[balddemon]

it reminds me of those RE: videos where girls show off their cleavage

[BPRD]

Did you now! Let me see a copy of your notes. :lol

I was actually making fun of you...

[shanshan310]

These fat people who say they're not.. Annoy me. I'm obese, yes I know it's bad for me. But you know what? I don't really care. So I won't deny that I'm fat. Some chaps however will just go to the "you don't have to be a stick to be beautiful" argument. /end rant. (Can't watch the OP as I'm on my phone but will give it a watch when I'm home!

She basically said the same thing you did.

[davepoobond]

fat-hate is just as stupid and ill placed as "plus-size empowerment" is.

[KHarvey16]

I don't think this is quite fair. I don't agree with Coolio, but I don't have a problem with the principle that people who contribute less or cost more should receive less or pay more, within reason. And, actually, a Coolio who had made nothing but great decisions and who was adding more to the US GDP would be less penalized / more rewarded for it - he'd almost certainly be making more money. Anyway, nobody thinks that we should actually be policing every little thing that everyone does. That would clearly be welfare-reducing, even if said policing were free, and in reality it'd cost more to implement than anyone would gain. But it's perfectly reasonable to police the big stuff that is easy to police, which costs society a great deal, and which doesn't unfairly target people for circumstances outside their control. If we actually had a problem with sky divers costing us a fortune in medical bills, it'd make sense to make sky divers pay a fee to help fund medical care for sky divers. I don't think we should do this for obesity because some people have a much harder time avoiding obesity than others, and very few people are choosing to be obese in the way that some choose to sky dive. It's much closer to a medical condition. But, again, the talk of penalizing people for every little mistake misses the point, and nobody advocating penalizing people for being obese is at all committed to forcing everyone to overthink everything for fear of Big Brother writing them a ticket.

But the premise itself brings it down to an individual level. You punish the individual. Why should costly behavior only cost someone more if a lot of other people do it as well? That hardly seems fair.

[Utako]

I think it's pretty apparent "fat shaming" doesn't assist anyone and we're better off stopping it.

Condoning it or accepting it as a norm ain't so hot either.

[Chumly]

I think it's pretty apparent "fat shaming" doesn't assist anyone and we're better off stopping it.

Yup. The root problems should be addressed along with help in a positive manner for people to lose weight.

[slit]

I was actually making fun of you...

Awwwww, well now you've gone and hurt my feelings!

[cutmeamango]

If not yet, cigarettes and alcoholic beverage (fast foods as well) should be healthcare taxed. Or at the least their advertisements.

[Bombadil]

Naw. Saying something shouldnt be judged is the same thing as accepting it. Society shouldnt accept obesity as the norm. Multiculturalisms fine though.

That's a false dilemma, Loofy.

You're either judging it or you're accepting it?

"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

I don't think this girl is unaware about her weight. She doesn't need people to tell her that. I was commenting more about the mentality of youtube posters and internet posters in general who have a tendency to look past the content of a video and instead judge the people in it based on their appearance.

[spiderman123]

Probability is my argument. If a person makes any life choice that makes it more probable they will need to consume healthcare resources that I will pay for, should they pay more?

Again ,it comes down to the costs to society. Social Costs of implementation/maintenance vs Social Costs of not implementing a system etc etc. I think this is what COOLIO was aiming for. He legitimately believes that obesity is a problem ( particularly in NA) and that the economical ( main the economical), social and psychological burden it places on society is too great. Now creating a standard that is fair and measurable is difficult, particularly for a problem with multiple dimensions such as this one.

[Zaptruder]

I'll leave this here Global obesity: Fat Americans 30 percent of world's human biomass

How is that even possible?

That would roughly mean that Americans are 6 times heavier than the global average.

I know that they're bigger in America, but that would mean that they're a different species entirely.

[Gotchaye]

But the premise itself brings it down to an individual level. You punish the individual. Why should costly behavior only cost someone more if a lot of other people do it as well? That hardly seems fair.

