Poll: What you rather have tax dollars spent on AIDS or Obesity/Fat reduction?

OceanDude · 08-21-2003, 03:50 PM

I just found out a fact that shocked me. So I decided to start a poll to get your opinions on this.

Less than $1 is spent in research for each overweight American compared to a thousand of dollars that are spent for each HIV positive American.

Some feel it is high time overweight American taxpayer got their fair share of the billions and billions of tax dollars they pay for medical research.

So please vote how you feel on this issue based on the presumption that there is a finite and limited tax budget available (and getting smaller due to declining economy).

nikegurl · 08-21-2003, 04:14 PM

big problem with your poll....you're assuming a link between gay and AIDS. AIDS stopped being a "gay" issue (as oppossed to a general health)a long time ago.

i'm pretty sure it's spreading at a much faster rate in the heterosexual community at this point.

BeerHunter · 08-21-2003, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nikegurl
big problem with your poll....you're assuming a link between gay and AIDS. AIDS stopped being an "gay" (as oppossed to a general health) issue a long time ago.

I was about to post something along this line , but since its been mentioned now I'll just add that unless its a genetic/hormonal thing......we already know how to make fat people less fat!

rburton · 08-21-2003, 05:10 PM

Since the predominant cause for each condition comes from inappropriate behavior and choices, isn't society implicitly condoning irresponsible behavior by using tax revenue to fund research in these areas? In addition, aren't those individuals who are making appropriate and responsible choices being punished by taxing them to fund research for these areas?

OceanDude · 08-21-2003, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nikegurl
big problem with your poll....you're assuming a link between gay and AIDS. AIDS stopped being a "gay" issue (as oppossed to a general health)a long time ago.

i'm pretty sure it's spreading at a much faster rate in the heterosexual community at this point.

NG - You can still vote on the relative funding levels regardless of how you think the statistics workout. The topic on the table here is funding levels being disproportionate to a small part of the population verses the majority of the population for death related diseases. Both have similar elements of cause – lifestyle and possibly genetics.

But for the record I think you will find you are misinformed on the stats. The statistical link of AIDS within the male homosexuals in the US is orders of magnitude higher than it is to the general population (and growing again among these men after initially dropping). Especially considering more than half of the general population are women. Death rates have improved due to drug research and treatment but infection rates are rebounding. All the while obesity rates are soaring and many taxpayers do not think enough research is being committed to helping 60% of the overweight and obese in the US general population (which also includes homosexuals by the way).

Thanks for your input. Please feel free to vote.

OceanDude · 08-21-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rburton
Since the predominant cause for each condition comes from inappropriate behavior and choices, isn't society implicitly condoning irresponsible behavior by using tax revenue to fund research in these areas? In addition, aren't those individuals who are making appropriate and responsible choices being punished by taxing them to research these areas?

Good question rburton - I know that some will feel this way. Some will argue that it is not 100% a matter of choice in both classes of people. But then again the way the country is set up somone is always being penalized to help somone else's consequences of choices or "bad luck" or higher risk. I have often times made the same argument about health insurance - the young and the healthy underwrite the old, the sloths and the irresponsible/high risk takers. In the same way the rich are taxed to pay for the poor who in turn are forced to work for the rich.

It's a vicious circle and an interesting topic for discussion.

jeffreySyoung · 08-22-2003, 05:03 AM

Before I vote, let me just state how I feel.

While I feel homosexuality is unnatural, I do not condemn those who chose to live that lifestyle. (Love the sinner, not the sin).

I do not beleive that AIDS was sent by God to destroy homosexuals. (He is merciful)

It is however an epidemic, and all epidemics that cause loss of human life need money for research from taxpayers, including obesity.

The AIDS research gets more taxpayer money becuase:
1. AIDS is a worldwide problem, and the citizens of the world and this country assume the cure will come from the US.

2. Obesity is not a worldwide epidemic, more of a US problem, so it gets less press and therefore the fact that it causes more life threating conditions than anything else is little known.

3. AIDS issues are romanticized by the liberal media.

OD, I do agree with nikegurl, you should have kept your opinions/feelings out of the poll options and in your post. Not only could it piss some people off, but it could also influence some to vote differently than they would if it wasn't there. You won't get accurate results.

