[quote]Cortes wrote:
Is it not just common sense that pretty radical, comprehensive infrastructural and demographic changes are going to result in unavoidable consequences for the entirety of the society in question?
[/quote]
This.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So don’t peddle this “well it’s just you” crap to me. Obesity, especially female obesity has much larger repercussions on society than just straining the healthcare system.
[/quote]
Pretty much the crux of the entire problem here. To insinuate that things are just honky-dory with American health and the natural tendency of humans to prefer more beautiful and healthier humans, it is either naive or willfully ignorant to keep brushing aside this argument as if the net effect were negligible.
I know I’m like a broken record sometimes with my America/Japan comparisons, but when they work, they work. Here, we do NOT have near epidemic levels of diabetes, heart disease, stroke or many of the other myriad health problems that America does. In fact, the biggest current crisis here is our Social Security system because people tend to live TOO long and retirement is effectively forced at the ridiculously young (for Japanese) age of 65. The divorce rate is FAR lower (yes, I understand, there are many factors involved in this), hence, intact families are far more prevalent. Eating disorders…what are those? Believe it or not, kids in Japan generally even LIKE vegetables!
This is in danger of turning into a “why fat is bad” thread, so I’ll just stop by repeating that the take away point is that this issue, much like the issue of broken families, rising divorce rates, rampant unprotected sex, women having children by multiple fathers, and on and on DO, very much DO, have far reaching consequences that affect all of us. Is it not just common sense that pretty radical, comprehensive infrastructural and demographic changes are going to result in unavoidable consequences for the entirety of the society in question?
Seriously? [/quote]
Legitimate concerns. But really, what is different about fat-related health problems and the myriad other health problems associated with poor lifestyle choices? I’m not arguing that fat isn’t bad, only that it isn’t bad in the way many think it is and that it isn’t a unique drain on the economy here. We have all sorts of drains on the economy, of which this is one.
You know what else is draining on the economy? People who live far distances from where they work. The commute time means more gas used, more emissions, more damage to the roads, more traffic (and less worker productivity as a result), and so forth. You know what else is a drain on the economy? Why don’t we shame people like my buddy who drives 45 miles each way from San Jose to SF in his F-350 to go to work? Why don’t we shame farmers, many of whom are subsidized so that they can grow food at artificially-high prices that the consumer wouldn’t otherwise be paying, all while we also subsidize their water usage which is one of the biggest sources of pollution in this country?
And to get back to the original point of this thread, what is shaming people going to do solve the obesity epidemic in this country? And if shaming does work, then why stop there? The fact is that virtually everyone in this country contributes in some way, shape or form to the degradation of American society that you guys are all so worried about. Like I said earlier, I just want to see some consistency.
So if shaming DOES work (which I would disagree with) why stop there? Shouldn’t we be shaming pretty much everybody in this country? Shouldn’t we be shaming the farmers, instead of making bullshit Super Bowl commercials with that fucking windbag, Paul Harvey, rambling on about them? Shouldn’t we also be shaming everyone who has written into their will that they don’t want the plug pulled if they’re in a coma? Shouldn’t we be shaming everybody who chooses to have their child rather than abort it if keeping it means getting govt assistance to support it? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone involved with the glorification of drug dealers and pimps and the perpetration of violence against women? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who has to take out some student loans to go to college rather than pay for it out of their own pocket? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who makes their money selling the food products that contribute to obesity? Shouldn’t we be outside of fast food restaurants shaming everyone who goes in, regardless of weight, and spends their money in it, thereby allowing a business profiting off the looming obesity/healthcare crisis in this country?[/quote]
Because that’s more like micromanaging. I can’t know for certain, but, as I’ve been saying, both human pride and shame provide a crucial social function serves to keep most members of a social group adhering to behaviors beneficial to the group. Were either one removed, or either one completely unrestrained, we’d have a major problem on our hands because of the selfish, greedy, carnal, hungry, ambitious, nature of the human animal.
I’m saying that expressing one’s disapproval at another’s unhealthy or unethical lifestyle choices comes naturally to us. And that it is only very recently, extremely recently, from a historical perspective, that we have decided to turn this very basic, innate human inclination on its head. I think that may be imprudent, to say the least.
Let’s take move away from the fat topic for a moment. How about a problem we can probably both agree is empirically harmful to our society if we are using crime and poverty, among many other factors, as a standard. Unwed mothers. Particularly those who decide to sire multiple children with different fathers without any means or even real plans for how to provide for them, save government assistance.
Since Candice Bergman made it taboo to ever utter a syllable of ill will regarding the single mother, what options are we now left with? [/quote]
Well Ms. Bergman’s character was fully capable of taking care of her child. The problem there is not necessarily with the single mother in and of itself, although I would agree that children generally do better with TWO loving parents of any sex rather than just one. But that is for a different thread.
The real problem is children whose parent(s) cannot support them without govt assistance. That gets down to life decisions. I don’t support abortion personally, but in purely economic terms it makes sense to abort a child whose parent(s) will struggle to support it. And in this context, I think it’s appropriate to look at the issue from a purely economic standpoint since we’ve essentially tossed out our religious beliefs if we encourage shaming of others. Besides, encouraging the shaming of others is MUCH different than simply acknowledging that it is human nature to do so. Like I said earlier, humans are inherently flawed (being born sinners and all that) and the tendency to express negative feelings toward others is one of those flaws. I don’t buy into the theory that by doing so we are helping them somehow, not when there are more constructive avenues to helping them. But I digress.
Like I mentioned earlier, I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with being a single mother, so I don’t think we should discourage that sort of a thing. I think we should (again, in purely economic terms) discourage unprepared or incapable parents from having children if the state being forced to support them is such a bad thing. That goes for single parents AND couples. I understand that many single mothers, probably most, in fact, cannot fully support themselves and their child, but that is a function of economics, not purely of being single. The fact is that it IS possible to be a single mother, totally self-sufficient AND successfully raise a good kid. It’s just harder.
