Shaming People

Off Topic
61

As far as Japan’s suicide problem goes, shame DOES indeed play a significant role in it. This is actually part of what I was referring to when I mentioned despising certain aspects of the culture of shame here.

HOWEVER, it’s almost not worth bringing it into the discussion, because in order to even begin having a discussion about Japanese suicide, you first need to go back well over a thousand years and acknowledge first that suicide and death is intrinsic to this culture much in the same way that the idea of patriotism and the glory of death in battle is intrinsic to American culture. Because WAY before suicide became an escape from shame, it was a PATH to GLORY. I don’t want to knock this thread completely off track, but a study of the classical literature here, and even a sober examination of the culture today, will reveal that suicide is viewed overwhelmingly not only as the highest and most noble end one can achieve, but, indeed, is glorified in much the same way our own society reveres the first wave of Allied troops at Normandy, pushing bravely, inconceivably forward as one after another is blown apart, cut down and dismembered, again and again. At best, it’s not viewed with anywhere near the same stigma as it is in Western culture.

THEN you need to have a discussion of the educational structure, and the pressure that is placed on young people to compete and excel, starting in earnest in the 7th grade, but actually much earlier, and how the slightest slip in your earliest years can effectively destroy any possible chance at getting into the High school you NEED to get into , which virtually assures, permanently, at 15 years of age you will NOT get into any upper tier Japanese university, which almost certainly assures that you will be denied any chance at employment at any of the A level companies in this country. In short, for most Japanese, their entire life arc will be decided before they start their first year of high school.

THEN you need to make sure that this discussion of suicide in Japan also includes a fair assessment of the role of the kohai/senpai system (age based inferiority/superiority) that, again, starts as early as elementary school, and its greater role in the general rigid and inconceivably complex class system that is so much a part of Japanese social interaction that the very language one person uses when speaking to another is completely different in an almost infinite permutation of possible social combinations; and what role that class system has in further creating strife, frustration, and despair in those Japanese who are unluckily enough to find themselves on the wrong side of it.

But yes, shame is definitely one factor in the equation.

I’ll get into why after we agree upon what it is that shame is, but I must disagree with the notion that shame works somehow “differently” in Japan than it does in the West. Socially condoned shame exists as punishment and as a stabilizing, protecting element to the social fabric. As different as the US and Japan are, and they are VERY different, the purpose of shame transcends all culture. It is as human as narcissism, love, jealousy, envy or pride, and affects each of these emotions. Where you find these, also will you find their cousin, shame.

62

[quote]kamui wrote:
Shaming may work pretty well in traditionnal societies that are based on shame and honor

But we don’t live in traditionnal societies anymore.

We wanted and we get something else : a loose collective of so-called free individuals.
Now we have to pay for it, quite literally.

We can’t have it both ways :

if you want to shame some people, you should first accept them as member of your society, completely, in the strongest meaning of this word.
And you should be prepared to accept for yourself all the duties and constraints that comes with being a member of a society.

And, since shame and honor work together (or don’t work at all) you should be prepared to honor some people too.
Again, in the strongest meaning of these words. [/quote]

I <3 kamui.

Based on what I’ve been saying, it may appear we disagree, but, as usual, and on the contrary, I could not agree more.

63

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
This is a huge topic, and I am not sure if I will have the free time necessary to be able to make my point clear, but I’ll be as succinct as I can for now.

Living in Japan has given me a VASTLY enhanced perspective on the topic. The culture of shame is alive and well here, and while I must make clear that there are aspects of it that I absolutely despise, and I think that there will never be a way to apply it that does not involve certain instances or degrees of “collateral damage,” a little time spent here will go a long way toward convincing just about anyone that collectively administered shame can be one of the most powerful and stabilizing forces in existence for enforcing mutually agreed upon standards of behavior.

