[OkStudies]

This wouldn't even be remotely possible in the US (the second fattest country in the world).

http://www.theguardian.com/society/short...ay-tickets

If it did somehow get through in America, it would be denounced by every pathetic pressure group (feminists, fat acceptance, etc) , picketed and finally abandoned.

At least Mexico is being proactive and acknowledging they have a problem.

[TheFinalEpic]

Notice how Russia had to do 30 for a ticket back in 2013.

God bless Vladimir Putin.

[Michael P]

Good initiative.

In 2013 they were talking about ticket fares by weight (because it takes a whole damn lot of fuel to accelerate to 500 mph a 120 kg lady). Sadly I have not heard of it being implemented, yet.

[MidWest]

The president of Mexico once said that he doesn't want to live in a country full of fat people.


Nieto has actually tried to tackle the obesity problem by proposing a tax on junk food and sugary goods as well as telling Mexicans to exercise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...esity.html

[CelMasc]

The world would be a better place if everyone did squats.

[Captain Gh]

I'm sure there's a limit per person if not it would be a racket for someone that's in shape to do it all the time easy for free tickets!

[getdownonit]

(01-28-2015 07:39 PM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

I'm sure there's a limit per person if not it would be a racket for someone that's in shape to do it all the time easy for free tickets!

Don't you think it would be unfair to penalize the people who are actually healthy and can do ten squats no problem?

The article's reference to Dubai giving residents a gram of gold for each pound they lost annoyed me as well. Rewarding the fatties for getting down to a healthy weight while penalizing those who exercised, their bodies and self control.

[DrewP]

The US needs to mandate that all Wal Marts be built on top of a hill, with the parking lot at the bottom.

[Mage]

I am glad for Mexicans.

Article also mentions tax on sugary drinks that I approve. I believe the overall negative effect of a glass of cola matches that of a cigarette so if you have a tax on smoking like most countries have than taxing sugar drinks makes sense too.

However 10 squats is too low. I can do 10 squats without a change in breath or heart rate. At this rate I could work to squat for fatties for half price of the ticket and could probably earn money worth at least 100 tickets a day. This would be too hard to do if I had do 30 squats each time.

(01-28-2015 06:50 PM)Michael P Wrote:  

Good initiative.

In 2013 they were talking about ticket fares by weight (because it takes a whole damn lot of fuel to accelerate to 500 mph a 120 kg lady). Sadly I have not heard of it being implemented, yet.

I am against such a law. it would make men pay more than women and athletic men with muscle to pay more than skinny faggots. A bodybuilder (non-natural trough, although maybe some tall natural also) can reach 120 kg too.

[speakeasy]

Pretty pointless. How many calories are 10 unweighted squats going to burn? Hell, one hour off brisk walking on a treadmill only burns about 500-600 calories, and that's about as much as a typical meal. An exercise that can be done in 1 minute won't have any effect on obesity. Good example of government waste of money.

[Barron]

Thought this was about Squat Toilets...
Making fatties squat to take a shit would be a terrible mess but might make them think twice before eating that Big Stuffed Burrito from Taco Bell for lunch if they know they're gonna have to squat and possibly spray their pants/shoes with doodoo in fifteen minutes

[WD-40]

Guys this is not about making fatties exercise.

This is about shaming them by giving hot chicks in yoga pants an excuse to show off their tight booties by doing squats in public and get rewarded with free shit.

[Michael P]

(01-29-2015 12:16 AM)Mage Wrote:  

I am glad for Mexicans.

Article also mentions tax on sugary drinks that I approve. I believe the overall negative effect of a glass of cola matches that of a cigarette so if you have a tax on smoking like most countries have than taxing sugar drinks makes sense too.

However 10 squats is too low. I can do 10 squats without a change in breath or heart rate. At this rate I could work to squat for fatties for half price of the ticket and could probably earn money worth at least 100 tickets a day. This would be too hard to do if I had do 30 squats each time.