Instead of continuing to derail this thread and making it about whether fat women cause harm to society I’m going to try and keep this thread on topic.
DB - If you’re really interested in discussing that topic, start another thread.
[quote]challer1 wrote:
It comes naturally to the judgmental, IMO. It is easy for humans to hate others for our differences. We like to attack things that are different from us. We’re fit, so fat is bad. Is it? Why should we not try to rise above this so-called instinct rather than embrace it? In particular in situations where it really has no affect on the judge or even society as a whole, as is the case with obesity?[/quote]
Not only that, but moral anger and outrage, self-righteous indignation and judgmental behavior are addictive behaviors, signs of anger and control issues and are not healthy to indulge in.
There is a good reason to be the better person. It’s for your own good.
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
It comes naturally to the judgmental, IMO. It is easy for humans to hate others for our differences. We like to attack things that are different from us. We’re fit, so fat is bad. Is it? Why should we not try to rise above this so-called instinct rather than embrace it? In particular in situations where it really has no affect on the judge or even society as a whole, as is the case with obesity?[/quote]
Not only that, but moral anger and outrage, self-righteous indignation and judgmental behavior are addictive behaviors, signs of anger and control issues and are not healthy to indulge in.
There is a good reason to be the better person. It’s for your own good.[/quote]
Tell me about it. I bet if we were to go to, say, a quilting forum there would be a negative backlash toward people who buy their clothes and their linen instead of sewing or quilting them themselves. They’ll come up with all sorts of convoluted ways to justify why their way is right and those who buy clothing at the store are wrong, and many of those justifications may be legitimate. But when you get right down to it, shaming others for the benefit of society as a whole is just some bullshit way of saying “I want to be able to ridicule people who aren’t like me without any guilt whatsoever.”
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
It comes naturally to the judgmental, IMO. It is easy for humans to hate others for our differences. We like to attack things that are different from us. We’re fit, so fat is bad. Is it? Why should we not try to rise above this so-called instinct rather than embrace it? In particular in situations where it really has no affect on the judge or even society as a whole, as is the case with obesity?[/quote]
Not only that, but moral anger and outrage, self-righteous indignation and judgmental behavior are addictive behaviors, signs of anger and control issues and are not healthy to indulge in.
There is a good reason to be the better person. It’s for your own good.[/quote]
Tell me about it. I bet if we were to go to, say, a quilting forum there would be a negative backlash toward people who buy their clothes and their linen instead of sewing or quilting them themselves. They’ll come up with all sorts of convoluted ways to justify why their way is right and those who buy clothing at the store are wrong, and many of those justifications may be legitimate. But when you get right down to it, shaming others for the benefit of society as a whole is just some bullshit way of saying “I want to be able to ridicule people who aren’t like me without any guilt whatsoever.”[/quote]
True story: I was in a yoga class when the instructor started railing against the opponents of straight leg-knees locked pose and it struck me as hilarious because it reminded me of the Olympic weightlifting technique debates. The guy was actually pretty angry about the non knee locking (non bikram yoga posers obvi) practitioners and how they were destroying peoples lives.
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So don’t peddle this “well it’s just you” crap to me. Obesity, especially female obesity has much larger repercussions on society than just straining the healthcare system.
[/quote]
Pretty much the crux of the entire problem here. To insinuate that things are just honky-dory with American health and the natural tendency of humans to prefer more beautiful and healthier humans, it is either naive or willfully ignorant to keep brushing aside this argument as if the net effect were negligible.
I know I’m like a broken record sometimes with my America/Japan comparisons, but when they work, they work. Here, we do NOT have near epidemic levels of diabetes, heart disease, stroke or many of the other myriad health problems that America does. In fact, the biggest current crisis here is our Social Security system because people tend to live TOO long and retirement is effectively forced at the ridiculously young (for Japanese) age of 65. The divorce rate is FAR lower (yes, I understand, there are many factors involved in this), hence, intact families are far more prevalent. Eating disorders…what are those? Believe it or not, kids in Japan generally even LIKE vegetables!
This is in danger of turning into a “why fat is bad” thread, so I’ll just stop by repeating that the take away point is that this issue, much like the issue of broken families, rising divorce rates, rampant unprotected sex, women having children by multiple fathers, and on and on DO, very much DO, have far reaching consequences that affect all of us. Is it not just common sense that pretty radical, comprehensive infrastructural and demographic changes are going to result in unavoidable consequences for the entirety of the society in question?
Seriously? [/quote]
Legitimate concerns. But really, what is different about fat-related health problems and the myriad other health problems associated with poor lifestyle choices? I’m not arguing that fat isn’t bad, only that it isn’t bad in the way many think it is and that it isn’t a unique drain on the economy here. We have all sorts of drains on the economy, of which this is one.
You know what else is draining on the economy? People who live far distances from where they work. The commute time means more gas used, more emissions, more damage to the roads, more traffic (and less worker productivity as a result), and so forth. You know what else is a drain on the economy? Why don’t we shame people like my buddy who drives 45 miles each way from San Jose to SF in his F-350 to go to work? Why don’t we shame farmers, many of whom are subsidized so that they can grow food at artificially-high prices that the consumer wouldn’t otherwise be paying, all while we also subsidize their water usage which is one of the biggest sources of pollution in this country?
And to get back to the original point of this thread, what is shaming people going to do solve the obesity epidemic in this country? And if shaming does work, then why stop there? The fact is that virtually everyone in this country contributes in some way, shape or form to the degradation of American society that you guys are all so worried about. Like I said earlier, I just want to see some consistency.