I see the usual suspects are already jumping on me about this, as I suspected would happen. Let me first reiterate: I don’t LIKE the idea of shaming or ostracizing someone. But I’m looking beyond the effect upon the individual. Sometimes certain cultural practices serve a greater purpose, and what looks cruel is actually kind to the whole of society. And when a certain method has been shown to work, and when the removal of that method results in worse aggregate societal consequences on the whole, I’m going with the utilitarian option. “Educating” people, while important, lacks the crucial element of emotion and is unconnected to pride or status. Everyone knows they can get in trouble if they break the speed limit, but some people need to get a ticket before they will finally slow down. For others, nothing short of a car wreck will get the point across. That’s how humans are. For many idiots, no amount of “education” is going to compel them to comply. So, while I despise speed traps, they do probably serve a greater purpose for society as a whole.

Why you guys always insist upon throwing around red herrings like my Christianity I can never figure out. [/quote]

Japanese culture is WAY different than American culture. The application of shame simply won’t work the same here. And I don’t think we should necessarily be striving to be like a country with as high a suicide rate as Japan’s. I know the two aren’t directly related, but I can’t help but think that the higher suicide rates are at least in some small, indirect way related to the culture of shame that exists in Japan that does not exist here. Obviously there is much more to it than that, but it makes me a little suspicious, nonetheless.

As far as the speeding analogy, it’s a poor one. Speeding presents an inherent life-safety risk to those around the speeder. Fat people do not, unless they pass out after walking up a flight of stairs and pass out on top of some small child.

And while I certainly don’t like fat people all that much, I don’t think we should be compelling them to do anything that doesn’t violate the rights of others. Nothing they do violates my rights as a human being. I really don’t care if some fat fuck wants to eat all the food they can cram down their throats. It has no discernible negative impact on my life.

I take that back. Fat people are clearly a significant drain on the healthcare system in this country. But you know what is MUCH, MUCH more draining on the healthcare system in this country and DOES directly harm me? Smoking. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. alone who die from smoking-related illnesses, much more than fat people. And second-hand smoke is harmful to one’s health as well.

So if we ARE going to start shaming people for making poor lifestyle/health choices, we should start with smokers, not fat people. Going after fat people makes us feel good because we’re all on a website dedicated to healthy living and positive body images and that sort of thing. We aren’t guilty of being obese and those of us who are fat are actually doing something about it. [/quote]

DB, I’m just messing with you man. See the little winky dude at the end of my post there, above? I certainly don’t expect to agree with you on matters such as these, but I hold no animosity toward you.

Now, first, I think before we go any further, we need to define our terms and come to an agreement as to exactly what the concept of “shame” actually entails.

As I understand it, “shame” in the sense we are discussing it here is the act of punishment against an individual who violates one or more of a set of collectively agreed upon rules of social propriety, ethics, morals, or laws; which will take the form of shunning, verbal disapproval, scolding or berating, and the withholding of certain emotional capital such as affection, love or demonstrations of love, conversation, or access to certain in-group activities. In short, making someone feel like a piece of shit as punishment for screwing up.

That’s my definition. Dictionary.com’s definitions are more vague, but still basically the same thing:

shame [sheym] Show IPA noun, verb, shamed, sham�?�·ing.
verb (used with object)
5.to cause to feel shame; make ashamed: His cowardice shamed him.
6.to drive, force, etc., through shame: He shamed her into going.
7.to cover with ignominy or reproach; disgrace.

So, before we get too much further into this. Is this what we are talking about here?

[/quote]

Sure, sounds about right. I don’t care about the dictionary definition. What the fuck do those things know?

I’ve always thought of shaming as making someone feel shameful. That can be accomplished through many avenues. My point is that I don’t think it’s right to make someone feel ashamed for being fat. It is not OK to be fat, but someone who is fat doesn’t have any discernible negative impact on me or my life that isn’t also true for many, many other demographics in society.

For consistency’s sake, both religiously and in terms of shaming those who are “bad” for society, if we’re going to get heavily into shaming, fat people are pretty far down the list. We could start with smokers and then move along to drug dealers and drug users.

As far as what fat people are to society, what are they really? Horrific to look at? Sure, but I like the existence of fat people. It makes someone in shape like myself an ever more rare commodity these days. Supply and demand is in my favor in that respect.