OceanDude · 08-22-2003, 06:32 AM

Reef, I started this poll because I found an article that brought some statistics to my attention that shocked me. If you look at any of the polls here you will see that none are scientific. This was not intended to be scientific either but just a quick check on sentiments about whether more dollars should be spent on obesity/fat-loss research relative to a competing program. I think I covered all the options – increase, decrease, leave the same or get rid of. I purposely associated some typical kinds of “stereotypical” sentiments (which seems to be the custom on this board) with each choice to shock people into really thinking about the consequence of their choice and how it may be seen through the eyes of their peers. These are not my sentiments or opinions but rather just a fair guess as to how others may interpret the findings.

From the article I read many people (I believe a majority) are already very upset (e.g. “pissed off”) that as hard working US citizens (many currently unemployed) they are being forced to spend $15 billion for AIDS research and support to foreign countries (Africa & the Caribbean) which will expand in budget in coming years with no end in sight. Many of these US citizens are working hard to barely “get by” and are having a terrible time dealing with the notion that they should support the entire world’s problems. In addition, $14 billion is being spent domestically for the same programs – for a total of about $29billion in direct AIDS related programs. Contrast that to what many are inclined to believe an insultingly low $125 million allocated domestically for “chronic disease prevention programs” where obesity is rolled up with other diseases. Given this and the fact that 60% of all American’s are obese and overweight the “average” majority taxpayer is suddenly beginning to wonder when they became second class citizens and are footing the bill for everything but things that directly help them out of their problems. The article states that the average American is suffering and dieing from obesity related illness at an epidemic rate that is much higher than the mortality and infection rate of AIDS and want to know why no one is supporting them.

Thanks for your input. By the way, in a scientific poll people would only be permitted to silently vote without expressing their opinions or justifying their position to influence others downstream. This forum is not scientific.

ponyboy · 08-22-2003, 06:49 AM

Quite frankly, I have no sympathy for overweight people because they can choose not to be overweight. That's coming from someone who was 60 pounds overweight and chose to do something about it. All they have to do is change. Living in Canada it is just as bad as the US...we have people who overeat, don't exercise and then they expect someone else to do the work for them. No sympathy here.

I'd rather see taxpayers money being spent of research for all sorts of degenerative disease, like arthritis, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, etc. Then again, I also get upset that we pay for criminals to live in prison for the rest of their lives rather than just getting rid of them.

I think the US taxpayer has to spend the money around the world because the US runs basically the entire planet. If you want to be in charge, then you have to put forth the support.

Plus, if you look at the original post, $1 for every overweight American would amount to probably 100 million dollars. That's a hell of a lot of money to research something everyone knows the answer to already. Nobody knows how to cure AIDS yet. Curing obesity is pretty easy.

jeffreySyoung · 08-22-2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by OceanDude
By the way, in a scientific poll people would only be permitted to silently vote without expressing their opinions or justifying their position to influence others downstream. This forum is not scientific.

That's true.

rburton · 08-22-2003, 08:52 AM

AIDS is an epidemic, as stated by RK23; however, OD makes the point that AIDS is a result of high-risk behavior, for the most part. So again, we are faced with the issue of whether to fund research for conditions that are caused primarily by behavioral choices.

Unfortunately, in our society, many individuals, as well as certain groups, are not held accountable for their choices; thus, those who choose to "play by the rules" are, in effect, forced to help those who choose not to help themselves.

ponyboy · 08-22-2003, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rburton

Unfortunately, in our society, many individuals, as well as certain groups, are not held accountable for their choices; thus, those who choose to "play by the rules" are, in effect, forced to help those who choose not to help themselves.

**dg806** · 08-22-2003, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reefkeeper23

OD, I do agree with nikegurl, you should have kept your opinions/feelings out of the poll options and in your post. Not only could it piss some people off, but it could also influence some to vote differently than they would if it wasn't there. You won't get accurate results.

Isn't that a damn crying shame. To not be politically correct and piss off someone! Sheesh! These liberals piss me off!

jeffreySyoung · 08-22-2003, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dg806
Isn't that a damn crying shame. To not be politically correct and piss off someone! Sheesh! These liberals piss me off!

dg- if you were reffering to me being a liberal, have a look into my library:

Slander, Ann Coulter
Treason, Ann Coulter
Bias, Bernard Goldberg
Hilary's Scheme, Sean Hannity
Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security, Patterson
The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values, Tammy Bruce
What Color is a Conservative?, Watts
Worth the Fighting for: A Memoir , John McCain
The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America, bill O'Reilly
Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First , Charen
The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush , Frum
Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson
The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House, Olsen

I'm also a subscriber to the Limbaugh Letter.
I think my political persuasion is quite evident.