But we have to make compromises like this all the time. We can't have regulations and laws for every little thing, and for many things we can only actually talk about the cost being chosen by an individual in a statistical, expected value sense. A sky diver who happens to become badly hurt and who needs very expensive care probably hasn't done anything much different than what almost every other sky diver did; s/he just got unlucky, and nothing that anyone's said in the thread has suggested that people should be penalized for bad luck.

Edit: Policing small things that only a few people are doing tends to be expensive; there are economies of scale here. We should strive for fairness except when doing so brings everyone down, and makes the worst-off worse-off - just a corollary of Rawls' difference principle, I guess.

[Htown]

Condoning it or accepting it as a norm ain't so hot either.

How bout it's not your place to condone or condemn?

Why not just shut the fuck up?

[ZombieTimeMachine]

Condoning it or accepting it as a norm ain't so hot either.

You don't need to condone it to not be an ass about it.

[slit]

How bout it's not your place to condone or condemn? Why not just shut the fuck up?

I agree, but a lot of people have a hard time with this.


......another human vice.

[spiderman123]

How is that even possible? That would roughly mean that Americans are 6 times heavier than the global average. I know that they're bigger in America, but that would mean that they're a different species entirely.

Tell me about it, I saw the article then this video and was like really. REALLY!!

But we have to make compromises like this all the time. We can't have regulations and laws for every little thing, and for many things we can only actually talk about the cost being chosen by an individual in a statistical, expected value sense. A sky diver who happens to become badly hurt and who needs very expensive care probably hasn't done anything much different than what almost every other sky diver did; s/he just got unlucky, and nothing that anyone's said in the thread has suggested that people should be penalized for bad luck. Edit: Policing small things that only a few people are doing tends to be expensive; there are economies of scale here. We should strive for fairness except when doing so brings everyone down, and makes the worst-off worse-off - just a corollary of Rawls' difference principle, I guess

Took Law and Economics too huh :P

[KHarvey16]

But we have to make compromises like this all the time. We can't have regulations and laws for every little thing, and for many things we can only actually talk about the cost being chosen by an individual in a statistical, expected value sense. A sky diver who happens to become badly hurt and who needs very expensive care probably hasn't done anything much different than what almost every other sky diver did; s/he just got unlucky, and nothing that anyone's said in the thread has suggested that people should be penalized for bad luck.

It certainly tips the scales in favor of a person being hurt and costing us money. If we compare two individuals identical in every single way but one of them skydives, the probabilities are rather clear. In the same way being fat may not actually lead to that person costing anyone any amount of money over what they would have anyway. Fat people die from lung cancer or get hit by buses too.

[Alucrid]

I took a psychology class, and I think I understand where the fat hostility is coming from!

why are you yelling at us?

[Gotchaye]

It certainly tips the scales in favor of a person being hurt and costing us money. If we compare two individuals identical in every single way but one of them skydives, the probabilities are rather clear. In the same way being fat may not actually lead to that person costing anyone any amount of money over what they would have anyway. Fat people die from lung cancer or get hit by buses too.

I don't think I understand where you're going with that. I was making two points. First, when the total cost to society is small, it's often not going to make financial sense to police the activity, just because the policing itself costs something. Second, if we're going to be penalizing people for "bad" choices, we should prefer to penalize them for the expected value of their choices rather than the actual outcome of their choices (sometimes we have to make exceptions to this, but these are rare - murder, for example). Which were you objecting to?

Edit: Oh, I see what the issue was. I wasn't saying that our only being able to talk about costs in an expected value sense meant that we couldn't penalize people, but that when the number of people acting is very small, it can be extremely hard to judge the expected value of their actions. If just one guy is doing something, it's pretty much impossible to put a solid number to how much we expect him to cost us. That makes the setting of a penalty a very tricky thing. As we attach more and more qualifiers to the kinds of decisions people are making, every situation becomes unique and it becomes very difficult to fairly assign an expected cost.

[Devolution]

How bout it's not your place to condone or condemn? Why not just shut the fuck up?

This pretty much sums up how I feel. One doesn't need to go either way about it, and people definitely don't have to be assholes when it comes to someone's size. There are so many unfair assumptions about fat people.