Are they a drain on the healthcare system? Sure, but so are people who insist on fighting cancer even when death is near and inevitable. Do you know how many billions of dollars are spent by people trying to prolong their lives in this manner? How much money is spent keeping fucking vegetables alive on life support? Terry Schiavo alone probably cost the system more than a million dollars.

So what is it about fat people that deserves special attention?[/quote]

I don’t really find too much to disagree with here.

I am discussing shame more as a social tool that serves to stabilize and preserve certain collective values. Community tough love, to use a cliched term.

I’m not so much FOR shaming fat people as I am AGAINST feeling pressured to act like there are no such things as human preferences and that we are all equally beautiful when I do not believe anything of the sort, or that I should just mutely join everyone in acting like nothing is wrong with the current “muffin-top” trend of exhibitionism among American women. Why should I feel, well, any shame in expressing my disapproval at choices made by someone who clearly does not respect himself?

The end result , as I see it, is not so much a groovy, enlightened love for all as it is a targeted stifling of the natural human tendency to express disapproval of behavior and personal presentation too far outside the norm.

And the problem with this, as I see it, is that that tendency toward disapproval, which is being systematically dismantled, is part of a set of crucial human social safeguards. Safeguards that we tamper with at our own peril.

64

@ Cortes:

I understand your points about voicing disapproval and that sort of thing being a fundamental part of being a human. But that doesn’t make it okay, nor does it make something that should be embraced. Humans are inherently flawed, and I think that one of those inherent flaws is the fact that humans can, by nature, be very cruel to one another.

What I have a real gripe with is saying that we should enforce or maintain certain societal “values”. How we look isn’t really a “value”, per se, nor should it be. The obvious and overt implication there is that a person’s value as a human being and as a member of society is tied to how they look. That is pure, unadulterated bullshit. There are people out there who like serious radiation victims who have contributed immensely to society’s well-being.

What IS wrong with the current “muffin-top trend” amongst women these days? What sort of legitimate, tangible societal norm are they flaunting? They aren’t hurting anyone, other than people’s eyesight, in any way that all of us are also guilty of in some sort of way. Like I said earlier, they certainly are a drain on certain areas of the economy, but so are we all to varying extents.

Nietzche once wrote that all of the “evil”, ignoble people of the world do as much to preserve humanity as anyone else does. By having that sort of negative example on display, it galvanizes people into action to avoid it, suppress it, stamp it out, whatever. The point is that without the bad, the good have no value. Without the fat motherfuckers in this world, the in shape have no value.

And when it comes to tampering with disapproval at our own peril, I think the sort of tampering with toward fatties is exactly what puts our society in peril to a certain degree. If we begin to see societal value in something as superficial as our looks (a cliff we’ve pretty much already jumped headfirst off of) our societal values become geared toward mass materialism, which endangers our society greatly, in my opinion.

Think about what would happen to the American economy if people stopped buying shit to make themselves feel better about who they are based on some artificially-constructed idea of what is valuable. In other words, think about what would happen if we just bought the shit we need and not what we THINK we need but only want so that we can win the approval of others.

The entire economy would collapse. The economy depends on people making very poor decisions with their money. What would happen if there were no fatties? Fast food joints would largely disappear, along with the jobs they provide. Cardiologists wouldn’t make nearly as much money. They need fat people in order to stay profitable. What would happen if everyone on this site just worked out enough to achieve a moderate level of health instead of constantly trying to achieve more with their lifting and their progress? The entire supplements industry would disappear. I could go on and on.

65

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Without the fat motherfuckers in this world, the in shape have no value.
[/quote]

I’ll reply in full to the rest of your post tomorrow (4am now!) but I just wanted to nitpick this one point before bed.

Come to Japan. I will show you how wrong you are.

There are almost no fat women in Japan. And trust me, you will have NO trouble discerning the value. The value is palpable.

