wrote:
I still manage to weight only 220 pounds, have 5% body fat...eat only rice and fish meat

I eat rice two times a day, and fish meat in the morning.

Don't believe you. I'm 160, about 4% (I bounce around between about 3.8 and 4.5) and eat 3000 calories a day 30/30/40 carbs/fat/protein and it's a real struggle to maintain my weight. Unless you're eating VAST quantities in those two meals, I don't believe you could sustain that size at that bodyfat. Well, unless you have a pretty rare medical condition.


Additionally, since people with bodyfat at that kind of level probably represent less than 0.01% of the planet's population (to be fair you can probably stick an extra couple zeros after the point) trying to use ourselves as examples and preaching to others about fitness and dedication to it makes us utter, utter dickheads.

Yeah, you are also probably both young males. See where you are at in 20-30 years.

nfe wrote:

 Khornate25 wrote:
I still manage to weight only 220 pounds, have 5% body fat...eat only rice and fish meat

I eat rice two times a day, and fish meat in the morning.

Don't believe you. I'm 160, about 4% (I bounce around between about 3.8 and 4.5) and eat 3000 calories a day 30/30/40 carbs/fat/protein and it's a real struggle to maintain my weight. Unless you're eating VAST quantities in those two meals, I don't believe you could sustain that size at that bodyfat. Well, unless you have a pretty rare medical condition.


Additionally, since people with bodyfat at that kind of level probably represent less than 0.01% of the planet's population (to be fair you can probably stick an extra couple zeros after the point) trying to use ourselves as examples and preaching to others about fitness and dedication to it makes us utter, utter dickheads.

No, it's just me me being sick of fat people finding excuses for their lazyness and their ugliness.

jmurph wrote:Yeah, you are also probably both young males. See where you are at in 20-30 years.

28 years old. It's called being healthy and active. Try it once and a while.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The human body require a minimum of 20 minutes of light exercices (push-up or jogging, your choice) per day, or three hours of medium to intense muscular exercice per week, to stay healthy. If you can't manage to do that, you're the definition of lazyness itself. And no, I'm not being a dill weed. You're just being pathetic and refuse to take responsability for your personnal gakk. Grow up.

RULE #1 here is BE POLITE.

It is a MANDATORY condition of having an account and for posting here on Dakka Dakka.

No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
Not to mention really off-topic.

(Slightly more) on topic, you do not sound like you pay the majority of taxes, so as someone who's basically a rounding error on any sort of economic reports, I'm genuinely not sure why you really care.

 daedalus wrote:
No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
Not to mention really off-topic.

(Slightly more) on topic, you do not sound like you pay the majority of taxes, so as someone who's basically a rounding error on any sort of economic reports, I'm genuinely not sure why you really care.

also, making 12k a year, unless he's living off the land in the boonies, then a whole slew of other important life things like housing and transportation are almost certainly being heavily subsidized by others in this case ...

The self righteousness is staggering!

28 years old is still young for someone in the westernized world. Like I said, Get back to me when you hit 50 and see if "staying fit" is enough. Biologically, stuff goes wrong as you age. Some are preventable, some are not. And just because you look ok on the outside does not mean everything is okay under the hood.

Condemning "ugliness" with "laziness" in addressing obesity shows a terrible lack of information on the causes and a superficial moralizing that has no place in health care or any discussion of governance. An acceptance of government action based on some arbitrary inherent "morality" rather than reasoned policy goals is an invitation to abuse.

 daedalus wrote:
No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.

It's unquestionably a series of lies or extreme exagerations.

It's besides the point anyway. Even if it was a piece of cake for anyone and everyone to keep themselves fit, it still wouldn't justify telling the ones who didn't to put their hands in their pockets or suck it up and die and you'd still need to decide exactly what you give priority to when healthy exercise meets self inflicted health problem, which, lets be honest, it does eventually for every person who engages in lots of exercise over a long period of time.

Of course it's unbelievable to people who simply don't want to make the effort of living it. Everything is unbelievable when someone else succeed where you fail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
Not to mention really off-topic.

(Slightly more) on topic, you do not sound like you pay the majority of taxes, so as someone who's basically a rounding error on any sort of economic reports, I'm genuinely not sure why you really care.

I care about justice. Unresponsible people shouldn't have access to public healthcare. That's for people suffering from serious conditions on which they have no control whatsoever (brain cancer, lung cancer being the result of secondary smoke, genetic diseases, autism, etc). Justice is an end in itself. Justice is what matter, not the amount of taxes I pay. Maybe you should care less about money and more about it.