(01-28-2015 06:50 PM)Michael P Wrote:  

Good initiative.

In 2013 they were talking about ticket fares by weight (because it takes a whole damn lot of fuel to accelerate to 500 mph a 120 kg lady). Sadly I have not heard of it being implemented, yet.

I am against such a law. it would make men pay more than women and athletic men with muscle to pay more than skinny faggots. A bodybuilder (non-natural trough, although maybe some tall natural also) can reach 120 kg too.

These two comments have a socialist tone.

I did not think about the fact that men would have to pay more.
I am in the "strength crowd" so I would pay more, than the IDEAL WOMAN, but on avreage I am slimmer than most American women.

Regardless, is it fair for "vertically challenged" men to pay an equal price with Ronnie Coleman? Thus subsidizing Ronnie ("light weight baby") ?! No.
The company should ask for 100%, no MORE, no less of the kerosen you use.

On the same token putting bigger taxes on sugar (albeit I agree with you 100%, processed sugar is as toxic as nicotine) is a nanny-state maneuverer. It's every man's wright to put WHATEVER he wants into his body.

Yes, educate since childhood about healthy foods and sex and eventually give every little kid a little red book with ROK abstracts, but liberty to choose is LIBERTY.

The real problem is that corn gets federal subsadies, and thus sugar is muuuch cheaper than healthy foods.

[Mage]

(01-29-2015 01:45 AM)Michael P Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 12:16 AM)Mage Wrote:  

I am glad for Mexicans.

Article also mentions tax on sugary drinks that I approve. I believe the overall negative effect of a glass of cola matches that of a cigarette so if you have a tax on smoking like most countries have than taxing sugar drinks makes sense too.

However 10 squats is too low. I can do 10 squats without a change in breath or heart rate. At this rate I could work to squat for fatties for half price of the ticket and could probably earn money worth at least 100 tickets a day. This would be too hard to do if I had do 30 squats each time.

(01-28-2015 06:50 PM)Michael P Wrote:  

Good initiative.

In 2013 they were talking about ticket fares by weight (because it takes a whole damn lot of fuel to accelerate to 500 mph a 120 kg lady). Sadly I have not heard of it being implemented, yet.

I am against such a law. it would make men pay more than women and athletic men with muscle to pay more than skinny faggots. A bodybuilder (non-natural trough, although maybe some tall natural also) can reach 120 kg too.

These two comments have a socialist tone.

I did not think about the fact that men would have to pay more.
I am in the "strength crowd" so I would pay more, than the IDEAL WOMAN, but on avreage I am slimmer than most American women.

Regardless, is it fair for "vertically challenged" men to pay an equal price with Ronnie Coleman? Thus subsidizing Ronnie ("light weight baby") ?! No.
The company should ask for 100%, no MORE, no less of the kerosen you use.

On the same token putting bigger taxes on sugar (albeit I agree with you 100%, processed sugar is as toxic as nicotine) is a nanny-state maneuverer. It's every man's wright to put WHATEVER he wants into his body.

Yes, educate since childhood about healthy foods and sex and eventually give every little kid a little red book with ROK abstracts, but liberty to choose is LIBERTY.

The real problem is that corn gets federal subsadies, and thus sugar is muuuch cheaper than healthy foods.

This is silly. The actual costs of fuel used to pull humans are not the greatest expanses. An empty train weights probably somewhere around 90% of a fully filled train and the salary for drivers and road/rail maintenance is the same regardless of whether the transport is filled with fatties or thin people so punishing humans for weight is stupid, considering that this system would require implementation of a cheating proof weighting system to work the expanses would be greater then the payoff.

Also there is nothing wrong with this being socialist. I prefer capitalism to socialism, but I think there is some golden middle ground and being a 100% capitalist to a point where children of poor people are denied basic healthcare and education (the kind of education that helps to win at life rather than brainwashing) and are forced to be slaves without a chance for upward mobility and die early while rich people live in luxury is ridiculous. Tyranny of an absolute elite government is the end result of both unchecked capitalism and communism. Similar price for tickets is the ground which can and is given to socialism without any harm and only to the benefit to the society to create a balanced existence.

