Skip to main content

View Diary: Thank You for Smoking?: The President's Pre-K Plan (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wood Dragon, qofdisks

    But it's socially acceptable scapegoating.

    Now if I told the fatties to put down the friggin' cupcake because I'm not paying for their Type 2 diabetes, I'd get lambasted (and probably will).

    That's not yet socially acceptable.  As a society, however, we're working on it.

    I'd claim slippery slope and argue that we can't project it that way...except that evidence already shows that we blame the victim in every circumstance as long as we can perceive some "personal failing" that makes the argument valid in our eyes.

    (-6.38, -7.03) Moderate left, moderate libertarian

    by Lonely Liberal in PA on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 05:00:52 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Fortunately, second hand fat does not exist unlike (0+ / 0-)

      second hand smoke.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 07:24:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure It Does...... (0+ / 0-)

        The carcinogens produced from the grilling and frying of the food we eat poses a greater health risk than does secondhand smoke.  That comes straight from the 2006 Surgeon General's report entitled "No Safe Level of Secondhand Smoke".  Ever gone to a county or state fair and walked through the toxic haze from all the food vendors?  That's "secondhand fat" for all intents and purposes, and I promise you that if you're walking through one of those hazes you will certainly not be able to smell any cigarette smoker walking by as the smell of the grilled food is a thousand times more powerful.

        If one is clever enough and self-serving enough, they can come up with a "secondhand" meme for just about anything....the same way they did with secondhand smoke a generation ago.

      •  Actually, per the most recent research, I think (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        qofdisks

        it does.  In a society where lots of people are overweight, it becomes more socially acceptable, so the incidence increases.  

        The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

        by helfenburg on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 03:39:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The habits are passed on to the next generation. (0+ / 0-)

        Eaters enable each other.

    •  Problem is that we only blame some of the victims, (0+ / 0-)

      the ones we feel entitled to hate and blame generally for
      some reason totally unrelated to the problem.

      By the way many people who are not overweight still have type-2 diabetes.  

      As I said elsewhere, what about reckless drivers and the carnage they cause on the roadways?  What about alcoholics - there's a big one - lot of physical and mental issues caused by them.  What about gun violence?  What about polluters?

      And if we are looking for the person who should pay, why the vicitm?  Why not the person who profits from the victim's misery?  The candy manufacturers?  the tobacco companies?

      Why shouldn't they be the ones to pay?  They're the ones who profited.

      The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

      by helfenburg on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 03:39:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site