66

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What IS wrong with the current “muffin-top trend” amongst women these days? What sort of legitimate, tangible societal norm are they flaunting?
[/quote]

Lets see:

1)They whittle down the number of attractive women, making the dating market hyper-competitive for men

  1. Hurt satisfaction in marriage. I wonder how many of these erectile dysfunction cases would suddenly disappear if the average woman was a normal weight. Studies show the smaller the waistline on the woman, the bigger, creamier the load for the man.

  2. Helped the porn industry become a billion dollar industry. With all these men having to settle for these ultra-fat beasts, it’s no wonder the average American man spends so many hours watching porn.

4)Contorts beauty standards. Hordes of fat women are now pushing positive body image non-sense, so we have future generations thinking being 30lbs overweight is now thin. If you’re a fat woman you should have low-confidence. The average 350lb black woman’s self-esteem is way too high.

  1. Gives the remaining thin women a license to give more shit. Because the supply of thin women has taken a huge negative shock, the average man will now put up with much more because of how scarce her goods currently are.
67

I think we should shame the self-centered, negative, complaining people.

68

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What IS wrong with the current “muffin-top trend” amongst women these days? What sort of legitimate, tangible societal norm are they flaunting?
[/quote]

Lets see:

1)They whittle down the number of attractive women, making the dating market hyper-competitive for men

  1. Hurt satisfaction in marriage. I wonder how many of these erectile dysfunction cases would suddenly disappear if the average woman was a normal weight. Studies show the smaller the waistline on the woman, the bigger, creamier the load for the man.

  2. Helped the porn industry become a billion dollar industry. With all these men having to settle for these ultra-fat beasts, it’s no wonder the average American man spends so many hours watching porn.

4)Contorts beauty standards. Hordes of fat women are now pushing positive body image non-sense, so we have future generations thinking being 30lbs overweight is now thin. If you’re a fat woman you should have low-confidence. The average 350lb black woman’s self-esteem is way too high.

  1. Gives the remaining thin women a license to give more shit. Because the supply of thin women has taken a huge negative shock, the average man will now put up with much more because of how scarce her goods currently are.

[/quote]

  1. There are more than 17 million women in Canada. If you can’t make do with those kinds of numbers then it’s YOU who should be shamed out of existence, not fat-asses.

  2. In the words of James Brown, "Baby, be mellow and be sweet. Forget about the diet, sit down and eat. Losin’ that weight you don’t. Because the more you got the more I want, and it makes me wanna scream now OOOOWWWWWHHHHHHH! "

But seriously, the weight of a guy’s wife is his problem and his alone when it comes to marriage satisfaction. That isn’t something that should be addressed by anyone but him and his wife.

  1. The abundance of porn in this country has much more to do with the accessibility that the Internet provides. There’s something like 160 million females in this country, probably 100 million of which are “of age”. If a guy can’t find an attractive women to fuck that is a problem with HIM and not the availability of attractive women. There are myriad reasons for the explosion of porn in North America.

  2. This is a point I should have come to expect from someone whose ancestors lived in a caste system. What is wrong with a person having self-esteem? What sort of issues have you had with fat women in your life that make you think they are not entitled to self-esteem? You sound like someone with a distorted view of yourself and your attractiveness to women who has been aggressively rejected by fat women who you feel should be happy to sit on your cock.

  3. Again, not a problem for anyone other than the specific man involved. Is this something you’ve dealt with on a very personal, intimate level? Because that is precisely what it sounds like. I imagine that you are someone with a bloated sense of self, probably well beyond a clinical level of narcissism, who is struggling with coming to terms with the constant rejection you receive from women. I suspect you are guilty of #5 because to YOU attractive women are a rare commodity and it angers you that you are forced to put up with all sorts of shit from the very few whose tolerance for alcohol is low enough for you to be able to afford to get them drunk enough to make the mistake of fucking you.

69

Here you go DB:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MSBCmHNz_3wJ:www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Using google cache since Forbes only makes some of their content free for a little while before they pull/hide it for whatever reason. Study reporting that the average healthy person racked up 281,000 euros in health costs over their lifetime to 250,000 euros for an obese person. This gap is widened much further in the US, if you consider that not many obese people actually live long enough to collect meaningfully from social security or medicare.