Alcoholics, people who smoke, people who use drugs that damage health (like heroin, crack, cocaine, etc.) and people who overfeed themselve with junk food are irresponsible and should be taught a lesson. Either they adapt, either they disappear. And no amount of poverty justify doing any of those thing. Poverty is not an excuse to drink beer up to the point that your kidneys and liver simply shut down. Nor is it an excuse to plant a filthy needle in your vein. Regardless of how much taxes I pay, I can still see injustice for what it is : not be held responsible for your poor choices. Do you see myself using my low income as an excuse to run downtown and buy drugs, eat McDonalds and drink till I pass out ? How can that be so hard ?

You do understand what mental health is right? Addiction is a disease and people should be treated for it. So your argument against smokers and alcoholics goes right out the window. Also there are people with mental health issues that rely on smoking as their way to center themselves.

I dare you to take a cigarette away from anybody with schizophrenia and tell them they have to stop. I don't care how in shape you are, that will hurt.

 Khornate25 wrote:
Of course it's unbelievable to people who simply don't want to make the effort of living it. Everything is unbelievable when someone else succeed where you fail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
Not to mention really off-topic.

(Slightly more) on topic, you do not sound like you pay the majority of taxes, so as someone who's basically a rounding error on any sort of economic reports, I'm genuinely not sure why you really care.

I care about justice. Unresponsible people shouldn't have access to public healthcare. That's for people suffering from serious conditions on which they have no control whatsoever (brain cancer, lung cancer being the result of secondary smoke, genetic diseases, autism, etc). Justice is an end in itself. Justice is what matter, not the amount of taxes I pay. Maybe you should care less about money and more about it.

Alcoholics, people who smoke, people who use drugs that damage health (like heroin, crack, cocaine, etc.) and people who overfeed themselve with junk food are irresponsible and should be taught a lesson. Either they adapt, either they disappear. And no amount of poverty justify doing any of those thing. Poverty is not an excuse to drink beer up to the point that your kidneys and liver simply shut down. Nor is it an excuse to plant a filthy needle in your vein. Regardless of how much taxes I pay, I can still see injustice for what it is : not be held responsible for your poor choices. Do you see myself using my low income as an excuse to run downtown and buy drugs, eat McDonalds and drink till I pass out ? How can that be so hard ?

r/iamverybadass

Calm down, dude. Rage is bad for the heart. Don't want to be irresponsible and use our free healthcare up now do we?
Your incomplete diet and strenuous workout is just as likely to make me responsible for you poor choices through my tax dollars as my tubby smoking pal who eats fast food five times a week.

 Khornate25 wrote:

I care about justice.

You care about burning witches.

Do you see myself using my low income as an excuse to run downtown and buy drugs, eat McDonalds and drink till I pass out ? How can that be so hard ?

No, I see your concept of 'justice' is selective enough to cast down your petty judgement toward others while at the same time, you must too enjoy the exact same benefits that you've placed on the other side of this thin little line you've drawn in the sand. Maybe it's different there, but here in the US, you cannot afford to exist without aid on $12000 basically anywhere in the US that I am aware of, and I grew up in a patch of houses surrounded by dirt farmers.

Further, as a former smoker who quit, I can actually attest to just how hard it truly is. Do you even know, bro? They're not fething around when they claim it's literally one of the hardest things to stop doing. Do me a favor: Go look in the mirror, and then stop breathing. That feeling of need you get when you start to change colors is basically what you feel in waves. It's truly a horrible thing to start. The problem is that there's no words in English that can convey properly how hard that is to anyone who doesn't already know. It's the price of experience.

Your justice is utter garbage without compassion. The genuinely strong bear the capacity for magnanimity. At least think about it a while, or try to.

I've lived in some of the cheapest parts of the US, where rent can be as low as $390 a month and I couldn't live on $12000.

Your justice is utter garbage without compassion.

If strength is justice is weakness a crime? ~ some anime

Getting philosophical up in here

 LordofHats wrote:

Your justice is utter garbage without compassion.

If strength is justice is weakness a crime? ~ some anime

Getting philosophical up in here

Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived.

 LordofHats wrote:
I've lived in some of the cheapest parts of the US, where rent can be as low as $390 a month and I couldn't live on $12000.

Your justice is utter garbage without compassion.

If strength is justice is weakness a crime? ~ some anime

Getting philosophical up in here

My rent is $325 a month. That is including my $25 a month pet fee.

Rent is still too damn high!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I've lived in some of the cheapest parts of the US, where rent can be as low as $390 a month and I couldn't live on $12000.

