Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I would take it much further. I say we exterminate those fat fucks and melt them down for fuel.

I give up arguing with you pox.

You're bastardising what I say and arguing against it. You constantly keep modifying the concept every single time someone criticises it or you assume someone else will sort the problem out for you.

Not to mention you keep making claims without proving them (even after I post a link showing otherwise). Having text in bold doesn't give it more validity, assuming people will do X after Y doesn't mean they will. Having no knowledge on exactly who applies, examination techniques, construction, the aftermath etc etc etc etc is not an excuse. You've done no research into this and you're trying to save an already un-savable burning house.

If you're going to argue like a creationist, then I'm not going to argue about it.

Actually, you pissed and moaned at me for the same things in a debate we had last year. Coincidentally, you said the same thing as well.

At 10/11/09 06:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:

You constantly keep modifying the concept

Show me one example.

Not to mention you keep making claims without proving them (even after I post a link showing otherwise).

Like what?
I'm pretty confident that I have smashed all your links.

assuming people will do X after Y doesn't mean they will.

Obesity-related health costs are in the tens of billions.
TENS OF BILLIONS.
147 billion in fact
1400$ a year for the average fat-ass.

Where's you magical argument against that? NOWHERE. You don't have any.

The only half-valid argument anyone ever brought up in this thread is that they're sure this will fail based on their own personal idea of how the camp would run or how stupid kids are.

Where's your evidence of that? I can't even find any stats of fat camps or health camps myself. So I assume YOU have or else you wouldn't be saying people wouldn't stick with it.

Having no knowledge on exactly who applies, examination techniques, construction, the aftermath etc etc etc etc is not an excuse.

I've answered all of those very well.
And ultimately, it's not up to me to decide. I'm smart enough to know a panel of physicians should be consulted before making rules on entry.

But I've given you an excellent baseline which you've completely ignored.

BMI is used by doctors themselves to determine obesity-related health risks.
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/
home/healthy/food/improve/788.html

Again the only time you should stop using that as an indicator IS IF YOU GET INTO BODYBUILDING OR HEAVY MUSCLE GAIN.

Show me a 12 year-old kid with a 34 BMI and I'll show you a fatass.

You've done no research into this and you're trying to save an already un-savable burning house.

I don't even need to to counter your points, that's the sad part.
I know enough off-hand about obesity to answer just about all your points without even cracking a Google search. Holy smokes.

Maybe YOU should have done a little bit of research.

If you're going to argue like a creationist, then I'm not going to argue about it.

Wow that is super-sad.

I don't even get why people do this. Like that's going to impress me somehow or make me change my ways which I have no idea what that would be seeing as you bring up crazy argument like "diabetes is also caused by XXXXX" as a rebuttal to "diabetes is caused by obesity".

You're better than this.

I think I'll be a vegan for a couple of months instead. I'm not gonna go to some fucking camp to lose weight...

KEYWORD: couple of months.

But it'd be a great way for the other fat-asses to get some weight lost. Just don't send me.

Obesity is a problem?!, OMG we must warn that fatties immediately! ;P Honestly I've nvr given rats ass if my neighbor is obese or not. Its not a heartless issue, its a responsibility one. Everyone sees themselves in the mirror and their situation with there weight is there own. Americans afford the pleasure of fatness because they want to rather than run, it may be sad but its true. Otherwise they would already join the private fat camps, or gym or whatever, which are all available, to them if they are willing to do it themselves.
I have to agree with the rabble and say that forcing kids into fat camp is pretty damn crazy, even worse ur gonna tell me that I'm gonna pay for it. So leave Fat Albert alone, and more importantly, leave my moneys alone!.

At 10/12/09 12:31 AM, ChocEliteBar wrote: I think I'll be a vegan for a couple of months instead. I'm not gonna go to some fucking camp to lose weight...

You can get just as fat being a vegan.
That probably means you'll still eat shit like pasta, bread, soy milk, vegetable oils, cereal. All things that are really high in calories.

At 10/12/09 12:34 AM, azaleawanderer wrote: Honestly I've nvr given rats ass if my neighbor is obese or not.

You will when your taxes pay for his heart surgery.
You're already paying for it with increased health insurance premiums. The cost of other people's fatness trickles down on everyone in one way or the other.

Otherwise they would already join the private fat camps, or gym or whatever, which are all available, to them if they are willing to do it themselves.

And a lot of people just don't have the dedication, the knowledge, the money, the time or the courage.

Mandatory fat camps address all of these issues.

I have to agree with the rabble and say that forcing kids into fat camp is pretty damn crazy, even worse ur gonna tell me that I'm gonna pay for it.

It's going to cost you more to NOT send them there than to send them there, unless the program is a SPECTACULAR failure.
The health costs of one fatass alone for last 30 years of his life could send an entire school to camp for the entire summer.

Plus you'll create tons of stable jobs for as long as the camp program runs.
Though they'll mostly be seasonal. Hey, work is work.

I am curious on how the whole mandatory Physical Education Camps(PECs) would go. (The slogan would be "Go to PECs and get pecs!!")

I think the only way to really test this thing is to get a school to agree to test this out somewhere. There so many places in you guys's arguments that could be strengthened( or weakened) with some sort of testing.

By the way I am mostly on Pox's side. I just think if he had devised his original statement a little better the discussion would not have been so uphill for him. If it were my idea there would be almost no exercise involved. It would be a 3-4 hour a day session of just educating on good habits and life-styles. I think that would have a really good outcome.

At 10/12/09 01:32 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/12/09 12:34 AM, azaleawanderer wrote: Honestly I've nvr given rats ass if my neighbor is obese or not.

You will when your taxes pay for his heart surgery.
You're already paying for it with increased health insurance premiums. The cost of other people's fatness trickles down on everyone in one way or the other.

True. I would be, and it does give incentive for me to care for others that my insurance pays for. But being fat is much more a cost to them than it is to me, their premiums go up much more and should encourage them to get thin.

Otherwise they would already join the private fat camps, or gym or whatever, which are all available, to them if they are willing to do it themselves.

And a lot of people just don't have the dedication, the knowledge, the money, the time or the courage.

Mandatory fat camps address all of these issues.

Uuuh no, it makes that decision for them and has someone else cover it. Knowledge, time, and even courage are costly. Forcing them into them camp means: screw the courage of the kids, we'll get the money for info, equipment and trainers from someone else, and time? we didn't create more time, you took it away from them.

Granted that in some programs, school n the like, you don't trust kids to make that decision themselves. But I think this is more of a lifestyle choice than a lack of information one, and for those that it is your excluding their feelings.

I guess if you can convince me that it is something that kids and/or parents shouldn't be able to decide for themselves, then we're square

I have to agree with the rabble and say that forcing kids into fat camp is pretty damn crazy, even worse ur gonna tell me that I'm gonna pay for it.

It's going to cost you more to NOT send them there than to send them there, unless the program is a SPECTACULAR failure.
The health costs of one fatass alone for last 30 years of his life could send an entire school to camp for the entire summer.

Plus you'll create tons of stable jobs for as long as the camp program runs.
Though they'll mostly be seasonal. Hey, work is work.

We didn't create jobs either. jobs arent created EVER. We buy people's time and effort, only difference in public programs is that the people buy it and not a boss or company. And more importantly we only do it when its profitable to us, which is the real issue, it only creates WEALTH if I want this more than the money I give, and right now no, i dont.