So if shaming DOES work (which I would disagree with) why stop there? Shouldn’t we be shaming pretty much everybody in this country? Shouldn’t we be shaming the farmers, instead of making bullshit Super Bowl commercials with that fucking windbag, Paul Harvey, rambling on about them? Shouldn’t we also be shaming everyone who has written into their will that they don’t want the plug pulled if they’re in a coma? Shouldn’t we be shaming everybody who chooses to have their child rather than abort it if keeping it means getting govt assistance to support it? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone involved with the glorification of drug dealers and pimps and the perpetration of violence against women? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who has to take out some student loans to go to college rather than pay for it out of their own pocket? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who makes their money selling the food products that contribute to obesity? Shouldn’t we be outside of fast food restaurants shaming everyone who goes in, regardless of weight, and spends their money in it, thereby allowing a business profiting off the looming obesity/healthcare crisis in this country?[/quote]
Because that’s more like micromanaging. I can’t know for certain, but, as I’ve been saying, both human pride and shame provide a crucial social function serves to keep most members of a social group adhering to behaviors beneficial to the group. Were either one removed, or either one completely unrestrained, we’d have a major problem on our hands because of the selfish, greedy, carnal, hungry, ambitious, nature of the human animal.
I’m saying that expressing one’s disapproval at another’s unhealthy or unethical lifestyle choices comes naturally to us. And that it is only very recently, extremely recently, from a historical perspective, that we have decided to turn this very basic, innate human inclination on its head. I think that may be imprudent, to say the least.
Let’s take move away from the fat topic for a moment. How about a problem we can probably both agree is empirically harmful to our society if we are using crime and poverty, among many other factors, as a standard. Unwed mothers. Particularly those who decide to sire multiple children with different fathers without any means or even real plans for how to provide for them, save government assistance.
Since Candice Bergman made it taboo to ever utter a syllable of ill will regarding the single mother, what options are we now left with? [/quote]
It comes naturally to the judgmental, IMO. It is easy for humans to hate others for our differences. We like to attack things that are different from us. We’re fit, so fat is bad. Is it? Why should we not try to rise above this so-called instinct rather than embrace it? In particular in situations where it really has no affect on the judge or even society as a whole, as is the case with obesity?[/quote]
Because instincts generally serve to ensure the survival and continued propagation of the species.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So don’t peddle this “well it’s just you” crap to me. Obesity, especially female obesity has much larger repercussions on society than just straining the healthcare system.
[/quote]
Pretty much the crux of the entire problem here. To insinuate that things are just honky-dory with American health and the natural tendency of humans to prefer more beautiful and healthier humans, it is either naive or willfully ignorant to keep brushing aside this argument as if the net effect were negligible.
I know I’m like a broken record sometimes with my America/Japan comparisons, but when they work, they work. Here, we do NOT have near epidemic levels of diabetes, heart disease, stroke or many of the other myriad health problems that America does. In fact, the biggest current crisis here is our Social Security system because people tend to live TOO long and retirement is effectively forced at the ridiculously young (for Japanese) age of 65. The divorce rate is FAR lower (yes, I understand, there are many factors involved in this), hence, intact families are far more prevalent. Eating disorders…what are those? Believe it or not, kids in Japan generally even LIKE vegetables!
This is in danger of turning into a “why fat is bad” thread, so I’ll just stop by repeating that the take away point is that this issue, much like the issue of broken families, rising divorce rates, rampant unprotected sex, women having children by multiple fathers, and on and on DO, very much DO, have far reaching consequences that affect all of us. Is it not just common sense that pretty radical, comprehensive infrastructural and demographic changes are going to result in unavoidable consequences for the entirety of the society in question?
Seriously? [/quote]
Legitimate concerns. But really, what is different about fat-related health problems and the myriad other health problems associated with poor lifestyle choices? I’m not arguing that fat isn’t bad, only that it isn’t bad in the way many think it is and that it isn’t a unique drain on the economy here. We have all sorts of drains on the economy, of which this is one.
You know what else is draining on the economy? People who live far distances from where they work. The commute time means more gas used, more emissions, more damage to the roads, more traffic (and less worker productivity as a result), and so forth. You know what else is a drain on the economy? Why don’t we shame people like my buddy who drives 45 miles each way from San Jose to SF in his F-350 to go to work? Why don’t we shame farmers, many of whom are subsidized so that they can grow food at artificially-high prices that the consumer wouldn’t otherwise be paying, all while we also subsidize their water usage which is one of the biggest sources of pollution in this country?
And to get back to the original point of this thread, what is shaming people going to do solve the obesity epidemic in this country? And if shaming does work, then why stop there? The fact is that virtually everyone in this country contributes in some way, shape or form to the degradation of American society that you guys are all so worried about. Like I said earlier, I just want to see some consistency.
So if shaming DOES work (which I would disagree with) why stop there? Shouldn’t we be shaming pretty much everybody in this country? Shouldn’t we be shaming the farmers, instead of making bullshit Super Bowl commercials with that fucking windbag, Paul Harvey, rambling on about them? Shouldn’t we also be shaming everyone who has written into their will that they don’t want the plug pulled if they’re in a coma? Shouldn’t we be shaming everybody who chooses to have their child rather than abort it if keeping it means getting govt assistance to support it? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone involved with the glorification of drug dealers and pimps and the perpetration of violence against women? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who has to take out some student loans to go to college rather than pay for it out of their own pocket? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who makes their money selling the food products that contribute to obesity? Shouldn’t we be outside of fast food restaurants shaming everyone who goes in, regardless of weight, and spends their money in it, thereby allowing a business profiting off the looming obesity/healthcare crisis in this country?[/quote]
Because that’s more like micromanaging. I can’t know for certain, but, as I’ve been saying, both human pride and shame provide a crucial social function serves to keep most members of a social group adhering to behaviors beneficial to the group. Were either one removed, or either one completely unrestrained, we’d have a major problem on our hands because of the selfish, greedy, carnal, hungry, ambitious, nature of the human animal.
I’m saying that expressing one’s disapproval at another’s unhealthy or unethical lifestyle choices comes naturally to us. And that it is only very recently, extremely recently, from a historical perspective, that we have decided to turn this very basic, innate human inclination on its head. I think that may be imprudent, to say the least.