Punishment to fatties should be for the healthcare they drain, not the fuel they drain because the costs of additional fuel they consume are nothing compared to the healthcare costs they drain. Also they should be punished for destroying the aesthetics of our world.

[Aros]

(01-29-2015 12:33 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Pretty pointless. How many calories are 10 unweighted squats going to burn? Hell, one hour off brisk walking on a treadmill only burns about 500-600 calories, and that's about as much as a typical meal. An exercise that can be done in 1 minute won't have any effect on obesity. Good example of government waste of money.

Perhaps if you see it in a bigger context, having a person who never exercise to do ten squats is a great improvement, it might be what is need to nudge them in the right direction. Setting up an automated system like this is a relative small investment.

[Foolsgo1d]

Most people in the gym can't squat and they're asking fatties to squat in public?

[germanico]

They wont. The squat ticket machines will work for a whole week and then break down, nobody will notice. Anybody who wants a free subway ride in Mexico City can just jump over the turnstile, which actually also leaves fatties out.

The purpose of the squat machines is simply for health officials to justify their jobs. Nobody will loose any weight doing 10 squats, and fatties are fat because they are lazy fuckers. There are stairways on the DF subway that have over 300 steps. Just make people pay on their way out, and let them take those stairs if they want it for free.

[Sonsowey]

Wow this is amazing.

Que dios los bendiga

[DjembaDjemba]

To tackle obesity the number one weapon is nutritional education from a early age, and educating parents about nutrition and their children.

Educating people costs money. Japan has a good system in place, I don't quite agree with its full application but it would be a step in the right direction.


http://m.mic.com/articles/84521/japan-ha...in-america

[Samseau]

(01-29-2015 12:33 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Pretty pointless. How many calories are 10 unweighted squats going to burn? Hell, one hour off brisk walking on a treadmill only burns about 500-600 calories, and that's about as much as a typical meal. An exercise that can be done in 1 minute won't have any effect on obesity. Good example of government waste of money.

Well, it comes down to the price of the squats.

Right now, I think the article said you get a week's pass for 10 squats, which is far too cheap for a week's pass. A week's pass should be 100 squats, and a one-time pass needs to be 10 squats.

So for the typical commuter who goes to work everyday, that's 10 squats to work and 10 squats on the way home. That's 20 squats a day or 140 squats per week. That's actually really good and would make a big difference for fatties to lose a lot of calories. Constantly giving muscle stimulation every day ramps up the body's metabolism and keeps calories burning throughout the day. A person who did this for a year would see big improvements in their weight, probably 10-20 pounds lost over a year. And that's JUST with this one thing.

Imagine if an entire society had things setup like this:

- Squats to use subways
- Pushups for airplanes
- A 2-min jog before buying booze
- Sit-ups before buying sugary shit
- Men cannot entire a casino/strip-club/brothel without doing a certain number of pull-ups

Fuck capitalism. If a country wants socialized healthcare, then this is how to do it. If people don't want to have to do mandatory exercises, get rid of subsidized health care. But the people cannot have it both ways. Either the government takes care of health care, or individuals do it for themselves.

Also, obviously children and seniors are to be exempted from these exercises.

[Americas]

^ No such thing as a weekly pass for the metro in DF. It's 10 squats for one pass (the equivalent of 5 pesos or about 35 cents US).

[sylo]

I have liveed in Mexico for 3 years and it is nice to see that they are aknowledging an obvious problem. That being said, I believe Mexican money could positively be used in better ways.

Also, a tax on sugary foods? I find that absolutely dispicable! Why are you trying to cowardly punish me for someone else being fat? I eat ice cream after the gym. I eat ice cream instead of going to the gym. I am in shape. Fatness should be confronted head on, not with blanket taxes because people's feelings get in the way, or speaking up is too scary.