At 10/12/09 02:42 AM, falz3333 wrote:

I think the only way to really test this thing is to get a school to agree to test this out somewhere.

Obviously. Fat camps already provide a good baseline, you'd just need to study them closer.
Hopefully it all speeds up the process of working out the early kinks to launch it ASAP.
I'd say within 5 years you could start this. 10 tops.

By the way I am mostly on Pox's side.

That's really wise.

I just think if he had devised his original statement a little better the discussion would not have been so uphill for him.

The more I write, the less they read.
I can't win.

If it were my idea there would be almost no exercise involved. It would be a 3-4 hour a day session of just educating on good habits and life-styles. I think that would have a really good outcome.

Nah, you need to make kids do the work. In 7 weeks, you can get them in much better shape. It's very important for their health.
Just talk won't cut it.

At 10/12/09 10:08 AM, azaleawanderer wrote:

their premiums go up much more and should encourage them to get thin.

You need so much more than that.

Uuuh no, it makes that decision for them and has someone else cover it. Knowledge, time, and even courage are costly. Forcing them into them camp means: screw the courage of the kids, we'll get the money for info, equipment and trainers from someone else, and time? we didn't create more time, you took it away from them.

What...the hell...

Granted that in some programs, school n the like, you don't trust kids to make that decision themselves. But I think this is more of a lifestyle choice than a lack of information one, and for those that it is your excluding their feelings.

What?

I guess if you can convince me that it is something that kids and/or parents shouldn't be able to decide for themselves, then we're square

No one wants to be fat yet obesity rates are above 30%.
I guess that's a fair estimate of how good people are at making that decision for themselves.

We didn't create jobs either. jobs arent created EVER.

Yeah they are. For instance: I will hire you to gargle my balls for 10 dollars a day. Boom, job created.

We buy people's time and effort, only difference in public programs is that the people buy it and not a boss or company. And more importantly we only do it when its profitable to us, which is the real issue, it only creates WEALTH if I want this more than the money I give, and right now no, i dont.

No more drugs for you young man.

It's a violation of human rights. No one would launch this. Too many people, fat or not, would complain. And they're right. People have a right to fuck up their bodies.

At 10/11/09 12:24 AM, poxpower wrote: It's not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this topic NOT called "Fat Camp?"

With kids you have the unique opportunity of forcing them to go and they can't say shit.

Isn't that sort of like indoctrination, something of which you are avidly against?

Nope.
That's why you hire experts.

You're the expert.

Wait, no you're not.

Then yes you were again.

So what are you now?

If you think the health system can't handle that strain now, what makes you think it can handle the tenfold strain of those kids being obese in adulthood later on?

I think the health care system will handle it just fine here in the next 20 years when all the baby boomers start dying off. That will free up a LOT of government expenditures.

If you train wrong or too hard, you'll get injured. Too bad.

Real compassionate viewpoint you've got there, don't you? Force people into exercising for the good of their own health, force them to pay for it, but leave them out in the cold if they hurt themselves.

And obesity.

And genetics.

If you don't want a repeat of this with obesity, you need to act NOW and use hardass measures.

And you're plan only applies to young people, who still live at home with their parents. If their parents let them get that fat to begin with, why would they support their children's efforts to loose the weight? Especially if the kid doesn't want to do it?

Kids aren't bodybuilders.

No, but there are kids out there who are athletes. Highschool sports after all, an example of which being wrestling.

I don't know how many kids actually already go to camp during summer, but remember that you'd deduce them from the total of "new camps needed" too. Let's say none go, that's still 7 million campers.

Ah, so it is a camp.

Uh yeah read the thread. Oh fuck it: camps aren't gyms or lodges in the woods. They'd mostly be based in leased school gyms, which tons of camps already do anything.

And you base this statement on... what?

Again, PEANUTS.

And you intend to persuade the parents to help pay for this, how?

This program doesn't COST money, it MAKES money.

Prove it.

YOU KEEP DOING IT AFTER YOU LEAVE.

What incentive is there to keep doing it?

You admitted you're forcing a lifestyle on somebody because you can, not because they want to follow that life style. You're also talking about an age group known for being especially finicky and out to find their own identity in the world. They're not going to take to kindly to you telling them they HAVE to do something simply because you said so.

If you have to go back each year from the time you're 10 to the time you're 16 and STILL haven't learned, then you're on your own. Tough shit.

Then what's the point of doing it if it doesn't stick with them the way you claim it will?

Yeah overweight 11 year old kids really have a lot of shit to get to during the summer.

If you're going to not care about doing that, by what crazy insane twisted logic do you figure they shouldn't be made to go to fat camps?

By the same crazy logic that tells me they won't give a damn about your weight loss program, thereby making it a useless waste of government resources.

Remember kids, if you disagree with me, take a few moments to find out why you're wrong.

This is your idea, this is your topic; it's your responsibility to address any issues and rebut statements you don't agree with, supplying evidence when asked. If you don't, then we assume you have conceded a given argument and are wrong.

At 10/11/09 09:16 PM, poxpower wrote: Show me one example.

You're idea was based on a summer camp out in the woods, now it's simply an addition to the school curriculum that uses school resources to help save money, so in the end it isn't "fat camp" it's "extra gym time for fat kids."

Like what?

"I'm a healthcare specialist."

"I'm not an expert, I don't represent the majority of the population."

The only half-valid argument anyone ever brought up in this thread is that they're sure this will fail based on their own personal idea of how the camp would run or how stupid kids are.

So kids are smart now? Prove it.

And ultimately, it's not up to me to decide. I'm smart enough to know a panel of physicians should be consulted before making rules on entry.

And how much is that going to cost the program? Doctor's don't work for free.

At 10/13/09 12:29 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/11/09 12:24 AM, poxpower wrote: It's not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this topic NOT called "Fat Camp?"

Yeah FAT CAMP, not BOOT CAMP.
This is a fat camp: http://www.weightlosscamps.com/weight-lo ss-camps/childhood-obesity-statistics.ht m

Did any of you even take 5 seconds to go look up what it is they do there?

I think the health care system will handle it just fine here in the next 20 years when all the baby boomers start dying off. That will free up a LOT of government expenditures.

Wow then there's no problem at all! What are you complaining about?

Real compassionate viewpoint you've got there, don't you? Force people into exercising for the good of their own health, force them to pay for it, but leave them out in the cold if they hurt themselves.

The goal of the camp is to foster safe exercise. If a kid gets injured, why the fuck is it the camp's problem? Do people sue schools when they get injured in phys ed? If they do, they're assholes.

No, but there are kids out there who are athletes. Highschool sports after all, an example of which being wrestling.

14 year old wrestlers don't have a 30 bmi generated by muslce mass.
To get to that level you'd need somewhere around 30% of your target health weight added on IN PURE MUSCLE MASS.

And you intend to persuade the parents to help pay for this, how?

I don't, I intend to force them.

What incentive is there to keep doing it?

Well you got me there.
What incentive could there be for anyone to stick to a weight loss plan and get fit and healthy?
Beats me.

You admitted you're forcing a lifestyle on somebody because you can, not because they want to follow that life style. They're not going to take to kindly to you telling them they HAVE to do something simply because you said so.

You're right, schools are a terrible idea.
....wait I mean fat camps. Fat camps are a terrible idea, as this argument applies only to them and nothing else like driving lessons or mandatory vaccinations.