Let’s take move away from the fat topic for a moment. How about a problem we can probably both agree is empirically harmful to our society if we are using crime and poverty, among many other factors, as a standard. Unwed mothers. Particularly those who decide to sire multiple children with different fathers without any means or even real plans for how to provide for them, save government assistance.
Since Candice Bergman made it taboo to ever utter a syllable of ill will regarding the single mother, what options are we now left with? [/quote]
It comes naturally to the judgmental, IMO. It is easy for humans to hate others for our differences. We like to attack things that are different from us. We’re fit, so fat is bad. Is it? Why should we not try to rise above this so-called instinct rather than embrace it? In particular in situations where it really has no affect on the judge or even society as a whole, as is the case with obesity?[/quote]
Because instincts generally serve to ensure the survival and continued propagation of the species.[/quote]
The same instincts that lead to “rampant unprotected sex, women having children by multiple fathers”…
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Instead of continuing to derail this thread and making it about whether fat women cause harm to society I’m going to try and keep this thread on topic.
DB - If you’re really interested in discussing that topic, start another thread.[/quote]
Why? There’s plenty of meaningful discussion going on about it right here. Just because you’ve been pitifully wrong on all counts you want to censor further discussion on the matter? Ah, I see how you operate now.
If we stick strictly to your original post’s topic, the thread is already over with anyways. “If shaming proved to be an effective strategy, would you be in favour of it in some cases? If so which ones?”
Well, shaming can never be proven to be effective or not since that isn’t really something that can be quantified and tested in a way that produces accurate statistics one or the other. There are WAY too many other variables involved to chalk any movement one way or the other up to shaming alone.
So the rest of the topic is a moot point. Especially since you’ve never even identified what the end purpose of the “effective strategy” would be, not to mention the justification for it. Is it even possible to eradicate such societal ills from existence altogether? Of course not. So what is an appropriate level for things to subside to? And why should shaming even happen in the first place. You mentioned fat people. What reasons are there for shaming fat people that can’t be applied to literally every other area of life? If there is a justification for shaming one segment of society, what stops us from shaming ALL segments of society?
Do you see where I’m going with this? It’s a pointless discussion the way you’ve framed it since it can never be proven whether or not shaming actually works. So of course we have to argue ad infinitum whether or not it would actually work in the first place in ANY capacity. And of course, to do that we have to identify what is meant by “work”, along with what exactly is broken in the first place and why it needs “work”.
And since those questions haven’t been asked by you because you lack the foresight to understand where these discussions inevitably go under such ill-defined and vague parameters, the thread careens out of control as we search for answers to the myriad questions that pop up before we can even begin addressing your original post.
But for your sake, I’ll get right down to what you originally posted anyways. “If shaming proved to be an effective strategy…”. Well, it isn’t. End of thread.
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
It comes naturally to the judgmental, IMO. It is easy for humans to hate others for our differences. We like to attack things that are different from us. We’re fit, so fat is bad. Is it? Why should we not try to rise above this so-called instinct rather than embrace it? In particular in situations where it really has no affect on the judge or even society as a whole, as is the case with obesity?[/quote]
Not only that, but moral anger and outrage, self-righteous indignation and judgmental behavior are addictive behaviors, signs of anger and control issues and are not healthy to indulge in.
There is a good reason to be the better person. It’s for your own good.[/quote]
You just conflated a whole lot of different human actions without providing even the thinnest shred of context and then covered it with a gigantic patchwork quilt of your own assumptions.
I’d say I disagree, but where would I start?
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So don’t peddle this “well it’s just you” crap to me. Obesity, especially female obesity has much larger repercussions on society than just straining the healthcare system.
[/quote]
Pretty much the crux of the entire problem here. To insinuate that things are just honky-dory with American health and the natural tendency of humans to prefer more beautiful and healthier humans, it is either naive or willfully ignorant to keep brushing aside this argument as if the net effect were negligible.
I know I’m like a broken record sometimes with my America/Japan comparisons, but when they work, they work. Here, we do NOT have near epidemic levels of diabetes, heart disease, stroke or many of the other myriad health problems that America does. In fact, the biggest current crisis here is our Social Security system because people tend to live TOO long and retirement is effectively forced at the ridiculously young (for Japanese) age of 65. The divorce rate is FAR lower (yes, I understand, there are many factors involved in this), hence, intact families are far more prevalent. Eating disorders…what are those? Believe it or not, kids in Japan generally even LIKE vegetables!
This is in danger of turning into a “why fat is bad” thread, so I’ll just stop by repeating that the take away point is that this issue, much like the issue of broken families, rising divorce rates, rampant unprotected sex, women having children by multiple fathers, and on and on DO, very much DO, have far reaching consequences that affect all of us. Is it not just common sense that pretty radical, comprehensive infrastructural and demographic changes are going to result in unavoidable consequences for the entirety of the society in question?
Seriously? [/quote]
Legitimate concerns. But really, what is different about fat-related health problems and the myriad other health problems associated with poor lifestyle choices? I’m not arguing that fat isn’t bad, only that it isn’t bad in the way many think it is and that it isn’t a unique drain on the economy here. We have all sorts of drains on the economy, of which this is one.
You know what else is draining on the economy? People who live far distances from where they work. The commute time means more gas used, more emissions, more damage to the roads, more traffic (and less worker productivity as a result), and so forth. You know what else is a drain on the economy? Why don’t we shame people like my buddy who drives 45 miles each way from San Jose to SF in his F-350 to go to work? Why don’t we shame farmers, many of whom are subsidized so that they can grow food at artificially-high prices that the consumer wouldn’t otherwise be paying, all while we also subsidize their water usage which is one of the biggest sources of pollution in this country?