I was merely stating that polls should be unbiased, but as OD pointed out this isn't the place for scientific representative studies.

Jeff

**dg806** · 08-22-2003, 09:43 AM

RK, it was not directly pointed to you. It was the general statement about people getting pissed off. And the way I feel, so what? If your pissed, don't reply!

jeffreySyoung · 08-22-2003, 09:46 AM

i wasn't pissed!

I just thought I may have been called a liberal. Then we would have to throw down!

OceanDude · 08-22-2003, 09:51 AM

Wow - I knew I liked reef. That's a very interesting library - you are well read (better than I). It's always fun to read the antagonist views too to balance out the arguments or to understand the other perspectives. It is usually so easy to see the inconsistencies in the philosophies when you can put your self in the antagonist view point.

BTW Dg just likes to be sarcastic for humorous effect. I am sure there is nothing personal there.

Tboy · 08-22-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by OceanDude
BTW Dg just likes to be sarcastic for humorous effect. I am sure there is nothing personal there.

Yeah, DG is a regular homosexu.... uh, I mean homicidal manicac.

S'up DG

ArduousMeister · 08-22-2003, 10:20 AM

I think all these views are very interesting as well as important, but I there is something that everyone is overlooking. There are the few people who have AIDS or HIV through no fault of their own. Such as blood transfusions and being born with it because of parents that were less informed. There are also people in third world countries that are uneducated on the risks of AIDS, but would love the opportunity to become obese. I think that these are the people who truly benefit from the money that is being spent on this type of research and I would assume would far out number the obese (assume because I don't have the numbers in front of me). Also, as has already been mentioned, the fat are fat because of their living habits (for the most part) and no they want magic pill to make them skinny again.

jeffreySyoung · 08-22-2003, 10:22 AM

yeah, I listen to NPR and watch ABC, CBS, or NBC news for that !

OceanDude · 08-22-2003, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ponyboy
Quite frankly, I have no sympathy for overweight people because they can choose not to be overweight. That's coming from someone who was 60 pounds overweight and chose to do something about it. All they have to do is change. Living in Canada it is just as bad as the US...we have people who overeat, don't exercise and then they expect someone else to do the work for them. No sympathy here.

I'd rather see taxpayers money being spent of research for all sorts of degenerative disease, like arthritis, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, etc. Then again, I also get upset that we pay for criminals to live in prison for the rest of their lives rather than just getting rid of them.

I think the US taxpayer has to spend the money around the world because the US runs basically the entire planet. If you want to be in charge, then you have to put forth the support.

Plus, if you look at the original post, $1 for every overweight American would amount to probably 100 million dollars. That's a hell of a lot of money to research something everyone knows the answer to already. Nobody knows how to cure AIDS yet. Curing obesity is pretty easy.

Pony I use to feel a little like this about obese people until I became one too. Having to work long hours to pay the bills and pay the taxes and getting stressed out just staying ahead of the rat-race led to a self defeating lifestyle. Getting off work at late hours and having no time to cook I ate junk food from hamburger joints etc. I think this is fairly typical of a lot of the taxpayers in this country. For those that do not have to work or be under time stress I tend to agree. Except that there is a lot of research that suggests the genetic pre-disposition to obesity is going to prevail no matter what you do (2 recessive genes – one from each parent). There is also evidence that diet is irreversibly and adversely ruining metabolic set-points and once a certain threshold is reached there is no going back to being thin if genetically predispositioned toward obesity. There is even suggestion that there are viral explanations for about 15% of obesity cases. There is additional evidence that show that what mothers ate (fast carbs) during gestation irreversibly sets the pattern for obesity predisposition. Additional findings are that baby formulas (often highly glycemic) and popular only this century are a major contributor to obesity predisposition.