You're also talking about an age group known for being especially finicky and out to find their own identity in the world.

Whatever identity teenagers want, FATNESS is not part of it.

So kids are smart now? Prove it.

Why? I never claimed their intelligence is required. Plus that request doesn't even make any sense. Smart compared to who? Kids? How can kids be smart compared to kids? Compared to adults? Compared to babies?

All they need is dedication. With the right program, they can do it.
http://www.fatcampsinfo.com/do_fat_camps _work.html

" In 2000, a study appeared in the International Journal of Obesity in which British researchers tracked nearly 200 children who participated in a two-month weight-loss camp. Nearly all the campers lost weight and achieved a lower Body Mass Index (BMI). But what's most fascinating about the study is that 11 months later, 80% of the kids still had a lower BMI than they'd had before going to the camp. That's a significant statistic when you consider that, among the general population, 95% of all people who use dieting to lose weight eventually gain all the weight back."

Got that?

And ultimately, it's not up to me to decide. I'm smart enough to know a panel of physicians should be consulted before making rules on entry.

And how much is that going to cost the program? Doctor's don't work for free.

Yeah, how much do YOU think it would cost?
Before asking that, did you even go"hey I wonder what it would cost to run studies and consult experts for 5 years on this matter".
Take a guess.
Is it closer to 1 million dollars ( pocket change ) or 100 billion dollars ( 60% of what the USA spends on obesity each year)?

TAKE A WILD GUESS.

How about you let people have the right to be fat?

Jesus, you people need to become more libertarian.

i think you're a facist retard.

How is he racist...

At 10/13/09 01:30 AM, poxpower wrote: Did any of you even take 5 seconds to go look up what it is they do there?

I'm aware of what they do there, the point being (which you conveniently didn't respond to) was that this topic is called fat camp, as in, a seperate facility out in the woods somewhere or completely seperated from the normal part of everyday society (which most summer camps are), not a program that is merely an extension of everyday gym class.

If a kid gets injured, why the fuck is it the camp's problem?

Because you're responsible for the child's well being while they are in your care, that's simple law. If you were to allow harm to come to these children while they were in your care, forget the parents suing you, you'll have the local authorities on your ass in a heartbeat, especially if you refuse to care for their injuries.

So now you've got the costs of...
- a separate fully furnished facility
- exercise equipment
- medical professionals consult and monitoring
- sports medicine doctor's to help ensure safety
- on staff dietitians

... to figure up. Now would be the perfect time for you to dust off your copy of Microsoft Excel and subscribe to Lexus Nexus if you intend to be taken seriously on this.

14 year old wrestlers don't have a 30 bmi generated by muslce mass.

They could. You're thinking a 30 bmi rating puts you right over the edge into Louis Anderson and John Candy territory in terms of obesity, but in reality, most of those weight classes are going to have you in the 25-30 rating depending on your height, with the heavyweight classes putting you right at a 30 rating.

I don't, I intend to force them.

Doesn't work that way. It might in Pox-Reality, but this is the real world, and you'll have to deal with the public at large in order to pass any kind of new tax measure, otherwise you'll be voted out of office in a heartbeat for trying to force people for paying for something they didn't agree with, especially if you came at them with this half-formed "you do the rest of the work" idea you've presented.

What incentive could there be for anyone to stick to a weight loss plan and get fit and healthy?

As you said, "it feels bad to be overweight." How frustrated were you when you first started exercising to lose weight, working your ass off only to get the most minimal of results? Did you quit for a while? Were you REALLY pissed off when you gained weight muscle mass from exercising instead of just loosing weight? I bet you quit for a while, and probably gained more weight.

How long did it take you to come to the conclusion that starving yourself was the way to go?

....wait I mean fat camps. Fat camps are a terrible idea, as this argument applies only to them and nothing else like driving lessons or mandatory vaccinations.

The point being that if kids don't take particular interest or even care about the lessons learned in school as it is, why would they care about this? You haven't been able to give a legitimate reason as to why this would be any different from anything else.

Whatever identity teenagers want, FATNESS is not part of it.

Then why is obesity so pandemic in this country among our youth?

Why? I never claimed their intelligence is required.

No, but you gave them credit for not being stupid. And by that assumption, I would have to assume that the general population of kids and teenagers has an IQ higher than room temperature at the very least, which you would be able to show.

Hell, my five year old nephew was shown to have an IQ of 90, and that's on par with the average intelligence of most adults, he blows other 5 year olds out of the water.

Got that?

Your study talks about kids who were in the United Kingdom, not the United States, two very different cultures.

Yeah, how much do YOU think it would cost?

I've got the bill right here for my Ear-Nose-and-Throat doctor, and before my health insurance kicked in, it was a $130 bill for just a consultation. I owe them $25 after everything is said and done because my insurance picked up the rest. Keep in mind; that's a consult, no actual medical procedure was done, no prescriptions were written, nothing.

So... this program is probably going to cost the government $100 a pop at the very least (I would THINK) just to have a doctor give a kid the okay. But then again, that's my limited knowledge on the subject based on a bill with an ENT Doctor, you're the one here arguing that such a thing would be cheap, so I'd like to see your figures.

At 10/13/09 11:07 AM, Proteas wrote:

I'm aware of what they do there, the point being (which you conveniently didn't respond to) was that this topic is called fat camp, as in, a seperate facility out in the woods somewhere or completely seperated from the normal part of everyday society (which most summer camps are), not a program that is merely an extension of everyday gym class.

Yeah, that's what a fat camp is. That's what I linked on that site. You're obviously not aware of what they do there since IT'S A SUMMER CAMP. Not "an extension of everyday gym class". NOTICE HOW IT SAYS SUMMER IN THERE? Yes, the same summer during which kids are not at school. That summer.

If a kid gets injured, why the fuck is it the camp's problem?

Because you're responsible for the child's well being while they are in your care, that's simple law.

Right by that logic I can sue a school if I get injured there in any way, shape or form.

So now you've got the costs of...
- a separate fully furnished facility
- exercise equipment
- medical professionals consult and monitoring
- sports medicine doctor's to help ensure safety
- on staff dietitians

I've said about 50 times that the bare minimum required has 0 machines and doesn't require the building of anything new. And you don't need to hire 2 doctors per camp. You're not running the New York Yankees, it's a fat camp for fuck's sake. After the first doctor visit to ascertain that the kid is not too fucked up to go run outside, he's fine.

The only people you'll need to hire are camp counselors with a rudimentary knowledge of healthy diets and exercise. That's about it. You could train someone to do this in a month. Easy.

They could.

Even at a freakish 230 pound for 6 foot 2, they don't qualify as obese. And that is one HUGE KID.

the heavyweight classes putting you right at a 30 rating.

It depends on your height.
Again, this is a completely irrelevant point since you need to go to the doctor before being sent off to camp. They'd get weeded out REGARDLESS.

I don't, I intend to force them.

Doesn't work that way.

Yes, that's called "taxes".

and you'll have to deal with the public at large in order to pass any kind of new tax measure,

Hahahahahaha

As you said, "it feels bad to be overweight." How frustrated were you when you first started exercising to lose weight, working your ass off only to get the most minimal of results? Did you quit for a while? Were you REALLY pissed off when you gained weight muscle mass from exercising instead of just loosing weight? I bet you quit for a while, and probably gained more weight.