And to get back to the original point of this thread, what is shaming people going to do solve the obesity epidemic in this country? And if shaming does work, then why stop there? The fact is that virtually everyone in this country contributes in some way, shape or form to the degradation of American society that you guys are all so worried about. Like I said earlier, I just want to see some consistency.
So if shaming DOES work (which I would disagree with) why stop there? Shouldn’t we be shaming pretty much everybody in this country? Shouldn’t we be shaming the farmers, instead of making bullshit Super Bowl commercials with that fucking windbag, Paul Harvey, rambling on about them? Shouldn’t we also be shaming everyone who has written into their will that they don’t want the plug pulled if they’re in a coma? Shouldn’t we be shaming everybody who chooses to have their child rather than abort it if keeping it means getting govt assistance to support it? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone involved with the glorification of drug dealers and pimps and the perpetration of violence against women? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who has to take out some student loans to go to college rather than pay for it out of their own pocket? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who makes their money selling the food products that contribute to obesity? Shouldn’t we be outside of fast food restaurants shaming everyone who goes in, regardless of weight, and spends their money in it, thereby allowing a business profiting off the looming obesity/healthcare crisis in this country?[/quote]
Because that’s more like micromanaging. I can’t know for certain, but, as I’ve been saying, both human pride and shame provide a crucial social function serves to keep most members of a social group adhering to behaviors beneficial to the group. Were either one removed, or either one completely unrestrained, we’d have a major problem on our hands because of the selfish, greedy, carnal, hungry, ambitious, nature of the human animal.
I’m saying that expressing one’s disapproval at another’s unhealthy or unethical lifestyle choices comes naturally to us. And that it is only very recently, extremely recently, from a historical perspective, that we have decided to turn this very basic, innate human inclination on its head. I think that may be imprudent, to say the least.
Let’s take move away from the fat topic for a moment. How about a problem we can probably both agree is empirically harmful to our society if we are using crime and poverty, among many other factors, as a standard. Unwed mothers. Particularly those who decide to sire multiple children with different fathers without any means or even real plans for how to provide for them, save government assistance.
Since Candice Bergman made it taboo to ever utter a syllable of ill will regarding the single mother, what options are we now left with? [/quote]
It comes naturally to the judgmental, IMO. It is easy for humans to hate others for our differences. We like to attack things that are different from us. We’re fit, so fat is bad. Is it? Why should we not try to rise above this so-called instinct rather than embrace it? In particular in situations where it really has no affect on the judge or even society as a whole, as is the case with obesity?[/quote]
Because instincts generally serve to ensure the survival and continued propagation of the species.[/quote]
The same instincts that lead to “rampant unprotected sex, women having children by multiple fathers”…
[/quote]
And that used to be restrained by social disapproval, shunning, shame, etc.
Which is what I’ve been saying for pages now.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So don’t peddle this “well it’s just you” crap to me. Obesity, especially female obesity has much larger repercussions on society than just straining the healthcare system.
[/quote]
Pretty much the crux of the entire problem here. To insinuate that things are just honky-dory with American health and the natural tendency of humans to prefer more beautiful and healthier humans, it is either naive or willfully ignorant to keep brushing aside this argument as if the net effect were negligible.
I know I’m like a broken record sometimes with my America/Japan comparisons, but when they work, they work. Here, we do NOT have near epidemic levels of diabetes, heart disease, stroke or many of the other myriad health problems that America does. In fact, the biggest current crisis here is our Social Security system because people tend to live TOO long and retirement is effectively forced at the ridiculously young (for Japanese) age of 65. The divorce rate is FAR lower (yes, I understand, there are many factors involved in this), hence, intact families are far more prevalent. Eating disorders…what are those? Believe it or not, kids in Japan generally even LIKE vegetables!
This is in danger of turning into a “why fat is bad” thread, so I’ll just stop by repeating that the take away point is that this issue, much like the issue of broken families, rising divorce rates, rampant unprotected sex, women having children by multiple fathers, and on and on DO, very much DO, have far reaching consequences that affect all of us. Is it not just common sense that pretty radical, comprehensive infrastructural and demographic changes are going to result in unavoidable consequences for the entirety of the society in question?
Seriously? [/quote]
Legitimate concerns. But really, what is different about fat-related health problems and the myriad other health problems associated with poor lifestyle choices? I’m not arguing that fat isn’t bad, only that it isn’t bad in the way many think it is and that it isn’t a unique drain on the economy here. We have all sorts of drains on the economy, of which this is one.
You know what else is draining on the economy? People who live far distances from where they work. The commute time means more gas used, more emissions, more damage to the roads, more traffic (and less worker productivity as a result), and so forth. You know what else is a drain on the economy? Why don’t we shame people like my buddy who drives 45 miles each way from San Jose to SF in his F-350 to go to work? Why don’t we shame farmers, many of whom are subsidized so that they can grow food at artificially-high prices that the consumer wouldn’t otherwise be paying, all while we also subsidize their water usage which is one of the biggest sources of pollution in this country?
And to get back to the original point of this thread, what is shaming people going to do solve the obesity epidemic in this country? And if shaming does work, then why stop there? The fact is that virtually everyone in this country contributes in some way, shape or form to the degradation of American society that you guys are all so worried about. Like I said earlier, I just want to see some consistency.
So if shaming DOES work (which I would disagree with) why stop there? Shouldn’t we be shaming pretty much everybody in this country? Shouldn’t we be shaming the farmers, instead of making bullshit Super Bowl commercials with that fucking windbag, Paul Harvey, rambling on about them? Shouldn’t we also be shaming everyone who has written into their will that they don’t want the plug pulled if they’re in a coma? Shouldn’t we be shaming everybody who chooses to have their child rather than abort it if keeping it means getting govt assistance to support it? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone involved with the glorification of drug dealers and pimps and the perpetration of violence against women? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who has to take out some student loans to go to college rather than pay for it out of their own pocket? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who makes their money selling the food products that contribute to obesity? Shouldn’t we be outside of fast food restaurants shaming everyone who goes in, regardless of weight, and spends their money in it, thereby allowing a business profiting off the looming obesity/healthcare crisis in this country?[/quote]
Because that’s more like micromanaging. I can’t know for certain, but, as I’ve been saying, both human pride and shame provide a crucial social function serves to keep most members of a social group adhering to behaviors beneficial to the group. Were either one removed, or either one completely unrestrained, we’d have a major problem on our hands because of the selfish, greedy, carnal, hungry, ambitious, nature of the human animal.