[Xzeon]

Gaffers had no problem calling me a skinny stick when I mentioned my height and weight once. Double standards, guys. Yes, it actually did make me feel bad. Especially since one comment was, "A guy could snap you in two if he tried hard enough." Anyway, good for this girl. People shouldn't be judged and categorized over something as superficial as their weight. It's as a much a bullet point as their race and skin color. There's so much more to a person than that. It's very rude to say to a complete stranger, "Wow, you're ________. You should do something about that."

No one noticed this.

Being super skinny aint good for people either, but hey their skinny, skinny = good, fat = bad. So people think no matter what we say to skinny people its fine cuz their skinny and feel superior 24/7 no matter what.

[Htown]

It certainly tips the scales in favor of a person being hurt and costing us money.

[Kai Dracon]

We seem to be getting more and more 'fat topics' on GAF, and they usually have a fair number of people coming in to gripe about how all those fat people is takin' away mai health care dollar or just suck because fat people are all evil lazy criminals or something.

So where is the regular weekly topic about "hey guys this dude on Youtube SMOKES! In face, he CHAIN SMOKES! I am offended because he is making me pay for his excess health care!"

Or the weekly topic about how much anyone who drinks a lot of beer is an inferior human being, using up our health care, or whatever else is the latest thing?

[Devolution]

No one noticed this. Being super skinny aint good for people either, but hey their skinny, skinny = good, fat = bad. So people think no matter what we say to skinny people its fine cuz their skinny and feel superior 24/7 no matter what.

I think we'd be better off if people wouldn't go out of their way to make other people feel like shit about their physical appearances.

[KHarvey16]

I don't think I understand where you're going with that. I was making two points. First, when the total cost to society is small, it's often not going to make financial sense to police the activity, just because the policing itself costs something. Second, if we're going to be penalizing people for "bad" choices, we should prefer to penalize them for the expected value of their choices rather than the actual outcome of their choices (sometimes we have to make exceptions to this, but these are rare - murder, for example). Which were you objecting to?

Well firstly, if we implement a system by which we levy penalties for behavior, be it obesity or anything else, the system to do so is the expensive part. Adding more qualifying activities doesn't mean we re-invent the system, it just means we add a new thing to the list and require people who do these things pay more. It may even be accomplished using systems already in place. It could be as simple as having a retailer or a business charge more tax. Skydiving subject to 20% tax. More tax on unhealthy foods. Large taxes on motorcycle licenses and registrations. Standard questionnaires administered by private health insurance companies.

Of course you need to charge based on expected values for cost. Statistically you expect someone who sky dives or rides a motorcycle will cost more. Likewise for someone who has a dangerous job or enjoys other things that are more dangerous than staying home in bed. What metric does obesity clear? Should that be the standard? For instance, if being clinically obese makes you 50% more likely to consume an additional $8000 worth of healthcare over a lifetime(compared to some neutral control), is this the standard by which we judge all activities? Anything above is penalized, anything below is not? If not, what standard do we use? Or do we just pick individual activities that look good? Do we take into account overall prevalence, in which case punishment is not merely dependent on personal conduct?

[Huff]

How is that even possible? That would roughly mean that Americans are 6 times heavier than the global average. I know that they're bigger in America, but that would mean that they're a different species entirely.

Over 70% of the US is overweight or obese.

It's easily the biggest problem that the states and other developed countries have

[h_a_t]

She should be ashamed of herself of adopting those shitty quick cuts. It's not clever!

Fuck Yes!
I haven't been keeping a tally so I'm not going to throw out some percentage, but it seems like the vast majority of these types of youtube videos have those quick cuts and it annoys the hell out of me.

[SalsaShark]

I laughed at the end.

Whatever, I dont know in wich camp I am

to a point I think good for her, to another point I think why bother making this video if you clearly dont have an issue with it, just ignore it. At another point she's a "youtube" chick with a shtick and music and all that and I couldnt care less about that shit and find it annoying.