Your justice is utter garbage without compassion.

If strength is justice is weakness a crime? ~ some anime

Getting philosophical up in here

My rent is $325 a month. That is including my $25 a month pet fee.

Rent is still too damn high!

Are in in section 8? I lived in a place about 10 years ago that was that high that was in the "metro" east st louis area that was largely subsidized housing. We paid a bit more, but that was for a two bedroom. We technically weren't using section 8, but it was an area that was eligible. It turned out to be a really mellow place, but I still spent a lot of time peering out the windows when my girlfriend visited.

 skyth wrote:
Other than the fact that profit is what is left over after the money is spent on expansion and R&D, etc as well. The fact remains that the product cost less to make than is charged for it, thus it is 'waste' as far as government services are concerned.

If the government charged a $100 fee for something that only cost $90 to do, there would be people up in arms about that. However, if a private enterprise took over and did the same thing, the same people wouldn't have an issue with it. This lack of a need to turn a profit makes, in equal situations, government more efficient than private enterprises.

Plus government doesn't need to pay million dollar salaries to executives. If government leaders were paid the way that corporate executives are paid, there would be a major uproar. Heck, consider the complaint that teachers are overpaid when people don't complain about corporate managers that have 25 direct reports being paid a lot more than teachers are...

I actually wrote out a much longer answer that went in to the nitty gritty of your mistakes in definitions etc, and I deleted it. It was a bit wood for the trees, so instead here's a simple example that will hopefully show you where you're thinking has astray.

To take your example, consider a product that costs $100 and sells for $100. By your argument this is efficiency, there is no profit 'waste'. Then the guy who makes the product realises he can make the exact same product for $90, just by improving the process and saving himself a lot of time. The same product, sold for the same price, now has a $10 'waste' according to your economic model, because the guy making it is using less time to make the product.

This should hopefully show you that differentiating profit from any other kind of income leads to some very strange conclusions.


I do agree with your general point at the end about incomes of high end managers in the corporate sector. There are chronic levels of over-payment that are unrelated to the scarcity of their skillset or their performance. But it is quite unrelated to the rest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
And if you got paid the same for ZERO responsibility or for taking ALL the responsibility, what would you do? Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and while someone may be ambitious enough to take that responsibility with next to no compensation, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of humanity wouldn't.

If people were simple, selfish economic agents who exchange responsibility for income as you presume, then why would anyone become a general and have responsibility for tens of thousands of lives, when they could instead take a job running the widget factory and earn more without ever having to send soldiers to their deaths?

So no, it isn't just about responsibility. And in fact, responsibility, otherwise known as power, is something people chase simply for its own sake. So while it is true that responsibility commands a greater pay packet we can chuck out the idea that the reward is a natural function of the market. And once we do that we can look at how much that level of reward has changed in the last 50 years. The average CEO earned around 20 times the average worker in 1965. That ratio went on a sudden, dramatic increase, peaking around 350 times as much, and is currently around 275 times as much.

This is not the product of rational market forces.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Let 'em be a big pile of fat. As long as they don't expect my tax dollars to subsidize the resulting health care costs.

Who cares what they expect. It will happen, when they have a heart attack society will not say 'you don't have enough money of your own, and your lifestyle was too unhealthy for us to use government money to save you, so instead we're going to watch you writhe in agony taking your last breath'. It just isn't going to happen. People don't work like that.

Society will help people in need, even if they got there with bad choices. This is one of those basic realities people just need to accept and then start to account for.

Are you aware of how much military officers make vs. enlisted? Or for that matter, how much military officers make vs. similar jobs in the private sector? Still guided by compensation, and glory can be a compensation.

 Khornate25 wrote:
28 years old. It's called being healthy and active. Try it once and a while.

Heh. I was fit and healthy when I was 28. A more demanding job, family life cutting in to the time I would have once used to exercise, and basic metabolism changes have led to me putting on weight.

I'm not having a go at you. Good on you for working at your health and being proud of your results. Just... be a bit more humble. Don't condemn people you don't know, and don't assume what's working for you now will work for you forever, or even be important to you forever.

And remember, it would be just as easy for other people to criticise you for income level, assume it was because you are lazy or whatever, and it would be unfair and arrogant of them.

 Khornate25 wrote:
Of course it's unbelievable to people who simply don't want to make the effort of living it. Everything is unbelievable when someone else succeed where you fail.