I’m saying that expressing one’s disapproval at another’s unhealthy or unethical lifestyle choices comes naturally to us. And that it is only very recently, extremely recently, from a historical perspective, that we have decided to turn this very basic, innate human inclination on its head. I think that may be imprudent, to say the least.
Let’s take move away from the fat topic for a moment. How about a problem we can probably both agree is empirically harmful to our society if we are using crime and poverty, among many other factors, as a standard. Unwed mothers. Particularly those who decide to sire multiple children with different fathers without any means or even real plans for how to provide for them, save government assistance.
Since Candice Bergman made it taboo to ever utter a syllable of ill will regarding the single mother, what options are we now left with? [/quote]
It comes naturally to the judgmental, IMO. It is easy for humans to hate others for our differences. We like to attack things that are different from us. We’re fit, so fat is bad. Is it? Why should we not try to rise above this so-called instinct rather than embrace it? In particular in situations where it really has no affect on the judge or even society as a whole, as is the case with obesity?[/quote]
Because instincts generally serve to ensure the survival and continued propagation of the species.[/quote]
There’s this really good book about how the natural instincts of man is to take from others and live in a state of perpetual warfare with one another, where the only goal is to ensure the survival and propagation of one’s self and his family by whatever means necessary, not the entire species.
It’s called “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes. It was kind of a big deal in its day.
Fuck, I’m sorry, Cortes. That sounded really condescending and was uncalled for. What I was trying to get at is that man’s natural instinct is more to preserve himself rather than the species as a whole. If I preserve myself and whatever woman I want to carry my bloodline forward, I will be ensuring the survival of the species. But the species as I want it. One of man’s most base instincts, actually, THE most basic instinct is to protect good old numero uno first and foremost. We are a selfish lot.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So don’t peddle this “well it’s just you” crap to me. Obesity, especially female obesity has much larger repercussions on society than just straining the healthcare system.
[/quote]
Pretty much the crux of the entire problem here. To insinuate that things are just honky-dory with American health and the natural tendency of humans to prefer more beautiful and healthier humans, it is either naive or willfully ignorant to keep brushing aside this argument as if the net effect were negligible.
I know I’m like a broken record sometimes with my America/Japan comparisons, but when they work, they work. Here, we do NOT have near epidemic levels of diabetes, heart disease, stroke or many of the other myriad health problems that America does. In fact, the biggest current crisis here is our Social Security system because people tend to live TOO long and retirement is effectively forced at the ridiculously young (for Japanese) age of 65. The divorce rate is FAR lower (yes, I understand, there are many factors involved in this), hence, intact families are far more prevalent. Eating disorders…what are those? Believe it or not, kids in Japan generally even LIKE vegetables!
This is in danger of turning into a “why fat is bad” thread, so I’ll just stop by repeating that the take away point is that this issue, much like the issue of broken families, rising divorce rates, rampant unprotected sex, women having children by multiple fathers, and on and on DO, very much DO, have far reaching consequences that affect all of us. Is it not just common sense that pretty radical, comprehensive infrastructural and demographic changes are going to result in unavoidable consequences for the entirety of the society in question?
Seriously? [/quote]
Legitimate concerns. But really, what is different about fat-related health problems and the myriad other health problems associated with poor lifestyle choices? I’m not arguing that fat isn’t bad, only that it isn’t bad in the way many think it is and that it isn’t a unique drain on the economy here. We have all sorts of drains on the economy, of which this is one.
You know what else is draining on the economy? People who live far distances from where they work. The commute time means more gas used, more emissions, more damage to the roads, more traffic (and less worker productivity as a result), and so forth. You know what else is a drain on the economy? Why don’t we shame people like my buddy who drives 45 miles each way from San Jose to SF in his F-350 to go to work? Why don’t we shame farmers, many of whom are subsidized so that they can grow food at artificially-high prices that the consumer wouldn’t otherwise be paying, all while we also subsidize their water usage which is one of the biggest sources of pollution in this country?
And to get back to the original point of this thread, what is shaming people going to do solve the obesity epidemic in this country? And if shaming does work, then why stop there? The fact is that virtually everyone in this country contributes in some way, shape or form to the degradation of American society that you guys are all so worried about. Like I said earlier, I just want to see some consistency.
So if shaming DOES work (which I would disagree with) why stop there? Shouldn’t we be shaming pretty much everybody in this country? Shouldn’t we be shaming the farmers, instead of making bullshit Super Bowl commercials with that fucking windbag, Paul Harvey, rambling on about them? Shouldn’t we also be shaming everyone who has written into their will that they don’t want the plug pulled if they’re in a coma? Shouldn’t we be shaming everybody who chooses to have their child rather than abort it if keeping it means getting govt assistance to support it? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone involved with the glorification of drug dealers and pimps and the perpetration of violence against women? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who has to take out some student loans to go to college rather than pay for it out of their own pocket? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who makes their money selling the food products that contribute to obesity? Shouldn’t we be outside of fast food restaurants shaming everyone who goes in, regardless of weight, and spends their money in it, thereby allowing a business profiting off the looming obesity/healthcare crisis in this country?[/quote]
Because that’s more like micromanaging. I can’t know for certain, but, as I’ve been saying, both human pride and shame provide a crucial social function serves to keep most members of a social group adhering to behaviors beneficial to the group. Were either one removed, or either one completely unrestrained, we’d have a major problem on our hands because of the selfish, greedy, carnal, hungry, ambitious, nature of the human animal.