So whatevs, in the end I dont see the point of this. "Hey yeah im fat! hahah im fat! It doesnt bother me! haters!" .. ok

[Gotchaye]

Well firstly, if we implement a system by which we levy penalties for behavior, be it obesity or anything else, the system to do so is the expensive part. Adding more qualifying activities doesn't mean we re-invent the system, it just means we add a new thing to the list and require people who do these things pay more. It may even be accomplished using systems already in place. It could be as simple as having a retailer or a business charge more tax. Skydiving subject to 20% tax. More tax on unhealthy foods. Large taxes on motorcycle licenses and registrations. Standard questionnaires administered by private health insurance companies.

Enforcement is also a cost. But there are more than just financial costs to consider here. People are better off when they're not constantly having to worry that they'll do something that will get them in trouble. That said, I don't have an in-principle problem with something like a tax on certain activities, since these are easily built into the price of items and don't produce a separate occasion on which people have an opportunity to lose. Although again there are bound to be enforcement issues (What actually counts as a "sky diving" expense subject to the tax?), and you've also made it look easy by picking numbers at random - actually, you'd want to do a study to figure out how much of a tax to place on sky diving, and probably that's just not a good use of time or money. In reality, this stuff would also have to go through the political process, and this imposes actual costs on society and informs what we should be being activists about. It just doesn't seem worth getting really worked up about things that are pretty small problems, and I don't see that valuing fairness commits us to treating them the same as larger problems.

Of course you need to charge based on expected values for cost. Statistically you expect someone who sky dives or rides a motorcycle will cost more. Likewise for someone who has a dangerous job or enjoys other things that are more dangerous than staying home in bed. What metric does obesity clear? Should that be the standard? For instance, if being clinically obese makes you 50% more likely to consume an additional $8000 worth of healthcare over a lifetime(compared to some neutral control), is this the standard by which we judge all activities? Anything above is penalized, anything below is not? If not, what standard do we use? Or do we just pick individual activities that look good? Do we take into account overall prevalence, in which case punishment is not merely dependent on personal conduct?

To be clear, as stated in my first post I don't think obesity should be penalized, because it's got more in common with an unchosen medical condition than with something like sky diving. But of course I don't have a hard and fast rule about exactly how big of a deal something has to be before we should look for policy solutions, including disincentivizing choices that we don't want people making or that we want them to pay the cost of. I strongly support requiring that people get health insurance or pay a penalty. I'm iffy on a soda tax, or HFC tax more generally. I'd be very against a special abortion tax. Obviously a lot of the work here is being done by non-financial concerns about just how problematic I think these things are, and how much of a general right people have to make their own, un-coerced choices in different areas. Again, there are values other than fairness here, and we can't be so concerned with being fair that we let huge problems go unsolved because that might not be fair to the much smaller number of people affected by various small problems, or because we're giving an unfair advantage to the people who are producing the small problems. Similarly, we ought to prosecute every murderer we can catch, even though we won't catch some murderers - yes, that isn't fair to the ones we do catch, but there are other values that count. The choice here is not between solving the huge problem and solving all problems; it's between solving the huge problem and not solving anything. And wow this has gotten off-topic.

[Zaptruder]

Over 70% of the US is overweight or obese. It's easily the biggest problem that the states and other developed countries have

Yes, but it's like saying that the average american weighs something like 300 lbs while the average human weighs 50 lbs.

Which is clearly not reasonable even with extremely skewed obesity stats.

[computers putin']

How bout it's not your place to condone or condemn? Why not just shut the fuck up?

I like this post, oh yeah, and what Opiate said was pretty on point too.

[MidgarBlowedUp]

quoted from Tom Naughton of Fat Head Movie

Being fat is not, in and of itself, bad for your health. The behaviors that can make you fat – eating excess sugar and starch, not getting any exercise – can also ruin your health, and that’s why being fat is associated with bad health. But it’s entirely possible to be fat and healthy. It’s also possible to be thin while developing Type II diabetes and heart disease.

We could start with educating people but, obviously our country doesn't want any of that.
*See the lie that is the USDA Food Pyramid Chart.
*See the carbohydrates and refined sugars, not the fats and lack of exercise, is the problem.

It's as if some people believe if you're thin you don't have any health issues. Things like race, age, heredity, profession, and many other factors can have more of an impact on your health than being overweight? My cousin died of cancer at the age of 16, it had nothing to do with his weight and everything to do with the cancer.