What are you even talking about.

How long did it take you to come to the conclusion that starving yourself was the way to go?

Who gives a shit?

The point being that if kids don't take particular interest or even care about the lessons learned in school as it is, why would they care about this?

So your point is: abolish school?

I can tell you one thing: any fat teenager cares a lot more about being thin than about math and history.

Whatever identity teenagers want, FATNESS is not part of it.

Then why is obesity so pandemic in this country among our youth?

Really?
Really???

Hell, my five year old nephew was shown to have an IQ of 90, and that's on par with the average intelligence of most adults, he blows other 5 year olds out of the water.

IQ is adjusted for age and 90 is under average by 10 points. At any age, the average is 100. That's how IQ tests are designed. Congrats, your nephew is slightly retarded.

Your study talks about kids who were in the United Kingdom, not the United States, two very different cultures.

Aside from Canada, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more similar culture on the globe.
But yes, I want to hear your theory on what differences there are and how they make it so Brittish kids can keep the weight off while Americans kids couldn't.

I've got the bill right here for my Ear-Nose-and-Throat doctor, and before my health insurance kicked in, it was a $130 bill for just a consultation.

Wow that's peanuts.
Hiring 20 doctors at 130$ an hour for 2 weeks for 8 hours a day would cost you 290 000$. That's NOTHING.
Absolutely, NOTHING. 10 times that amount would be nothing. 100 times that amount wouldn't even make a blip in the US finances. That's a quarter of a billion. 140 times less than what Americans spend each and every year on their fat-related health problems.

So... this program is probably going to cost the government $100 a pop at the very least (I would THINK) just to have a doctor give a kid the okay.

Again, even if the government was the one footing 100% of that bill, it would be nothing.
Like I said, the average fatass spends 1400$ PER YEAR due to his obesity later in life.

If you get a 50% rate of success, which is MUCH lower than what the stats from the fat camp site showed, that's a reduction in average costs of 700$ per year per person. That's reduction enough in one year to send a kid to the doctor every year from 10 to 16 before he goes to fat camp.

At 10/13/09 12:35 PM, poxpower wrote: IQ is adjusted for age and 90 is under average by 10 points. At any age, the average is 100. That's how IQ tests are designed. Congrats, your nephew is slightly retarded.

Admit it pox, you're just jealous that his nephew beat you by 10.

At 10/13/09 12:35 PM, poxpower wrote: Yeah, that's what a fat camp is. That's what I linked on that site. You're obviously not aware of what they do there since IT'S A SUMMER CAMP. Not "an extension of everyday gym class". NOTICE HOW IT SAYS SUMMER IN THERE? Yes, the same summer during which kids are not at school. That summer.

And you've been arguing to use School Facilities and make it an everyday part of the school year, which runs counter to your own argument.

Right by that logic I can sue a school if I get injured there in any way, shape or form.

Actually, you can.

I've said about 50 times that the bare minimum required has 0 machines and doesn't require the building of anything new.

Opinion, not backed up by anything.

And you don't need to hire 2 doctors per camp. You're not running the New York Yankees, it's a fat camp for fuck's sake.

You're running a camp that puts the emphasis on physical activity, specifically for those who are not otherwise physically active. You will need either 2 doctors -- a general health practioner to ensure that pre-existing health conditions don't get the better of the kid, and a sports doctor to help with physical injuries -- or one super-doctor who specializes in both, and I'd HATE to see their fees.

After the first doctor visit to ascertain that the kid is not too fucked up to go run outside, he's fine.

And if they are, what then? You're program won't work for them, yet they're probably the ones who need it most.

The irony is deliciously sweet in this instance.

The only people you'll need to hire are camp counselors with a rudimentary knowledge of healthy diets and exercise. That's about it. You could train someone to do this in a month. Easy.

I hope you have a good lawyer.

Even at a freakish 230 pound for 6 foot 2, they don't qualify as obese. And that is one HUGE KID.

That's my point.

It depends on your height.
Again, this is a completely irrelevant point since you need to go to the doctor before being sent off to camp. They'd get weeded out REGARDLESS.

Which shoots a hole in the point YOU'VE been arguing that BMI is a valid measure of health.

Hahahahahaha

Keep laughing.

They'd sooner go without a new high-school than pay extra on wheel tax. What makes them think they'll vote for your proposition?

What are you even talking about.

I'm talking about YOU. Throughout this topic your argument has hinged on your experiences with weight loss and how they should/could apply to the general population at large. The only way they could (in theory) is if you shared a common experience with the rest of the population, namely, trying to lose weight and failing. You want to talk about how bad it feels to be overweight, I'm asking you if you had the same issues with weight loss that the average person does, and wether or not you realize this would play a determining factor in how effective this program would be.

So your point is: abolish school?

No, my point is that if they won't give special heed to the lessons taught at school, there is no reason to think they will pay attention to your fat camp ideas.

Really?
Really???

Yes, really. You want to argue that the average teenager gives a shit about their weight, that they're insanely bright and that they would actually stick with a weight loss program. So I'm asking you; if this was truly the case, why aren't they losing weight already with the information that's already available? Why is it that obesity has reached the level's it has in this country?

At any age, the average is 100.

Actually, the average range is between 90 and 110. So he's just on the lower end of "normal" for adults. The point being,

But yes, I want to hear your theory on what differences there are and how they make it so Brittish kids can keep the weight off while Americans kids couldn't.

Better dietary habits, for starters.

Hiring 20 doctors at 130$ an hour for 2 weeks for 8 hours a day would cost you 290 000$. That's NOTHING.

Doctor's don't charge by the hour, they charge by the visit. That was 15 minute consultation at the most, so if you want to argue a "by the hour" figure you're cost automatically goes up by 4 fold, increasing your overall costs to one million plus dollars. If you figure it up by visit, the costs of doctor's visits is going to drive this program into the ground before it even gets started.

And of course, I'm assuming you're figuring this by a small scale by stating "20 doctors," unless you intend 20 doctors to do the work of a full country.

If you get a 50% rate of success, which is MUCH lower than what the stats from the fat camp site showed, that's a reduction in average costs of 700$ per year per person.

So you make the kids loose the weight, woo-hoo. What's going to happen when they get out of the camp and gain the weight back when they go right back into the environment that allowed them to gain the weight to begin with?

At 10/13/09 01:10 PM, Proteas wrote: Actually, the average range is between 90 and 110. So he's just on the lower end of "normal" for adults. The point being,

He's the exception, not the rule. The majority of kids are not going to be super-intelligent einstein kids, much less above average, they're going to be of average intelligence and they are not going to think of the bigger picture the way you and I see it.

At 10/13/09 01:10 PM, Proteas wrote:

And you've been arguing to use School Facilities and make it an everyday part of the school year, which runs counter to your own argument.

I never once mentioned this would be part of everyday school.

Right by that logic I can sue a school if I get injured there in any way, shape or form.

Actually, you can.

Look the point is that you'd expect parents to not be so fucking stupid that they'd sue the camp for regular playing injury. You were asking "what if the kid gets injured?". Yeah, what if? That will inevitably happen.
Kids get injured nonstop, you don't automatically have to sue the person nearest to the kid at the time.

If there was definite malpractice in the camp and the injury was a result of bad counseling, then YES, sue the camp. Otherwise, like I said: tough shit, you're paying the bill.