70

[quote]challer1 wrote:
Here you go DB:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MSBCmHNz_3wJ:www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Using google cache since Forbes only makes some of their content free for a little while before they pull/hide it for whatever reason. Study reporting that the average healthy person racked up 281,000 euros in health costs over their lifetime to 250,000 euros for an obese person. This gap is widened much further in the US, if you consider that not many obese people actually live long enough to collect meaningfully from social security or medicare.[/quote]

Thanks for the link. I wasn’t doubting you or anything like that. It makes perfect sense that those who live longer end up costing “the system” more than those who live unhealthy lifestyles and die relatively young.

That’s why it makes no sense to me at all to harangue people for the drain on the economy that their unhealthy lifestyles allegedly represent. I know the whole money issue isn’t the argument that everyone in here is making, but some have, here and elsewhere. The truth is that if we looked at our lives in that respect, we wouldn’t do a fucking thing for people with terminal cancer. Maybe we’d just throw 'em in a river that drains into Mexico or something like that instead.

Life is not profitable, period. It costs “the system” a lot of money to stay alive. It’s something that I think presents a major catch-22 when it comes to all of this research into life-threatening diseases. The fact is that all we’re doing is allowing people to drain the economy for an even longer time. Maybe that is part of the reason as to why the American economy is so fucked now compared to fifty years ago. All that smoking and the lack of education about healthy eating habits was killing us left and right to a degree that simply doesn’t happen nowadays.

Fuck it, maybe the gov’t should encourage us all to be fat smokers who work themselves into the ground 8 days a week until we drop dead at 50 from lung cancer or massive hemorrhaging in our chest cavity.

71

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

  1. Again, not a problem for anyone other than the specific man involved. Is this something you’ve dealt with on a very personal, intimate level? Because that is precisely what it sounds like. I imagine that you are someone with a bloated sense of self, probably well beyond a clinical level of narcissism, who is struggling with coming to terms with the constant rejection you receive from women. I suspect you are guilty of #5 because to YOU attractive women are a rare commodity and it angers you that you are forced to put up with all sorts of shit from the very few whose tolerance for alcohol is low enough for you to be able to afford to get them drunk enough to make the mistake of fucking you.[/quote]

Congratulations DB. With this paragraph you have entered a realm of wordsmithmanship that is shared with only one other person, and that person is FightinIrish.

I mean this most sincerely, with no snark what so ever. The craftsmanship of that last sentence in particular put it over the top.

My hat is off to you and I will forever be just a tad bit envious of your ability to use the written word to make the intangible become visceral.

72

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]challer1 wrote:
Here you go DB:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MSBCmHNz_3wJ:www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Using google cache since Forbes only makes some of their content free for a little while before they pull/hide it for whatever reason. Study reporting that the average healthy person racked up 281,000 euros in health costs over their lifetime to 250,000 euros for an obese person. This gap is widened much further in the US, if you consider that not many obese people actually live long enough to collect meaningfully from social security or medicare.[/quote]

Thanks for the link. I wasn’t doubting you or anything like that. It makes perfect sense that those who live longer end up costing “the system” more than those who live unhealthy lifestyles and die relatively young.

That’s why it makes no sense to me at all to harangue people for the drain on the economy that their unhealthy lifestyles allegedly represent. I know the whole money issue isn’t the argument that everyone in here is making, but some have, here and elsewhere. The truth is that if we looked at our lives in that respect, we wouldn’t do a fucking thing for people with terminal cancer. Maybe we’d just throw 'em in a river that drains into Mexico or something like that instead.

Life is not profitable, period. It costs “the system” a lot of money to stay alive. It’s something that I think presents a major catch-22 when it comes to all of this research into life-threatening diseases. The fact is that all we’re doing is allowing people to drain the economy for an even longer time. Maybe that is part of the reason as to why the American economy is so fucked now compared to fifty years ago. All that smoking and the lack of education about healthy eating habits was killing us left and right to a degree that simply doesn’t happen nowadays.