Just because someone doesn't look like "your people" doesn't mean they aren't human beings with just as much reason to be here on this earth as you.

[Huff]

Yes, but it's like saying that the average american weighs something like 300 lbs while the average human weighs 50 lbs. Which is clearly not reasonable even with extremely skewed obesity stats.

I think the actual stat (which would make tons more sense) is that Americans (~ 5% of the world's population) account for 30% of the total obese population

[Tashbrooke]

Being fat is pretty unhygenic i would say, and im not exactly skinny..

[computers putin']

Being fat is pretty unhygenic i would say, and im not exactly skinny..

Are you saying fat people don't wash or something?

[TheWesker]

Being fat is pretty unhygenic i would say, and im not exactly skinny..

I don't think you quite understand what hygienic means. Being skinny doesn't mean you take care of yourself.

[KHarvey16]

Enforcement is also a cost. But there are more than just financial costs to consider here. People are better off when they're not constantly having to worry that they'll do something that will get them in trouble. That said, I don't have an in-principle problem with something like a tax on certain activities, since these are easily built into the price of items and don't produce a separate occasion on which people have an opportunity to lose. Although again there are bound to be enforcement issues (What actually counts as a "sky diving" expense subject to the tax?), and you've also made it look easy by picking numbers at random - actually, you'd want to do a study to figure out how much of a tax to place on sky diving, and probably that's just not a good use of time or money. In reality, this stuff would also have to go through the political process, and this imposes actual costs on society and informs what we should be being activists about. It just doesn't seem worth getting really worked up about things that are pretty small problems, and I don't see that valuing fairness commits us to treating them the same as larger problems. To be clear, as stated in my first post I don't think obesity should be penalized, because it's got more in common with an unchosen medical condition than with something like sky diving. But of course I don't have a hard and fast rule about exactly how big of a deal something has to be before we should look for policy solutions, including disincentivizing choices that we don't want people making or that we want them to pay the cost of. I strongly support requiring that people get health insurance or pay a penalty. I'm iffy on a soda tax, or HFC tax more generally. I'd be very against a special abortion tax. Obviously a lot of the work here is being done by non-financial concerns about just how problematic I think these things are, and how much of a general right people have to make their own, un-coerced choices in different areas. Again, there are values other than fairness here, and we can't be so concerned with being fair that we let huge problems go unsolved because that might not be fair to the much smaller number of people affected by various small problems. The choice here is not between solving the huge problem and solving all problems; it's between solving the huge problem and not solving anything. And wow this has gotten off-topic.

But this is really my objection to the idea. Its implementation would be wholly inequitable in practice. I understand that in your opinion obesity shouldn't be treated this way but that is the proposal that started this whole thing. If the practical limitations of a policy of implementing penalties for costly behavior are what lead a person to conclude selective enforcement is acceptable, they should still communicate that they would be for such a policy otherwise.

Of course all of this assumes any system of penalty enforcement would represent cost savings.

[Xzeon]

I think we'd be better off if people wouldn't go out of their way to make other people feel like shit about their physical appearances.

sounds hard.

lets watch tv instead.

[PantyPhantom]

I don't have anything against fat people. If they want to be fat and put all that shit to their bodies be my guest but don't come to me when you get diabetes or some other disease.

Would I date a fat girl? No. Chubby is okay to a certain point but fatty just isn't attractive.

That girl would be hot* if she'd lose some weight. Does she have to? No but that's just my opinion.

*her face is somewhat pretty.

[Trent Strong]

How bout it's not your place to condone or condemn? Why not just shut the fuck up?

Nah. I'm gonna go ahead and condemn unhealthy practices that cause disease, lower people's quality of life, cause premature death, cost the US billions of dollars a year, etc., etc. I'm pretty comfortable condeming things that cause that kind of suffering.

[Tashbrooke]

Are you saying fat people don't wash or something?

I don't think you quite understand what hygienic means. Being skinny doesn't mean you take care of yourself.

