Weighty Matters

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by SecretWombat on December 12, 2009 at 7:55pm

There's a huge difference. Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed at higher levels for everyone. You don't have 'income checkpoints' so you can charge poor people more for their booze and ciggies. You are proposing weigh stations so you can charge fat people more than thin people for food making it discriminatory and self-defeating for the reasons I outlined earlier. If you were proposing to tax unhealthy food more for everyone, similar to cigarettes and alcohol, I'd have no problem with it. In fact I said so in my original comment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on December 12, 2009 at 10:11pm

I don't propose charging fat people for anything. My issue is with obese people. There is a great difference.

The obese are a burden on the health system, so they should contribute to a proportion of the costs. Of course this is discriminatory but isn't that the method society uses to maintain its heirarchical structure? Those who can attune their views and behaviour to fit the pattern favoured by society succeed and prosper the rest are failures. This pattern is quite common; I think it's called evolution.

I'm actually confused by your reference to "unhealthy food". I have never proposed feeding the "Lipo-challenged" contaminated or poisonous food.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tarquin St John Sh'gn'sty on December 13, 2009 at 11:51pm

." Poverty is linked with obesity."

With relative poverty,yes it is.Not so much with aboslolute poverty.Very few obese people seem to starve to death. Obesity is aslo linked to affluence.Although the route may be different,via McDonald's. I do not conflate correlation with causation.

The CAUSE of obesity is simple physics; using less energy than one ingests. The REASONS are complex.They include dietary ignorance, a sedentary life style, and indifference. 'Stress',
'A busy lifestyle ' and 'being time poor' are excuses,not reasons.


Children do not become obese because of fast food companies.It's the parent's responsiblity too see their children eat properly. Adults are responsible for our own actions,
There are consequences for self destructive behaviour. Perhaps not now, but eventually. ----the consequences may be poor health in later life or even dying prematurely from some nasty disease caused by lifestyle. EG even though I'm an ex smoker,my chances of dying with,if not from emphysema are approaching 100%.

As for making obese people pay more? Well, some airlines are already charging fat people for two seats.Here some surgeons simply refuse to operate on smokers under general anaesthetic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Goz on December 15, 2009 at 1:29pm

Have you read the latest on hfcs and it's link to health problems?
Check this out if not:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6954603.ece

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chrys Stevenson on December 15, 2009 at 4:32pm

I consider you a friend, funky, but I find this post arrogant, insulting, insensitive and ill-informed.

I am one of those "Lipo-challenged" persons who you wish to humiliate by making me check in at a weigh station whenever I go shopping. Don't you think it would just save time, if I was marked with a branding iron so I could easily be identified at the check out?

Of course, you assume (wrongly) that my weight is due to me spending my days reclining in front of the television while knocking back litres of Coca Cola, and shoving packets of chips and cream buns into my mouth. Because I am overweight, I must be ignorant of proper nutrition and live on fast food. The ignorance of your assumptions is astounding!

Obesity can certainly be linked to poor nutrition or excessive intake of food. But it can also be caused by sleep disorders, hormonal problems (some of which may be caused by exposure to pollution), prescription drugs (including antidepressants), genetics, metabolism issues and thyroid problems among other things.

Lack of exercise may be implicated, but is not necessarily laziness. Clinical depression, chronic fatigue, and, of course, physical problems which impede movement may also limit the amount of exercise someone can do.

You assume that because someone is obese, they are a burden on the health system. I have no weight-related illnesses. In fact, because of my healthy diet, my blood pressure, cholesterol levels, blood sugar levels etc are all perfect. In fact, my results are better than my doctor's and he told me I should go home and frame the report.

And how, exactly, do you wish to manage your plan which would see me charged 60% more for food after my obligatory weigh-in?

Am I to receive a surcharge on all my purchases? Or am I to be further humiliated by having to separate out the food intended for my consumption and that intended for my 50kg mother, with whom I live and who eats exactly the same healthy diet as me? After all, why should my non-lipo-challenged mother be penalised for my weight? What if I am purchasing the makings of Christmas dinner for my family? Is the 60 percent surcharge applicable to everything I buy, or just to the proportion that I'm likely to eat?

Of course, if we're making surcharges for obese people, I will also have to declare at the check-out that my brother is also obese and pay extra for his food. Of course, he deserves your disdain. His obesity is due to the fact that he is terminally ill with a brain tumour, is totally incapacitated since a stroke paralysed him down one side of his body, is confined to a wheelchair, has a wife who is barely coping and unable to leave him (except to care for her elderly mother), and they are living on frozen meals because, frankly, she is too exhausted to cook or shop. They do, however, get at least one healthy meal a week, when my mother and I make the three hour round trip to provide them with a home-cooked meal.