I've said about 50 times that the bare minimum required has 0 machines and doesn't require the building of anything new.

Opinion, not backed up by anything.

You don't need any machines to work out and you don't need any new buildings built when you can simply rent empty ones. The bare bones, poorest, shittiest programs could go by without so much as a soccer ball.
A fair level of equipment for the shittier camp would probably only consist of free weights, balls, minimal sports equipment. That's probably what you'd find in the poor areas.
Then it scales up from there depending on how much money you pay.

You're running a camp that puts the emphasis on physical activity, specifically for those who are not otherwise physically active. You will need either 2 doctors

Oh yeah that's right!
That also explains why every school hires 2 full-time doctors to supervise their gym classes.

After the first doctor visit to ascertain that the kid is not too fucked up to go run outside, he's fine.

And if they are, what then? You're program won't work for them, yet they're probably the ones who need it most.

If your kid is at that point, he'll be in the hospital anyway. That's where he'll be and that's where he'll get help.

Which shoots a hole in the point YOU'VE been arguing that BMI is a valid measure of health.

I never once said that.
It's just a very good benchmark to see who's overweight and who isn't, especially for kids.

They'd sooner go without a new high-school than pay extra on wheel tax. What makes them think they'll vote for your proposition?

It won't be up to them anyway.

I'm talking about YOU. Throughout this topic your argument has hinged on your experiences with weight loss and how they should/could apply to the general population at large.

Not once did I mention anyone should do any of the things I've done.

You want to talk about how bad it feels to be overweight, I'm asking you if you had the same issues with weight loss that the average person does, and wether or not you realize this would play a determining factor in how effective this program would be.

My personal experience has nothing to do with anything.
I could be the only person on the planet who can lose weight by drinking cooking oil and liquefied hamburgers and it wouldn't change anything I'm saying.

So your point is: abolish school?

No, my point is that if they won't give special heed to the lessons taught at school, there is no reason to think they will pay attention to your fat camp ideas.

Right so let's abolish school! If they're not paying attention in school, why send them?

So I'm asking you; if this was truly the case, why aren't they losing weight already with the information that's already available?

Because their parents are idiots, because they don't control what they eat, because they're weak, because they're misinformed, because they get left out of activities, because they don't know how to eat, because they've never experienced a good balance etc.

There's tons of reasons and they differ for each kid.

At any age, the average is 100.

Actually, the average range is between 90 and 110.

http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definit ion_of_IQ.html
" The average IQ of the population as a whole is, by definition, 100. "
It's not "between 90 and 110 ( which is 100 anyway, genius )" it's EXACTLY 100.

IQ tests are made this way: you make people take the test, you take the average and that average becomes 100. Then you measure how much better or worse than average someone did and you tack a number onto that.

100 is always the average. ALWAYS. If you are under 100, you're under average. You have scored lower than the average person taking the test. That's what it means.

So he's just on the lower end of "normal" for adults. The point being,

IQ tests ask your age and divide people into age groups. His score is compared to his age group, not to adults.

But yes, I want to hear your theory on what differences there are and how they make it so Brittish kids can keep the weight off while Americans kids couldn't.

Better dietary habits, for starters.

First, that doesn't even make sense because it looks at the ability for people who WERE fat to keep their weight loss. So if they had better diets, they wouldn't be fat in the first place.

Second, British people have a terrible diet. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19114067/
It's not particularly better or worse than the diet of Canadians, Americans, Australians and other such rich english-speaking populations.

If you get a 50% rate of success, which is MUCH lower than what the stats from the fat camp site showed, that's a reduction in average costs of 700$ per year per person.

So you make the kids loose the weight, woo-hoo. What's going to happen when they get out of the camp and gain the weight back when they go right back into the environment that allowed them to gain the weight to begin with?

Yeah that's what I said: a 50% success rate.
Success is when you make a kid stick to it.
50% is shit. The fat camp in the studies claim an 80% success rate. And that's just one year.
Let's say the camp runs for 5 years before you don't have to go, and each yeah you have a success rate of 50%.

That means that 50 out of ever 100 kid who started the first year won't need to come back. Then that means for the next year, 25 out of the 50 remaining kids won't come back the 3rd. And so on.

To total rate of success would be
50 + 25 + 12 + 6 + 3, which is 96%

Even assuming an ABYSMAL 10% succes rate per year, you'd still get:
10 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 19%
Which is 26 billion a year less money spent in future fatness costs from the 5th year onward.

I'm not going to get into this because then I'd be double-teamed by Proteas and Poxy-anorexic-man, but FORCING parents to pay for a camp that you're FORCING kids to go to- You honestly don't see any problem with that? You HONESTLY think that's a good idea? Or that it'll actually work? You can lead the chubby horse to the fat camp, but you can't make it run. Kids won't stand for it either. It may surprise you, but they have a small amount of intelligence.

People are people, not cattle animals. Let them live their damn lives.

I can't believe you're all still carrying on an argument with someone whose primary experience with losing weight is starving himself and whose primary experience with exercise is carrying groceries.

Recap --

-- this topic is only about reducing overall healthcare costs because Pox "doesn't give a shit about kids"
-- he's not arguing for a year-round program, he's arguing for mandatory summer-time fat camps
-- he's arguing that the benefits from such a program (lower healthcare costs by way of better overall health/lower obesity rates) would outweigh its costs, BUT --
----- it would require a slew of doctors/nutritionists/healthcare professionals to ascertain who should be required for such a program and who should not, and also to run the program
----- it would require lots of facilities and equipment
----- it'd be targeted only for people aged around 10-16, for only 2-3 months of their lives
----- people (kids esp) who are forced into things they don't enjoy just half-ass their ways through
----- you couldn't even keep them there for longer if they DIDN'T meet your goals

There's no reason to believe that forcibly taking kids from an environment that ignores proper nutrition & physical activity and shoving them into an environment they don't want to be in that forces them to exercise daily (with, apparently, little-to-no equipment) to meet a federally-mandated goal that they don't particularly care about and probably COULD'NT meet in such a short 2-3 month timespan ANYWAY... there's no reason to believe that a program designed as such would have ANY short OR long-term benefits to either the children's well-being or the overall costs of healthcare throughout the nation.

RE: Pox's Health Month

At 2/11/09 01:05 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/11/09 11:21 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Even light exercise would make it so much more worth it. Just walk for like an hour everyday and maybe put a pull-up bar in one of your doorways. Doesn't have to be anything too crazy.

Does guitar hero count?

(

I should join a gym. Blah. I say that every day. I WANT to. But I just don't want to deal with that first month of buying gym clothes, finding out how everything works, getting used to going out there all the time, talking to new people...

aarr I hate that so much.

This is the person you're arguing with. Someone who cannot commit one entire month to eating healthy without binging afterwards, and who's only real experience with exercise is transporting himself around town and carrying his groceries home. But he knows how to solve the national obesity problem and reduce healthcare costs for all. Allllllrighty then. I think the reason he believes the whole "mandatory" aspect is such a good idea is because, apparently, he can barely commit to the things he WANTS to commit himself to unless he can somehow turn it into a temporary game for himself. So, maybe the next thread to make is how each person needs a personal drill sergeant to follow them around to force them to overcome their laziness and lack of willpower, and how the increases in productivity and efficiency will more than make up for the costs of having the government assign a drill instructor to everyone. "Plus, tons of drill instructor jobs, so, it's actually good for the economy."