Fuck it, maybe the gov’t should encourage us all to be fat smokers who work themselves into the ground 8 days a week until we drop dead at 50 from lung cancer or massive hemorrhaging in our chest cavity.[/quote]

Yeah I agree that it makes no sense to harangue people about their lifestyle choices. If someone likes to eat too much and doesn’t want to exercise that is their prerogative.

I think in the long run you are wrong about the cancer bit being expensive. People with terminal cancer are our greatest source of breakthroughs in cancer treatment. New treatments are tested on the terminally ill first before they are used in those without terminal cancer. It costs the system a lot to raise kids too, so from an economical standpoint it is not good when people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s die to cancer. More research now will lead to better treatments later and it will ultimately pay off once the drugs/treatment options are more effective than today’s methods.

And for that last part, that has all the makings of a good conspiracy theory - the proliferation obesity in America was designed to bail out social security.

73

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

  1. Again, not a problem for anyone other than the specific man involved. Is this something you’ve dealt with on a very personal, intimate level? Because that is precisely what it sounds like. I imagine that you are someone with a bloated sense of self, probably well beyond a clinical level of narcissism, who is struggling with coming to terms with the constant rejection you receive from women. I suspect you are guilty of #5 because to YOU attractive women are a rare commodity and it angers you that you are forced to put up with all sorts of shit from the very few whose tolerance for alcohol is low enough for you to be able to afford to get them drunk enough to make the mistake of fucking you.[/quote]

Congratulations DB. With this paragraph you have entered a realm of wordsmithmanship that is shared with only one other person, and that person is FightinIrish.

I mean this most sincerely, with no snark what so ever. The craftsmanship of that last sentence in particular put it over the top.

My hat is off to you and I will forever be just a tad bit envious of your ability to use the written word to make the intangible become visceral.
[/quote]

I appreciate your commendations. Words are what I use to compensate for my miniscule penis, which doesn’t even work due to all the fat fuckers lumbering about in such large numbers that I fear for my physical safety every time I step outside of my house, which I am remodeling to accommodate the outlandish girth of the women (un)lucky enough to join in carnal affiliations with me.

74

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

  1. Again, not a problem for anyone other than the specific man involved. Is this something you’ve dealt with on a very personal, intimate level? Because that is precisely what it sounds like. I imagine that you are someone with a bloated sense of self, probably well beyond a clinical level of narcissism, who is struggling with coming to terms with the constant rejection you receive from women. I suspect you are guilty of #5 because to YOU attractive women are a rare commodity and it angers you that you are forced to put up with all sorts of shit from the very few whose tolerance for alcohol is low enough for you to be able to afford to get them drunk enough to make the mistake of fucking you.[/quote]

Congratulations DB. With this paragraph you have entered a realm of wordsmithmanship that is shared with only one other person, and that person is FightinIrish.

I mean this most sincerely, with no snark what so ever. The craftsmanship of that last sentence in particular put it over the top.

My hat is off to you and I will forever be just a tad bit envious of your ability to use the written word to make the intangible become visceral.
[/quote]

I appreciate your commendations. Words are what I use to compensate for my miniscule penis, which doesn’t even work due to all the fat fuckers lumbering about in such large numbers that I fear for my physical safety every time I step outside of my house, which I am remodeling to accommodate the outlandish girth of the women (un)lucky enough to join in carnal affiliations with me.[/quote]

I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a plumper thumper. Heck, I’ll even plunk it in her dumper.

Just remember- Sure everybody laughs at the guy riding a moped. Until he jumps the curb, rips through the yard and crashes through a plate glass window- LIKE A BAWS!

75

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]challer1 wrote:
Here you go DB:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MSBCmHNz_3wJ:www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Using google cache since Forbes only makes some of their content free for a little while before they pull/hide it for whatever reason. Study reporting that the average healthy person racked up 281,000 euros in health costs over their lifetime to 250,000 euros for an obese person. This gap is widened much further in the US, if you consider that not many obese people actually live long enough to collect meaningfully from social security or medicare.[/quote]

Thanks for the link. I wasn’t doubting you or anything like that. It makes perfect sense that those who live longer end up costing “the system” more than those who live unhealthy lifestyles and die relatively young.