Are you, funkq, proposing that on the rare occasion that his wife gets to the supermarket to purchase fresh food for them, she should also have to step on to your weighing machine and declare that her fat husband is at home in a wheelchair?

I find your proposal disgusting, discriminatory and probably one of the most offensive, ignorant things I have read in these forums. The fact that it comes from a friend for whom I had great respect makes it all the more hurtful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by funk Q on December 18, 2009 at 8:36pm

Ok people, I haven't been able to keep up with this discussion due to having access to AN block for some time and an emergency trip to hospital and the associated aftermath. Has someone on AN placed a curse on me?

The original premise for this discussion arose from a gab-fest of the godless; the issue was of governments targeting particular groups in the community which could lead to triggering discrimination against that group, even in these days of open government, mobile phones and the internet. As an enclave of "no-boundaries theorists" we reckoned we would try to find out how other open minded people would handle a scenario in which a section of a community, with no support base, was explicitly singled out for discrimination.

Some of you may be able to remember or have been exposed to the sort of government propaganda and actions which has caused some groups to be singled out for "special" treatment. These governments are often those which are promoted to be the freest and most tolerant on the planet. During the last hundred years democratic governments have acted against specific groups and individuals within their own borders. Consider internment of those whose nationality is that of an enemy even though they were citizens by choice or birth, then there are homosexuals, prostitutes, single mothers, certain publications, mental institutions, drug addicts, physical differences ("race" and disabled) and divergence of thought or action (religion, atheism, philosophy, politics, culture and abortion); the examples are legion.

So it can be imputed the "enlightened" nations of the world have behaved little better than the most brutal when there is an opportunity to suppress targeted groups. Currently, most groups in democratic countries are tolerated by governments and have some sort of umbrella group to look after their interests and even to publicise their case to alter public opinion.

Some sections of the general community, it seems, are still viewed negatively. We identified five which seem to be obvious. It was thought that two of the groups, terrorism and paedophilia, are possibly never going to achieve acceptance in free societies. Rape appears to be opportunistic, the most difficult to define and the hardest to apportion guilt without third party input and probably will never be tolerated. Drug dealers range from the guy in the pub to organised crime and no one knows the extent of their influence, so best avoided! The remaining group, which recently has been exposed to great publicity and government interest, is obesity.

The topic of obesity has been promoted in the media with great fervour. But, it appears, there is no organisation which is in place to protect, defend or explain obesity to the general public. So there is a situation where the negatives of obesity have been widely publicised, but no structure exists to shield the obese from discrimination and stigmatising, by either government or the community. This makes obesity the perfect target for discrimination and about the only one left which isn't illegal.

The next thing was to find a way to have government discriminate in a convincing scenario against the obese. The setting broached in the discussion was seen to be pretty obviously incredible but, with the types of legislation governments have been able to perpetrate, it was worth a try. The words using "Lipo-" were inserted to add a pseudo-academic touch and to signal the possibility of a hoax.

The results of this exercise have hardly been world shattering. Sadly, with the significant membership of Atheist Nexus, so few responded and those who did presented reasonable views of alternative ways to approach obesity. I suppose my attempts at playing devil's advocate were hardly Oscar worthy.

Two points are worth comment though:
1. I am a little surprised there is still perceived to be "healthy" and "unhealthy" food. Food is food; its how and when different foods are consumed in a diet which specifies their worth to a person and how they affect health.
2. The link between obesity and poverty seems to be proved but, from observation and experience, I think some cultural and lifestyle influences should be noted. The smaller family unit allows parents to spend more money and attention on the a lesser number of children, a fatter child can be seen as a status symbol, indicating they are able to provide better among some groups.

What can be concluded from the responses in this discussion? First, it seems that few people care if one sector of their community is singled out, by government, for discriminatory treatment. Second, most people will tolerate some form of discrimination so long as it has a veneer of fairness. Third, it seems manipulation of a community by government into introducing discrimination can easily be achieved, especially when the group doesn't have any structure to protect and represent it.

The one unforseen response was a harsh personal attack. It makes little sense to attack the person rather than the idea but, as I initiated the discussion, I'll have to accept the abuse. Shit, as they say, happens.

With that I'm closing the discussion before I get more abuse and I'll get on with attending to my health.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page