It's unbelievable to someone who's actually in great shape, and notable that you wont address the basic biological impossibility of eating two meals a day, one of rice, and one of rice and fish, whilst maintaining a 220lbs, 5% body fat physique, unless those meals are absolutely enormous. It feels like you're probably in decent shape but have massively exaggerated to try and make a point of how easy it would be to stay in shape on the cheap without actually knowing the point at which it would abundantly clear to anyone in the know that you're making it up.

And again, I'd ask if it's ok to use public money to help ill people when healthy lifestyle collides with self-inflicted injury.

nfe wrote:
And again, I'd ask if it's ok to use public money to help ill people when healthy lifestyle collides with self-inflicted injury.

Young people who engage in a lot of physical activity have their own costs. I used GPs and physio for a range of sporting injuries back when I was active, I don't use anything now that I'm not.

And obesity is pretty likely to give you a heart attack in your 50s, and you go quickly. People who live in to old age suffer slower deaths like cancer and dementia, which cost way more to treat/delay.

I think there's probably a fair case that a healthy population that ages into their 80s, 90s and beyond costs the health system a lot more than fat population who mostly drop dead overnight in their 50s. There's a lot of simplification of the health of obesity in there, and obviously the goal of public health isn't just cost but also quality and duration of life, but the point is that 'fat people cost more and my tax dollars shouldn't pay for it' doesn't really hold as a financial argument.

It does hold, of course, as a point of resentment against a group of people that some look down on, though.

 sebster wrote:

nfe wrote:
And again, I'd ask if it's ok to use public money to help ill people when healthy lifestyle collides with self-inflicted injury.

Young people who engage in a lot of physical activity have their own costs. I used GPs and physio for a range of sporting injuries back when I was active, I don't use anything now that I'm not.

Certainly. Four guys in my family have played professional rugby, two at international level, and one is still a Scotland international, plus me, my dad, and an uncle all played at a relatively high amateur level - and we've all cost the NHS a lot - ongoing in some cases. My dad is 60 and is still picking up occassional replacement bodyparts as a result of being a very fit man in his 20s... The professionals get looked after by their employers whilst they're still professionals, but they start costing taxpayer coin as soon as they retire/get dropped.

'Fit=cheap' is an absolutely farcical argument that falls apart at the barest hint of scrutiny.

 Just Tony wrote:
Are you aware of how much military officers make vs. enlisted? Or for that matter, how much military officers make vs. similar jobs in the private sector? Still guided by compensation, and glory can be a compensation.

Yeah, but the multiple is in single digits. A general isn't earning 275 times as much as a private, obviously. So the question then is why, when CEO remuneration used to be just fine as being 20 times the average employee, and public sector employees do fine with multiples lower than that, did the private sector suddenly need to offer remuneration 275 times more than the average worker just to get someone to take on that responsibility.

And the answer, of course, is that people being reluctant to take on the responsibility without greater remuneration has almost nothing to do with it.


And yes, people being guided by things other than money, like glory, is true. It's also the very fething point I was explaining to you.

 sebster wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Other than the fact that profit is what is left over after the money is spent on expansion and R&D, etc as well. The fact remains that the product cost less to make than is charged for it, thus it is 'waste' as far as government services are concerned.

If the government charged a $100 fee for something that only cost $90 to do, there would be people up in arms about that. However, if a private enterprise took over and did the same thing, the same people wouldn't have an issue with it. This lack of a need to turn a profit makes, in equal situations, government more efficient than private enterprises.

Plus government doesn't need to pay million dollar salaries to executives. If government leaders were paid the way that corporate executives are paid, there would be a major uproar. Heck, consider the complaint that teachers are overpaid when people don't complain about corporate managers that have 25 direct reports being paid a lot more than teachers are...

I actually wrote out a much longer answer that went in to the nitty gritty of your mistakes in definitions etc, and I deleted it. It was a bit wood for the trees, so instead here's a simple example that will hopefully show you where you're thinking has astray.

To take your example, consider a product that costs $100 and sells for $100. By your argument this is efficiency, there is no profit 'waste'. Then the guy who makes the product realises he can make the exact same product for $90, just by improving the process and saving himself a lot of time. The same product, sold for the same price, now has a $10 'waste' according to your economic model, because the guy making it is using less time to make the product.

This should hopefully show you that differentiating profit from any other kind of income leads to some very strange conclusions.

Not really. The original product had that $10 of waste since there was a way to make it cheaper. If a process can be improved, that means that there is some sort of waste there. I never said that if you are making something for cost that there isn't waste in there, but that if you have profit there is a different sort of waste. There are forms of waste other than profit.

Again, if a government was always running a profit and building up cash reserves then people would be up in arms about how wasteful it is. They would want some of that 'profit' back in the form of lower taxes.