That’s why it makes no sense to me at all to harangue people for the drain on the economy that their unhealthy lifestyles allegedly represent. I know the whole money issue isn’t the argument that everyone in here is making, but some have, here and elsewhere. The truth is that if we looked at our lives in that respect, we wouldn’t do a fucking thing for people with terminal cancer. Maybe we’d just throw 'em in a river that drains into Mexico or something like that instead.

Life is not profitable, period. It costs “the system” a lot of money to stay alive. It’s something that I think presents a major catch-22 when it comes to all of this research into life-threatening diseases. The fact is that all we’re doing is allowing people to drain the economy for an even longer time. Maybe that is part of the reason as to why the American economy is so fucked now compared to fifty years ago. All that smoking and the lack of education about healthy eating habits was killing us left and right to a degree that simply doesn’t happen nowadays.

Fuck it, maybe the gov’t should encourage us all to be fat smokers who work themselves into the ground 8 days a week until we drop dead at 50 from lung cancer or massive hemorrhaging in our chest cavity.[/quote]

I wonder how much productivity fit people give vs the obese and if it makes up for or more than makes up for the additional costs.

77

Stop catering for fatties and women who want to get pregnant for a free house and benefits.

That will stop it.

78

Regarding the last few post :

Given the demographic situation of our developed nations, a fat woman who want to get pregnant for a free house and benefits is probably more “socially useful” than a healthy, thin, working, productive but childless one.

Thankfully, our ancestors understood that.
Otherwise we wouldn’t have made it through the last Ice Age.

79

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]challer1 wrote:
Here you go DB:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MSBCmHNz_3wJ:www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Using google cache since Forbes only makes some of their content free for a little while before they pull/hide it for whatever reason. Study reporting that the average healthy person racked up 281,000 euros in health costs over their lifetime to 250,000 euros for an obese person. This gap is widened much further in the US, if you consider that not many obese people actually live long enough to collect meaningfully from social security or medicare.[/quote]

Thanks for the link. I wasn’t doubting you or anything like that. It makes perfect sense that those who live longer end up costing “the system” more than those who live unhealthy lifestyles and die relatively young.

That’s why it makes no sense to me at all to harangue people for the drain on the economy that their unhealthy lifestyles allegedly represent. I know the whole money issue isn’t the argument that everyone in here is making, but some have, here and elsewhere. The truth is that if we looked at our lives in that respect, we wouldn’t do a fucking thing for people with terminal cancer. Maybe we’d just throw 'em in a river that drains into Mexico or something like that instead.

Life is not profitable, period. It costs “the system” a lot of money to stay alive. It’s something that I think presents a major catch-22 when it comes to all of this research into life-threatening diseases. The fact is that all we’re doing is allowing people to drain the economy for an even longer time. Maybe that is part of the reason as to why the American economy is so fucked now compared to fifty years ago. All that smoking and the lack of education about healthy eating habits was killing us left and right to a degree that simply doesn’t happen nowadays.

Fuck it, maybe the gov’t should encourage us all to be fat smokers who work themselves into the ground 8 days a week until we drop dead at 50 from lung cancer or massive hemorrhaging in our chest cavity.[/quote]

I wonder how much productivity fit people give vs the obese and if it makes up for or more than makes up for the additional costs. [/quote]

My thought exactly.[/quote]

Well, how much more work could a fit person get done if he/she was at the office instead of the gym? How fit do we NEED to be versus how fit we WANT to be? And how much productivity is lost when we surpass the former while trying to achieve the latter?

80

[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the last few post :

Given the demographic situation of our developed nations, a fat woman who want to get pregnant for a free house and benefits is probably more “socially useful” than a healthy, thin, working, productive but childless one.

Thankfully, our ancestors understood that.
Otherwise we wouldn’t have made it through the last Ice Age.

[/quote]

With the way things are now, the first isn’t possible without the latter.