But all these findings are not completely understood yet and many believe that much much more research is needed to get definitive answers. So it does not look like obesity is at all completely elective. Many would say that it is insane that less than a few hundred million from a multi-trillion dollar national tax budget that is being generated (“milked”) from the 60% obese of the working population is all that is available to help to keep the tax-cows healthy. They argue that they could produce more tax dollars and have a higher quality life style if someone would research these issues and provide them answers. Many would say that current budget allocations constitute cruel and unusual punishment to animals.

Curing Obesity is not at all easy - it is extremly hard once certain thresholds are reached. Prevention verse cure are 2 different issues - many think we need study for both avenues.

**Mudge** · 08-22-2003, 11:40 AM

Thats kind of a tough one for me, because I feel that most people that get AIDS, do it to themselves. But also I feel that obese people can fix it themselves with serious diet, however I do know someone with low thyroid output at work who has a very low natural body temperature, so some people do need assistance I feel.

I suppose I would go with AIDS, since obesity can be fixed already, how else are we going to fix it outlaw McDonalds? Genetic engineering? Of the two I would say, if this were a humanitarian mission, fix the disease, not the weak of mind.

I miss being leaner and having a smaller waist like when I had a more active job (now I'm a desk jockey), that is motivation enough for me to lose the weight disliking how I have become with almost no activity at work. So how is someone 300+ pounds not motivated to find a way?

OceanDude · 08-22-2003, 11:50 AM

Unexpectd result so far. Everyone is voting at the extremes. I am apparently the only one voting moderate here so far.

**Mudge** · 08-22-2003, 12:52 PM

I am not up on obesity research other than "what causes it," if you have anything to add or an article or something? May be interesting, because I know little of it, and as for AIDS research I really dont know whats the latest either.

View Poll Results: $1/fat-citizen vs many $1000’s/HIV person is spent in research tax dollars Is This OK
Keep AIDS related research at current levels – the fat deserve to be fat.	21	60.00%
Reduce AIDS research & give more to Obesity/Fat-research – fat people are people too.	4	11.43%
Reduce Obesity/Fat research and give it to AIDS – gays need more help than fat people	1	2.86%
Get rid of all AIDS research & give it all to Obesity/Fat research – gays deserve AIDS	0	0%
Get rid of all AIDS & Obesity/Fat Reduction research – these are “elective” lifestyles	9	25.71%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

08-21-2003, 03:50 PM	#1
OceanDude Well Read Elite Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cape Canaveral, FL Posts: 1,853	Poll: What you rather have tax dollars spent on AIDS or Obesity/Fat reduction? BODYBUILDING SUPPLEMENTS High Quality Supplements For Bodybuilders and Athletes. www.ironmaglabs.com I just found out a fact that shocked me. So I decided to start a poll to get your opinions on this. Less than $1 is spent in research for each overweight American compared to a thousand of dollars that are spent for each HIV positive American. Some feel it is high time overweight American taxpayer got their fair share of the billions and billions of tax dollars they pay for medical research. So please vote how you feel on this issue based on the presumption that there is a finite and limited tax budget available (and getting smaller due to declining economy).
	"Doc, If I had known I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself..." Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae. We Americans scoff at the likes of African witch doctors yet spend 100's of millions of dollars on fake reducing systems. The only regular exercise he gets is stretching the truth. His intellect is not replenished, he is only an animal, only sensible in the duller parts...

08-21-2003, 04:14 PM	#2
nikegurl Registered User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: LA, CA Posts: 5,634	big problem with your poll....you're assuming a link between gay and AIDS. AIDS stopped being a "gay" issue (as oppossed to a general health)a long time ago. i'm pretty sure it's spreading at a much faster rate in the heterosexual community at this point.
	Tomorrow may be the best day of your life. Or not.

08-21-2003, 05:10 PM	#4
rburton The Searcher Join Date: May 2003 Location: NC Posts: 129	Since the predominant cause for each condition comes from inappropriate behavior and choices, isn't society implicitly condoning irresponsible behavior by using tax revenue to fund research in these areas? In addition, aren't those individuals who are making appropriate and responsible choices being punished by taxing them to fund research for these areas? Last edited by rburton : 08-21-2003 at 05:34 PM.