...

Your idea sucks, so, maybe instead of arguing asinine shit you should busy yourself designing the next line of 'Wii Fit' and 'Gardening Mama' games or something like that.

At 10/13/09 03:42 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

there's no reason to believe that a program designed as such would have ANY short OR long-term benefits to either the children's well-being or the overall costs of healthcare throughout the nation.

Except it does work.
http://www.healthcamps.org.nz/facts.html
http://www.askdeb.com/health/weight/loss /camps/
http://www.fatcampsinfo.com/do_fat_camps _work.html ( read more than one sentence )

Ultimately this is not rock-solid data. The truth is that there's no long-term studies or even mid-term studies on this that I could find.

Your argument entirely boils down to your gut feeling that kids won't stick to it for whatever reason you can imagine.

This is the person you're arguing with. Someone who cannot commit one entire month to eating healthy without binging afterwards, and who's only real experience with exercise is transporting himself around town and carrying his groceries home.

See, this is what we know as "ad hominem".
This has no relevance to anything.

But he knows how to solve the national obesity problem and reduce healthcare costs for all.

Actually there is one good argument against me in that matter that you people have yet to stumble on.
That's because you guys'll take the time to make a 500 character personal attack but you won't spend 2 minutes doing a Google search to actually bring up valid points.

he can barely commit to the things he WANTS to commit himself to unless he can somehow turn it into a temporary game for himself.

Yeah except I did manage to lose 50 pounds and keep it off.
And when I did it, it wasn't through dieting, it was summer and I was actually outside doing exercise.

aaaaaaaaaaaaw

I managed to lose weight without outside help.

Does this knowledge suddenly make my arguments more valid?
No.
It just makes you look dumber for having tried to use an ad hominem in lieu of actual arguments.

In truth, it doesn't matter who I am or what I have done. If I'm right, I'm right.

I like the idea.

Some people may be concerned about the 'mandatory' clause, but I think it's perfectly fine. Many countries have a mandatory military service when young men turn 18; why not have mandatory fat camps for kids who turn obese?

I mean, unless the kid has proven hormonal problems or incapacity that make it impossible for them to lose weight, they should be sent-off. Many of them don't have to be fat; they just have really poor diets and exercise ethics.

At 10/13/09 02:21 PM, poxpower wrote: I never once mentioned this would be part of everyday school.

"So I say: let's do that for fat kids. If you are a kid of X weight, then you spend your summer in fat camp. You get extra gym classes."

First post, dude.

Kids get injured nonstop, you don't automatically have to sue the person nearest to the kid at the time.

And that's the difference between the United States and Canada; we are a more litigious culture, if it casts a shadow and can cause us harm, we will sue it into bankruptcy. These are the people you'll have to deal with.

Then it scales up from there depending on how much money you pay.

So you're going to force people to pay for this system, yet, the richer people who can probably afford to do this on their own anyway are going to get a better quality of weight loss camps? Is that what you're telling me?

That also explains why every school hires 2 full-time doctors to supervise their gym classes.

This isn't a school program according to you, remember?

I never once said that.

Yes, you did, and drove that point home by showing that only exception to this being bodybuilders who blow the BMI system out of the water by being well past the 30 BMI point mark, yet were very physically fit.

It won't be up to them anyway.

You're right, it will be up to their representatives who won't vote for it because they'll get voted out of office by their constituents in the next election.

Not once did I mention anyone should do any of the things I've done.

Then why do you take such an authoritative/informative tone in instructing people on how to do as you do in those weight loss articles on your website?

My personal experience has nothing to do with anything.

Then quit arguing that you're an authority on the subject based on your personal experiences. It's that simple.

Right so let's abolish school! If they're not paying attention in school, why send them?

Reductio ad absurdum. If you want to argue that school is worthless and kids don't pay attention to the lessons they're taught, fine, but don't come back and then argue that they'll pay attention to your weight loss program, it's a contradictory argument so glaringly obvious that Andrea Bocelli could see it.

Because their parents are idiots, because they don't control what they eat, because they're weak, because they're misinformed, because they get left out of activities, because they don't know how to eat, because they've never experienced a good balance etc.

:-)

Thank you for arguing my point for me, pox. Kids are idiots, they're parents are no better, and you're program has no chance in HELL of working after the kids leave your camp.

100 is always the average. ALWAYS. If you are under 100, you're under average. You have scored lower than the average person taking the test. That's what it means.

90 =/= "Slightly Retarded," it might be "slightly under average, but if you look at the IQ Bell Curve, you will notice that 100 is simply the mathematical average of the population, it does not represent what the majority of the population will actually be. The majority will be between 90 and 110.

IQ tests ask your age and divide people into age groups. His score is compared to his age group, not to adults.

Seeing as how I can't find find a chart stating what the average IQ of a child is, I'm calling bullshit on this claim, which probably explains why his IQ was compared to that of an adult to begin with.

That means that 50 out of ever 100 kid who started the first year won't need to come back. Then that means for the next year, 25 out of the 50 remaining kids won't come back the 3rd. And so on.

That assumes that you're dealing with a static number of children, man. In reality, you wouldn't be dealing with a fixed or smaller number every year, as new kids would get added every school year. If you've got a 50% success rate, there's no guarantee those kids you failed to help last year will lose weight this year.

Even then, 50% is a failing grade for any program, dude.

Now, if you could boast an actual 80% plus success rate, you might get support for the program, otherwise it's just a shitty program that will get you laughed out of your average senator's office.

At 10/13/09 04:40 PM, poxpower wrote: Except it does work.

No one's arguing that fat camps don't work, we're arguing that yours won't.

Your argument entirely boils down to your gut feeling that kids won't stick to it for whatever reason you can imagine.

Contradictory argument; you've already argued that kids are stupid and would have no reason to continue on your program, remember?

See, this is what we know as "ad hominem".

No, it's not.

This has no relevance to anything.

Yes, it does. You're arguing about health and weight loss, you're largely arguing from personal opinion and not from studies, and you've shown yourself to be lazy an ineffective when it comes to personal commitment to weight loss in addition to being willing to do very dangerous things when it comes to losing weight. Your credibility is nil on this matter.

Yeah except I did manage to lose 50 pounds and keep it off.
And when I did it, it wasn't through dieting, it was summer and I was actually outside doing exercise.

So why isn't THAT on you're web page, instead of all this liquid diet/ice diet/starvation tips mess you've got on there?

If I'm right, I'm right.

If you were right, you wouldn't have to put so much effort into defending yourself against us because our opinions would not matter. You could just go *fwoosh* and dickslap us with a bunch of concrete evidence and sound logic supporting your points and that would be the end of it.

At 10/14/09 10:43 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/13/09 02:21 PM, poxpower wrote: I never once mentioned this would be part of everyday school.

"So I say: let's do that for fat kids. If you are a kid of X weight, then you spend your summer in fat camp. You get extra gym classes."

First post, dude.

I thought you were talking about fat camps being part of school which they obviously wouldn't be.
Anyway I retract the extra gym classes idea. That would overload their schedule during school year.

And that's the difference between the United States and Canada; we are a more litigious culture

Again, I know they'll sue but it's not the camp's responsibility to pay for the random injury bills and it's entirely fair.

So you're going to force people to pay for this system, yet, the richer people who can probably afford to do this on their own anyway are going to get a better quality of weight loss camps? Is that what you're telling me?