I’m saying that expressing one’s disapproval at another’s unhealthy or unethical lifestyle choices comes naturally to us. And that it is only very recently, extremely recently, from a historical perspective, that we have decided to turn this very basic, innate human inclination on its head. I think that may be imprudent, to say the least.
Let’s take move away from the fat topic for a moment. How about a problem we can probably both agree is empirically harmful to our society if we are using crime and poverty, among many other factors, as a standard. Unwed mothers. Particularly those who decide to sire multiple children with different fathers without any means or even real plans for how to provide for them, save government assistance.
Since Candice Bergman made it taboo to ever utter a syllable of ill will regarding the single mother, what options are we now left with? [/quote]
It comes naturally to the judgmental, IMO. It is easy for humans to hate others for our differences. We like to attack things that are different from us. We’re fit, so fat is bad. Is it? Why should we not try to rise above this so-called instinct rather than embrace it? In particular in situations where it really has no affect on the judge or even society as a whole, as is the case with obesity?[/quote]
Because instincts generally serve to ensure the survival and continued propagation of the species.[/quote]
Maybe in tribal times, not today. Pre-globalization, those different from us generally wanted to take us over (if they had the power). Even those seeking friendly agreements often inadvertently brought disease. It made sense to avoid those from outside the group for the purpose of survival.
Today, distrusting those different from us has led to the most violent, bloody, and gruesome parts of human history. The holocaust certainly comes to mind.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So don’t peddle this “well it’s just you” crap to me. Obesity, especially female obesity has much larger repercussions on society than just straining the healthcare system.
[/quote]
Pretty much the crux of the entire problem here. To insinuate that things are just honky-dory with American health and the natural tendency of humans to prefer more beautiful and healthier humans, it is either naive or willfully ignorant to keep brushing aside this argument as if the net effect were negligible.
I know I’m like a broken record sometimes with my America/Japan comparisons, but when they work, they work. Here, we do NOT have near epidemic levels of diabetes, heart disease, stroke or many of the other myriad health problems that America does. In fact, the biggest current crisis here is our Social Security system because people tend to live TOO long and retirement is effectively forced at the ridiculously young (for Japanese) age of 65. The divorce rate is FAR lower (yes, I understand, there are many factors involved in this), hence, intact families are far more prevalent. Eating disorders…what are those? Believe it or not, kids in Japan generally even LIKE vegetables!
This is in danger of turning into a “why fat is bad” thread, so I’ll just stop by repeating that the take away point is that this issue, much like the issue of broken families, rising divorce rates, rampant unprotected sex, women having children by multiple fathers, and on and on DO, very much DO, have far reaching consequences that affect all of us. Is it not just common sense that pretty radical, comprehensive infrastructural and demographic changes are going to result in unavoidable consequences for the entirety of the society in question?
Seriously? [/quote]
Legitimate concerns. But really, what is different about fat-related health problems and the myriad other health problems associated with poor lifestyle choices? I’m not arguing that fat isn’t bad, only that it isn’t bad in the way many think it is and that it isn’t a unique drain on the economy here. We have all sorts of drains on the economy, of which this is one.
You know what else is draining on the economy? People who live far distances from where they work. The commute time means more gas used, more emissions, more damage to the roads, more traffic (and less worker productivity as a result), and so forth. You know what else is a drain on the economy? Why don’t we shame people like my buddy who drives 45 miles each way from San Jose to SF in his F-350 to go to work? Why don’t we shame farmers, many of whom are subsidized so that they can grow food at artificially-high prices that the consumer wouldn’t otherwise be paying, all while we also subsidize their water usage which is one of the biggest sources of pollution in this country?
And to get back to the original point of this thread, what is shaming people going to do solve the obesity epidemic in this country? And if shaming does work, then why stop there? The fact is that virtually everyone in this country contributes in some way, shape or form to the degradation of American society that you guys are all so worried about. Like I said earlier, I just want to see some consistency.
So if shaming DOES work (which I would disagree with) why stop there? Shouldn’t we be shaming pretty much everybody in this country? Shouldn’t we be shaming the farmers, instead of making bullshit Super Bowl commercials with that fucking windbag, Paul Harvey, rambling on about them? Shouldn’t we also be shaming everyone who has written into their will that they don’t want the plug pulled if they’re in a coma? Shouldn’t we be shaming everybody who chooses to have their child rather than abort it if keeping it means getting govt assistance to support it? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone involved with the glorification of drug dealers and pimps and the perpetration of violence against women? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who has to take out some student loans to go to college rather than pay for it out of their own pocket? Shouldn’t we be shaming everyone who makes their money selling the food products that contribute to obesity? Shouldn’t we be outside of fast food restaurants shaming everyone who goes in, regardless of weight, and spends their money in it, thereby allowing a business profiting off the looming obesity/healthcare crisis in this country?[/quote]
Because that’s more like micromanaging. I can’t know for certain, but, as I’ve been saying, both human pride and shame provide a crucial social function serves to keep most members of a social group adhering to behaviors beneficial to the group. Were either one removed, or either one completely unrestrained, we’d have a major problem on our hands because of the selfish, greedy, carnal, hungry, ambitious, nature of the human animal.
I’m saying that expressing one’s disapproval at another’s unhealthy or unethical lifestyle choices comes naturally to us. And that it is only very recently, extremely recently, from a historical perspective, that we have decided to turn this very basic, innate human inclination on its head. I think that may be imprudent, to say the least.
Let’s take move away from the fat topic for a moment. How about a problem we can probably both agree is empirically harmful to our society if we are using crime and poverty, among many other factors, as a standard. Unwed mothers. Particularly those who decide to sire multiple children with different fathers without any means or even real plans for how to provide for them, save government assistance.