08-22-2003, 06:32 AM	#8
OceanDude Well Read Elite Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cape Canaveral, FL Posts: 1,853	Reef, I started this poll because I found an article that brought some statistics to my attention that shocked me. If you look at any of the polls here you will see that none are scientific. This was not intended to be scientific either but just a quick check on sentiments about whether more dollars should be spent on obesity/fat-loss research relative to a competing program. I think I covered all the options – increase, decrease, leave the same or get rid of. I purposely associated some typical kinds of “stereotypical” sentiments (which seems to be the custom on this board) with each choice to shock people into really thinking about the consequence of their choice and how it may be seen through the eyes of their peers. These are not my sentiments or opinions but rather just a fair guess as to how others may interpret the findings. From the article I read many people (I believe a majority) are already very upset (e.g. “pissed off”) that as hard working US citizens (many currently unemployed) they are being forced to spend $15 billion for AIDS research and support to foreign countries (Africa & the Caribbean) which will expand in budget in coming years with no end in sight. Many of these US citizens are working hard to barely “get by” and are having a terrible time dealing with the notion that they should support the entire world’s problems. In addition, $14 billion is being spent domestically for the same programs – for a total of about $29billion in direct AIDS related programs. Contrast that to what many are inclined to believe an insultingly low $125 million allocated domestically for “chronic disease prevention programs” where obesity is rolled up with other diseases. Given this and the fact that 60% of all American’s are obese and overweight the “average” majority taxpayer is suddenly beginning to wonder when they became second class citizens and are footing the bill for everything but things that directly help them out of their problems. The article states that the average American is suffering and dieing from obesity related illness at an epidemic rate that is much higher than the mortality and infection rate of AIDS and want to know why no one is supporting them. Thanks for your input. By the way, in a scientific poll people would only be permitted to silently vote without expressing their opinions or justifying their position to influence others downstream. This forum is not scientific.
	"Doc, If I had known I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself..." Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae. We Americans scoff at the likes of African witch doctors yet spend 100's of millions of dollars on fake reducing systems. The only regular exercise he gets is stretching the truth. His intellect is not replenished, he is only an animal, only sensible in the duller parts...

08-22-2003, 05:03 AM	#7
jeffreySyoung New Year, New Start Elite Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: South Jersey Posts: 60	Before I vote, let me just state how I feel. While I feel homosexuality is unnatural, I do not condemn those who chose to live that lifestyle. (Love the sinner, not the sin). I do not beleive that AIDS was sent by God to destroy homosexuals. (He is merciful) It is however an epidemic, and all epidemics that cause loss of human life need money for research from taxpayers, including obesity. The AIDS research gets more taxpayer money becuase: 1. AIDS is a worldwide problem, and the citizens of the world and this country assume the cure will come from the US. 2. Obesity is not a worldwide epidemic, more of a US problem, so it gets less press and therefore the fact that it causes more life threating conditions than anything else is little known. 3. AIDS issues are romanticized by the liberal media. OD, I do agree with nikegurl, you should have kept your opinions/feelings out of the poll options and in your post. Not only could it piss some people off, but it could also influence some to vote differently than they would if it wasn't there. You won't get accurate results.

08-22-2003, 06:49 AM	#9
ponyboy Training Trainer Elite Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Running around somewhere Posts: 2,608 Photos: 1	Quite frankly, I have no sympathy for overweight people because they can choose not to be overweight. That's coming from someone who was 60 pounds overweight and chose to do something about it. All they have to do is change. Living in Canada it is just as bad as the US...we have people who overeat, don't exercise and then they expect someone else to do the work for them. No sympathy here. I'd rather see taxpayers money being spent of research for all sorts of degenerative disease, like arthritis, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, etc. Then again, I also get upset that we pay for criminals to live in prison for the rest of their lives rather than just getting rid of them. I think the US taxpayer has to spend the money around the world because the US runs basically the entire planet. If you want to be in charge, then you have to put forth the support. Plus, if you look at the original post, $1 for every overweight American would amount to probably 100 million dollars. That's a hell of a lot of money to research something everyone knows the answer to already. Nobody knows how to cure AIDS yet. Curing obesity is pretty easy.
	Today I can do what others will not so that tomorrow I will do what others cannot. The difference between winners and losers is that winners do things that losers don't want to do.