I imagine it would divide into a public/ private system like schools. But basically the goal is the make a basic camp affordable to everyone but not so cheap that they undercut every other possible camp option.

Yes, you did, and drove that point home by showing that only exception to this being bodybuilders who blow the BMI system out of the water by being well past the 30 BMI point mark, yet were very physically fit.

Again, BMI is not a defining factor for health. I've never said that and never held that position. It's just a quick easy way to know who's obese and who isn't and works 99.999999% of the time.

Then why do you take such an authoritative/informative tone in instructing people on how to do as you do in those weight loss articles on your website?

First off, this whole thing started because you asked me how I knew that it was possible to lose 20-40 pounds in 7 weeks. Having done it, I think I'd know.
Second, I never said anywhere that anyone should try to lose weight based on any of the things I've done. Not here or on my website.

Especially not this: http://www.thepoxbox.com/what.php?id=cal orieladder

Right so let's abolish school! If they're not paying attention in school, why send them?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Not really. Your point is that they won't give a shit about fat camp because they don't give a shit about school. So why send them to one and not the other?

Seeing as how I can't find find a chart stating what the average IQ of a child is

It's ONE HUNDRED.
Man this is just hilarious. You actually JUST "explained" to me that the average IQ is 100 ( after I had already told you since you didn't know ) and now you instantly forgot that information in hopes that maybe your nephew is really smart.
What you could possibly achieve by proving he's smart to me, I have no idea.

That assumes that you're dealing with a static number of children, man. In reality, you wouldn't be dealing with a fixed or smaller number every year, as new kids would get added every school year.

Well I have no rates on that. It's probably fair to say some kids would become fat enough to join camps but I don't know how many that is. Based on my experience of high school, kids who entered thin left thin and kids who entered fat left fat.
Most data I've looked at indicated that obesity starts young. So if you nip it in the bud early on, you'll probably not get too many replacement fatties.

If you've got a 50% success rate, there's no guarantee those kids you failed to help last year will lose weight this year.

No one's arguing that fat camps don't work, we're arguing that yours won't.

That makes no sense since there would be no difference between current fat camps and this program. If anything, they'd be even better since this campaign would require brief studies and sample testings to determine the best programs.

Contradictory argument; you've already argued that kids are stupid and would have no reason to continue on your program, remember?

YOU argued that kids are stupid. and YOU argued that they wouldn't stick with it. This entire time I've been giving you nimrods reasons for why kids don't want to be fat, on top of the reasons they SHOULDN'T want to be fat.

So why isn't THAT on you're web page, instead of all this liquid diet/ice diet/starvation tips mess you've got on there?

I did it before even starting my page.

If you were right, you wouldn't have to put so much effort into defending yourself against us

Wow what a great benchmark for evaluating the truth of a claim.
You know, there must be something to that Intelligent Design idea. If evolution really was that brilliant of an idea, then they wouldn't have such a hard time convincing religious people that it's true.

YOU MIGHT BE ON TO SOMETHING HERE

At 10/5/09 02:33 PM, poxpower wrote: So it's a goal for just about every country to make sure as many of the population as possible is literate. We do this because it produces educated workers and better citizens and is overall better for everyone.

If you suck in school, they will put you in a class to make you learn how to read. There are tutors, special classes and summer schools etc.

So I say: let's do that for fat kids. If you are a kid of X weight, then you spend your summer in fat camp. You get extra gym classes. You're gonna LOSE THE WEIGHT. With public healthcare, we can't afford all the fatties. And those people can't afford to be fat either. Free fat camp would save billions in the long run.

Let me know what you think ( i.e. how obviously right I am )

This is actually not a bad idea. Though, there are two problems that I see: 1.) Wealthy parents will be angry and will probably get an exemption or a loophole 2.) Going to fat camp could interfere with a students academic or social development, but then again so could being fat.

At 10/14/09 02:03 PM, poxpower wrote: Again, I know they'll sue but it's not the camp's responsibility to pay for the random injury bills and it's entirely fair.

You're legally responsible for the physical well being of the child while they are in your custody, that's the law. If they are injured during the course of your proscribed excercise regimens, and it can be shown that they injured themselves because you were neglectful in either (a) proper instruction or (b) failure to prevent them from injuring themselves, you will get sued. NOT getting sued being "fair" is only fair because it benefits you.

And when you do get sued, I'm going to be sitting there laughing my ass off at you while you tell the media "It's not fair for them to sue me!"

I imagine it would divide into a public/ private system like schools. But basically the goal is the make a basic camp affordable to everyone but not so cheap that they undercut every other possible camp option.

If somebody is rich enough that they can afford to send their kid to fat camp to begin with, why would they want their kids in your program?

I've never said that and never held that position.

Yes, you did. You only modified your position to say that a medical evaluation would be required for this program after I called you out on how the BMI rating system was not an indicator of health.

First off, this whole thing started because you asked me how I knew that it was possible to lose 20-40 pounds in 7 weeks. Having done it, I think I'd know.

I asked you what your medical qualifications were to make such a statement. I was being sarcastic, quit revising history.

Second, I never said anywhere that anyone should try to lose weight based on any of the things I've done. Not here or on my website.

You do realize that you could be held personally liable for any injuries or deaths related to people following your diet advise, right? After all, nowhere on this website or that one is a disclaimer stating that you are not a medical/health professional and that your articles should only be taken at face value for entertainment purposes.

Especially not this: http://www.thepoxbox.com/what.php?id=cal orieladder

Then why do you have it up there?

So why send them to one and not the other?

That a whole different can of worms, man. A topic unto itself.

It's ONE HUNDRED.

That is a MATHEMATICAL AVERAGE.

I'm going to give you an explanation of how this works; if I have three people who's IQ's are 90, 100, and 110 respectively, and I want to find out what the average IQ is of the group I'm dealing with, I simply add those numbers together and divide by the number of people in the group so that the previous sum is evenly redistributed back across the three people in question. 90 + 100 + 110 = 300. 300/3 = 100. 1 person out of 3 cannot equal the majority of those people.

Get it?

Here's a bigger version of it to drive the point home using the same IQ Curve Graph I used earlier. 9 people who's IQ's are 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, and 140 respectively, running the gammut from barely function to high functioning. Add it all together, you've got 900, divide it out by the 9 people, the average IQ of the group is 100. The one person with an IQ of 100 does not represent the majority of the group, he's just 1/9th of the group.

Am I starting to make sense now?

What you could possibly achieve by proving he's smart to me, I have no idea.

My point was that not every kid is going to be smart the way you were originally arguing that they were, there are exceptions to the rule, and they are by no means representative of the population at large. FOCUS.

Well I have no rates on that.

Then you have nothing to base your opinion on, much less can you claim to be right about anything. NEXT.

That makes no sense since there would be no difference between current fat camps and this program. If anything, they'd be even better since this campaign would require brief studies and sample testings to determine the best programs.

Yes, it does make sense; the fat camps we have now are voluntary, people WANT TO GO TO THEM. They want to lose the weight and they are willing to seek out that help. Your idea is taking people who *gasp* are fat and may not neccesarily give two shits about it and forcing them to lose weight, so they have no reason to stick with the program beyond you telling them they have to. Which brings me back to the Hobo from Skid Row, California comparison I made earlier; they are in an environment that allowed them to get that way, when they leave they are heading right back to it, and they probably don't want to change anyway.