Since Candice Bergman made it taboo to ever utter a syllable of ill will regarding the single mother, what options are we now left with? [/quote]
It comes naturally to the judgmental, IMO. It is easy for humans to hate others for our differences. We like to attack things that are different from us. We’re fit, so fat is bad. Is it? Why should we not try to rise above this so-called instinct rather than embrace it? In particular in situations where it really has no affect on the judge or even society as a whole, as is the case with obesity?[/quote]
Because instincts generally serve to ensure the survival and continued propagation of the species.[/quote]
The same instincts that lead to “rampant unprotected sex, women having children by multiple fathers”…
[/quote]
And that used to be restrained by social disapproval, shunning, shame, etc.
Which is what I’ve been saying for pages now.
[/quote]
But it happened anyways, so clearly shaming doesn’t work. Besides, back in the day “social disapproval, shunning, shame, etc.” was more like “killing my daughter/wife for disgracing the family.” The repercussions for such behavior went WELL beyond simple shaming by society. People were cast out of the village or whatever, burned at the stake, in the Roman Empire, amongst other societies, women could legally be killed by their father or husband for adultery or other such behavior. The same still goes on in certain societies today.
And yet, adultery, promiscuousness and so on still happens. Shit, the forms that humiliation and so forth can take today are much more insidious than they were a generation or two ago (Facebook and all that Internet bullying shit) and yet, we still see a lot of the sort of behavior you speak of. And kids DO shame their peers for getting pregnant as a teen and that sort of thing. I see it where I teach more often than I’d care to admit. The “slutty” girls’ behavior is hardly encouraged by most girls in their class. Those girls are “shamed” by their peers all the time. It leads to a lot of things, but it doesn’t lead to tangible, significant introspection in which the targeted girl takes some serious personal inventory about the direction her life is going in. That sort of thing doesn’t happen at all in many cases, the picture that BrownDisaster posted being a prime example. Other times, it DOES happen, but not until after some major, life-altering event such as getting pregnant at 16 or getting raped at a party or something like that.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And that used to be restrained by social disapproval, shunning, shame, etc.
Which is what I’ve been saying for pages now.
[/quote]
I understand that. I think the question really then becomes… what kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in the most efficient society where actions are restrained by social disapproval? Or do we want to live in a less efficient but less constrained society?
I don’t think there is a right answer to that question and I’m sure different people have different preferences. Personally, I would prefer a kinder, less efficient society. Live and let live.
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And that used to be restrained by social disapproval, shunning, shame, etc.
Which is what I’ve been saying for pages now.
[/quote]
I understand that. I think the question really then becomes… what kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in the most efficient society where actions are restrained by social disapproval? Or do we want to live in a less efficient but less constrained society?
I don’t think there is a right answer to that question and I’m sure different people have different preferences. Personally, I would prefer a kinder, less efficient society. Live and let live. [/quote]
Is there any proof living in a less constrained society has improved societal happiness?
People automatically assume so but if we looked closely I doubt it has
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And that used to be restrained by social disapproval, shunning, shame, etc.
Which is what I’ve been saying for pages now.
[/quote]
I understand that. I think the question really then becomes… what kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in the most efficient society where actions are restrained by social disapproval? Or do we want to live in a less efficient but less constrained society?
I don’t think there is a right answer to that question and I’m sure different people have different preferences. Personally, I would prefer a kinder, less efficient society. Live and let live. [/quote]
Is there any proof living in a less constrained society has improved societal happiness?
People automatically assume so but if we looked closely I doubt it has[/quote]
Is there any proof that living in a more constrained society improved societal happiness?
People automatically assume so but if we looked closely I doubt it has.
See what I did there? I learned that from Push.
Come on, Raj. Stop with the overly-vague, open-ended questions that can’t even begin to be answered. Less constrained society compared to what? Nazi Germany? North Korea? Thomas More’s Utopia? How is societal happiness measured? Is less constraint within society, compared to God-knows-what level of constraint passes as standard, even related to societal happiness?
I pointed out a while back in another thread that based on the Happiness Index (lame name, legitimate index) that by and large the happiest countries are dirt poor. The happiest fully-developed country was Norway and they ranked somewhere around 20, if I recall correctly. If an efficient society is one in which the economy works for those who put into it, and this ostensibly leads to greater wealth across the board in the long run or whatever, why is it that the happiest countries in the world are literally some of the most backwards, inefficient countries?
And who is to say that more constraint leads to increased efficiency in the first place. I think the history of mankind has pretty much shattered that theory to pieces more often than not. Was the Soviet Union efficient? No, but it certainly was more constrained. The same could be said for Mao-era China, Nazi Germany, North Korea today, etc, etc.
Our country has far less constraints on our liberties and whatnot than those did, as inefficient as we may think it is, our level of inefficiency is NOTHING like those countries.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
[/quote]
WTF? Is that for real?
[quote]challer1 wrote:
However, the fact remains that these people do live long enough to collect, and in the end will cost “the system” more than the fat person will on average. This is relevant because the original point was that fat people need to be shamed into losing weight, when it’s not anyone’s business how someone else chooses to live their life if it doesn’t affect them. People tend to think that it is their business how fat another person is due to the mistaken belief that obesity somehow costs the thin fit person money. It does not.[/quote]
Again, that’s just symantics. Living longer isn’t costing “the system”. It’s simply a matter of getting what you paid for. When I buy groceries it “costs” the store to let me walk out with the food I just paid for. Certainly it would be more profitable for them to charge me and keep the groceries to resell.
I’m going to drop out of this discussion, because we’re getting to the point where we’re just repeating the same thing over and over, and I don’t have nearly as much patience as Cortes.
But you state with conviction that obese people aren’t taking more than their share and that the percentage of people on disablility for obesity is negligable. Where are you getting this information from and what is the number?
If someone steals the change out the cup holder in my truck, the impact on me is “negligable” as in, it’s a miniscule portion of my net worth. But he’s still a theif.