08-22-2003, 08:52 AM	#11
rburton The Searcher Join Date: May 2003 Location: NC Posts: 129	AIDS is an epidemic, as stated by RK23; however, OD makes the point that AIDS is a result of high-risk behavior, for the most part. So again, we are faced with the issue of whether to fund research for conditions that are caused primarily by behavioral choices. Unfortunately, in our society, many individuals, as well as certain groups, are not held accountable for their choices; thus, those who choose to "play by the rules" are, in effect, forced to help those who choose not to help themselves.

08-22-2003, 09:43 AM	#15
dg806 Guardian of The Homeland Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Charlotte NC Posts: 16,938	RK, it was not directly pointed to you. It was the general statement about people getting pissed off. And the way I feel, so what? If your pissed, don't reply!
	www.sbmuscle.com

08-22-2003, 09:46 AM	#16
jeffreySyoung New Year, New Start Elite Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: South Jersey Posts: 60	i wasn't pissed! I just thought I may have been called a liberal. Then we would have to throw down!

08-22-2003, 09:51 AM	#17
OceanDude Well Read Elite Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cape Canaveral, FL Posts: 1,853	Wow - I knew I liked reef. That's a very interesting library - you are well read (better than I). It's always fun to read the antagonist views too to balance out the arguments or to understand the other perspectives. It is usually so easy to see the inconsistencies in the philosophies when you can put your self in the antagonist view point. BTW Dg just likes to be sarcastic for humorous effect. I am sure there is nothing personal there.
	"Doc, If I had known I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself..." Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae. We Americans scoff at the likes of African witch doctors yet spend 100's of millions of dollars on fake reducing systems. The only regular exercise he gets is stretching the truth. His intellect is not replenished, he is only an animal, only sensible in the duller parts...

08-22-2003, 10:20 AM	#19
ArduousMeister Tire fighter ...damn tire Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Posts: 265	I think all these views are very interesting as well as important, but I there is something that everyone is overlooking. There are the few people who have AIDS or HIV through no fault of their own. Such as blood transfusions and being born with it because of parents that were less informed. There are also people in third world countries that are uneducated on the risks of AIDS, but would love the opportunity to become obese. I think that these are the people who truly benefit from the money that is being spent on this type of research and I would assume would far out number the obese (assume because I don't have the numbers in front of me). Also, as has already been mentioned, the fat are fat because of their living habits (for the most part) and no they want magic pill to make them skinny again.
	"I've thrown up many times working out, but it's all worth it."- Arnold Schwarzenegger in Pumping Iron

08-22-2003, 10:22 AM	#20
jeffreySyoung New Year, New Start Elite Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: South Jersey Posts: 60	yeah, I listen to NPR and watch ABC, CBS, or NBC news for that !

08-22-2003, 11:40 AM	#22
Mudge Pizza the Hut Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 22,966 Photos: 1	Thats kind of a tough one for me, because I feel that most people that get AIDS, do it to themselves. But also I feel that obese people can fix it themselves with serious diet, however I do know someone with low thyroid output at work who has a very low natural body temperature, so some people do need assistance I feel. I suppose I would go with AIDS, since obesity can be fixed already, how else are we going to fix it outlaw McDonalds? Genetic engineering? Of the two I would say, if this were a humanitarian mission, fix the disease, not the weak of mind. I miss being leaner and having a smaller waist like when I had a more active job (now I'm a desk jockey), that is motivation enough for me to lose the weight disliking how I have become with almost no activity at work. So how is someone 300+ pounds not motivated to find a way?

08-22-2003, 11:50 AM	#23
OceanDude Well Read Elite Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cape Canaveral, FL Posts: 1,853	Unexpectd result so far. Everyone is voting at the extremes. I am apparently the only one voting moderate here so far.
	"Doc, If I had known I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself..." Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae. We Americans scoff at the likes of African witch doctors yet spend 100's of millions of dollars on fake reducing systems. The only regular exercise he gets is stretching the truth. His intellect is not replenished, he is only an animal, only sensible in the duller parts...

08-22-2003, 12:52 PM	#24
Mudge Pizza the Hut Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 22,966 Photos: 1	I am not up on obesity research other than "what causes it," if you have anything to add or an article or something? May be interesting, because I know little of it, and as for AIDS research I really dont know whats the latest either.
	Kinesiology Vote @ Top 25 Deads Comp Bench Motivation Bench form MaxCalc Charles Poliquin When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. Lao-Tzu I don't know any sources so don't ask - thanks