 Khornate25 wrote:
Of course it's unbelievable to people who simply don't want to make the effort of living it. Everything is unbelievable when someone else succeed where you fail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
No. Your diet is not healthy for numerous reasons already cited and your success story based upon bootstraps and self-presumed moral fiber is coming across as trite and more than a little unbelievable.
Not to mention really off-topic.

(Slightly more) on topic, you do not sound like you pay the majority of taxes, so as someone who's basically a rounding error on any sort of economic reports, I'm genuinely not sure why you really care.

I care about justice. Unresponsible people shouldn't have access to public healthcare. That's for people suffering from serious conditions on which they have no control whatsoever (brain cancer, lung cancer being the result of secondary smoke, genetic diseases, autism, etc). Justice is an end in itself. Justice is what matter, not the amount of taxes I pay. Maybe you should care less about money and more about it.

Alcoholics, people who smoke, people who use drugs that damage health (like heroin, crack, cocaine, etc.) and people who overfeed themselve with junk food are irresponsible and should be taught a lesson. Either they adapt, either they disappear. And no amount of poverty justify doing any of those thing. Poverty is not an excuse to drink beer up to the point that your kidneys and liver simply shut down. Nor is it an excuse to plant a filthy needle in your vein. Regardless of how much taxes I pay, I can still see injustice for what it is : not be held responsible for your poor choices. Do you see myself using my low income as an excuse to run downtown and buy drugs, eat McDonalds and drink till I pass out ? How can that be so hard ?

Surely this is a troll for he is strong and terrible and subsists on fish and bile.

I have a kinda weird opinion on this. I am, personally, far-left, but all I really want to see is the human race united under one leader. I doesn't matter to me what that leader thinks, so longs as all living humans agree with them. That is the only way our species will ever put aside their conflicts.

 daedalus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I've lived in some of the cheapest parts of the US, where rent can be as low as $390 a month and I couldn't live on $12000.

Your justice is utter garbage without compassion.

If strength is justice is weakness a crime? ~ some anime

Getting philosophical up in here

My rent is $325 a month. That is including my $25 a month pet fee.

Rent is still too damn high!

Are in in section 8? I lived in a place about 10 years ago that was that high that was in the "metro" east st louis area that was largely subsidized housing. We paid a bit more, but that was for a two bedroom. We technically weren't using section 8, but it was an area that was eligible. It turned out to be a really mellow place, but I still spent a lot of time peering out the windows when my girlfriend visited.

Nope, not section 8. I have the lowest rent in town for sure, got pretty lucky there. But to be fair, it's not the greatest place to live.

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
I have a kinda weird opinion on this. I am, personally, far-left, but all I really want to see is the human race united under one leader. I doesn't matter to me what that leader thinks, so longs as all living humans agree with them. That is the only way our species will ever put aside their conflicts.

This is interesting. First, do you believe that this is possible outside a theoretical perspective? If not, how do you reconcile this with tyranny by the majority?

At it's core, this seems to be a kind of messiahism which is extreme authoritarianism. Consider that agreement seems to imply that they could be agreeing out of subjugation.

I don't think the idea of "one world government" is particularly authoritarian, or libertarian. For example a global confederation could be highly libertarian, regulating little more than the basic parameters of economics and law. It could be highly authoritarian, dictating a moral or religious system.

Despite the often associated dooms day and conspiracy theories as a base concept its no different from any other government structure and what exactly it is depends on the underlying political theory on which it is founded. Of course that's just theory. In practical terms I don't see how you get a one world government lacking seriously overwhelming authoritarian measures. As similar as the people of the world are, the terms in which we engage that world are still too different for a practical global government to form.

 jmurph wrote:

 EmberlordofFire8 wrote:
I have a kinda weird opinion on this. I am, personally, far-left, but all I really want to see is the human race united under one leader. I doesn't matter to me what that leader thinks, so longs as all living humans agree with them. That is the only way our species will ever put aside their conflicts.

This is interesting. First, do you believe that this is possible outside a theoretical perspective? If not, how do you reconcile this with tyranny by the majority?

At it's core, this seems to be a kind of messiahism which is extreme authoritarianism. Consider that agreement seems to imply that they could be agreeing out of subjugation.

Well, if not theoretical, it is highly unlikely. Firstly, it would probably require millions of humans to be killed, probably leaving a dysfunctional society. Although, to be fair, all they would need would be enough people to keep one small area stable. It could work with the mars colonisation program Musk has proposed, but that would rely on them cutting off all contact with earth and, more importantly, the companies and nations funding their expedition.