YOU argued that kids are stupid. and YOU argued that they wouldn't stick with it.

And you argued that they weren't, yet I got you to admit they were. So ha ha ha ha ha ha, deal with it.

I did it before even starting my page.

Then why wasn't it the first thing you put up?!

Wow what a great benchmark for evaluating the truth of a claim.

You know damn well what I meant. You started this topic with the assumption that your idea was foolproof and infallible, and that we were to all bask in the glory of it. If that were the case, what are doing 4 pages and a week later still discussing all the glaring flaws in your plan with you revising it all the way, hm?

At 10/14/09 06:25 PM, Proteas wrote:

You're legally responsible for the physical well being of the child while they are in your custody, that's the law.

I'm pretty sure that if a kid gets into an accident that has nothing to do with you, you're not liable, as much as the parents will try to sue you for it.
You actually have to prove that the injury was the fault of the caretaker.

If somebody is rich enough that they can afford to send their kid to fat camp to begin with, why would they want their kids in your program?

The only thing from the program that would apply to them is that they'd be forced to pick a camp.
They can send the kid anywhere they want if they have the money.

Yes, you did. You only modified your position to say that a medical evaluation would be required for this program after I called you out on how the BMI rating system was not an indicator of health.

The first person to mention BMI in this thread was YOU.
All I said was that a 30 BMI was a good benchmark to qualify a kid for the camp when you asked what weight they would need to be to get sent there.

I've never held the position that based on BMI alone you would ship any kid off the camp. And even if you based it on BMI alone, you couldn't skip a doctor visit.

Second, I never said anywhere that anyone should try to lose weight based on any of the things I've done. Not here or on my website.

You do realize that you could be held personally liable for any injuries or deaths related to people following your diet advise, right?

Really? That's your reply to "I WOULD NEVER ADVISE ANYONE TO DO THIS"?

After all, nowhere on this website or that one is a disclaimer stating that you are not a medical/health professional and that your articles should only be taken at face value for entertainment purposes.

I am in no way, shape or form legally liable for the things I write on that website. But go ahead and try.

So why send them to one and not the other?

That a whole different can of worms, man. A topic unto itself.

Yeah seems you should address the main arguments seeing as you're reading to shoot down fat camps based on the same arguments you'd shoot down schools.
Based on your idea that kids can't stick to anything and don't apply what they don't give a shit about to their lives, why the hell would you advocate schooling?

All I have to do is throw your argument right back at you and say that schools are obviously stupid and would never work because kids can't commit to it especially if you force them to go. That's your argument.

It's ONE HUNDRED.

That is a MATHEMATICAL AVERAGE.

Yes, finally you're starting to understand.

I'm going to give you an explanation of how this works

Wow that's rich. One day ago you had no idea how IQ tests worked and now you're proving yourself wrong after having said about 4 times that "most people are at around 90 to 110" in response to me saying the average is 100.

Hey, here's another bit of math of you: ( 90 + 110 ) / 2 = 100
wow

What you could possibly achieve by proving he's smart to me, I have no idea.

My point was that not every kid is going to be smart the way you were originally arguing that they were,

Jesus Christ, make up your mind. Either you think I'm arguing kids are smart or either you think I'm arguing they're idiots.
Like I said, smart / idiots COMPARED TO WHO?

Well I have no rates on that.

Then you have nothing to base your opinion on

That means YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RATES EITHER.
You're not automatically right when there's no data available.

Yes, it does make sense; the fat camps we have now are voluntary, people WANT TO GO TO THEM.

Again, what do you base this on? What percentage of kids voluntarily go there and what percentage are sent there by their parents?
And based on that, what is the percentage of success for the kids who were forced and what is the percentage of success for the kids who weren't?

I sure can't find that information. It's a pretty bold claim to say that the one huge factor that defines success or failure in weight loss camp programs is if the kid wanted to go or not.

they are in an environment that allowed them to get that way, when they leave they are heading right back to it, and they probably don't want to change anyway.

Right like I've posted before, a camp boasts an 80 success rate after one year, i.e. kids keeping the weight off.
All you said to that was "they've brittish so like....their culture is different' which is ridiculous. You haven't explained that at all, you only tried to say their diet was better which is 100% bogus as any google search will tell you.

Shit, English people are world-famous for eating crap food.

I did it before even starting my page.

Then why wasn't it the first thing you put up?!

Why would it be?
Who gives a shit?

If that were the case, what are doing 4 pages and a week later still discussing all the glaring flaws in your plan with you revising it all the way, hm?

If someone argues with me for 4 pages, then I'M WRONG. If someone argues with you for 4 pages, then THEY'RE wrong?

At 10/14/09 07:04 PM, poxpower wrote: The only thing from the program that would apply to them is that they'd be forced to pick a camp.
They can send the kid anywhere they want if they have the money.

Why should they be forced to chose between your shitty, equipmentless, doctorless, money saving camps when they can pay to have their kids sent to a good camps run by people who actually give a shit about their kids?

I've never held the position that based on BMI alone you would ship any kid off the camp. And even if you based it on BMI alone, you couldn't skip a doctor visit.

You see what happens when you start a topic half formed and claim you're right from the beginning?

I am in no way, shape or form legally liable for the things I write on that website. But go ahead and try.

I wonder if your web hosting service would say differently in their end-user-agreement.

All I have to do is throw your argument right back at you and say that schools are obviously stupid and would never work because kids can't commit to it especially if you force them to go. That's your argument.

You're revising history again. You're the one who's argued time and time again we force kids to go to school and learn useless shit, so why not force them to learn something that they will carry throughout the rest of their lives and actually benefit them healthwise. Your argument and yours alone, and it's the entire basis of this topic. This argument contradicts itself in so many different ways it's not funny.

Now, if you want to argue that school should be abolished, you go right ahead.

and now you're proving yourself wrong after having said about 4 times that "most people are at around 90 to 110" in response to me saying the average is 100.

If I say "most people are at around 90 to 110," guess what? I'm right. Look at that IQ bell curve again, the most of the population with the median IQ is in the range of 90 to 110. Get over it.

Jesus Christ, make up your mind. Either you think I'm arguing kids are smart or either you think I'm arguing they're idiots.

You've been arguing both, dude. One minute you're arguing they're smart enough to follow your plan despite how they don't pay attention in school, the next you're arguing they're drooling idiots. Make up your mind.

That means YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RATES EITHER.
You're not automatically right when there's no data available.

That's what I'm saying; you're not automatically right when there's no data available. You can't be right when there's a lack of evidence to support your claim. You pounded that into my head during one of our first discussions on Religion, remember?

Again, what do you base this on?

The fact that people would be willing to pay to go to them, otherwise such camps (a) wouldn't exist because there would be no demand for them and (b) they wouldn't be able to charge such ridiculous prices for their services.

What percentage of kids voluntarily go there and what percentage are sent there by their parents?

Moot argument; kids can't consent to anything, they're parents do it for them. But the only way it would work the way you claim it does in the U.k. study you cited earlier is if the kids wanted to be there to begin with and wanted to lose the weight, thus yeilding the results you got.

If someone argues with me for 4 pages, then I'M WRONG. If someone argues with you for 4 pages, then THEY'RE wrong?

What have you done to show that you are right in this matter, besides shoot holes in my "different culture" argument?