Well no, but i means its alot easier to get dirty and harder to take care of yourself, especially if you BIG big, once you reach the point where you need a scrubber to get through the rolls of flab, i didnt mean it like that guys, but i mean if you're fat, you're more likely to sweat more and therefore more likely to have body odor and stuff, also if you got a fat ass the heat generated down there cant be good

[Zaptruder]

I think the actual stat (which would make tons more sense) is that Americans (~ 5% of the world's population) account for 30% of the total obese population

Yeah that makes more sense... but from what I know... the problem is prevalent in english speaking western countries in general...

[EYEL1NER]

How bout it's not your place to condone or condemn? Why not just shut the fuck up?

All people who can't shut the fuck up eventually catch a mean ass-whooping (for not being able to keep their mouths shut), so I think they should pay more for healthcare.

I don't want my money going to pay for some asshole's hospital stays.

[Gotchaye]

But this is really my objection to the idea. Its implementation would be wholly inequitable in practice. I understand that in your opinion obesity shouldn't be treated this way but that is the proposal that started this whole thing. If the practical limitations of a policy of implementing penalties for costly behavior are what lead a person to conclude selective enforcement is acceptable, they should still communicate that they would be for such a policy otherwise. Of course all of this assumes any system of penalty enforcement would represent cost savings.

Briefly, I feel like what this misses is that having no penalties also isn't fair. Some people sky dive, some people rock climb, and some people don't have a dangerous hobby. If the third group is subsidizing the other two, that's not fair. If we penalize only sky divers, there's some inequity in that we're not also penalizing rock climbers. But at the same time we've made things more fair for the people who do neither. It's not clear to me that selectively going after the problems perceived to be biggest creates more unfairness than fairness, provided they're at least medium-sized problems (for practical reasons). We don't expect that everyone is going to be engaging in roughly equally risky activity, and in general penalizing some risk-takers will make things more rather than less fair when we look at society as a whole and not just at two different groups of risk-takers. To go back to the crime example - doesn't your position commit us to not punishing any criminals unless we're sure we've caught all criminals?

[Angry Grimace]

Some people are fat; deal with it.

[Mumei]

Nah. I'm gonna go ahead and condemn unhealthy practices that cause disease, lower people's quality of life, cause premature death, cost the US billions of dollars a year, etc., etc. I'm pretty comfortable condeming things that cause that kind of suffering.

This is not about you specifically, since I have not observed how you go about this, but speaking generally it would be nice if people could make those points without coming across as hateful and mean-spirited towards people who are overweight. It's sad when someone finds it objectionable that a fat person might "learn to love who [they] are".

[Terra Firma]

There are different kinds of fat people. Some don't eat THAT much but are couch potatoes. Others pig out.

On the other hand, there are people with high metabolisms that eat but remain skinny. So, everyone's metabolism is different.

What really matters is if someone is making an effort to combat their bad habit, even if they're not being successful. So, not all fat people deserve the hate, but there are some that do. Just how there are some smokers who want to quit, whereas some are walking cancer bombs and don't give a damn.

[TheWesker]

There are different kinds of fat people. Some don't eat THAT much but are couch potatoes. Others pig out. On the other hand, there are people with high metabolisms that eat but remain skinny. So, everyone's metabolism is different. What really matters is if someone is making an effort to combat their bad habit, even if they're not being successful. So, not all fat people deserve the hate, but there are some that do. Just how there are some smokers who want to quit, whereas some are walking cancer bombs and don't give a damn.

So just being fat is a crime?

[KHarvey16]

Briefly, I feel like what this misses is that having no penalties also isn't fair. Some people sky dive, some people rock climb, and some people don't have a dangerous hobby. If the third group is subsidizing the other two, that's not fair. If we penalize only sky divers, there's some inequity in that we're not also penalizing rock climbers. But at the same time we've made things more fair for the people who do neither. It's not clear to me that selectively going after the problems perceived to be biggest creates more unfairness than fairness, provided they're at least medium-sized problems (for practical reasons). We don't expect that everyone is going to be engaging in roughly equally risky activity, and in general penalizing some risk-takers will make things more rather than less fair when we look at society as a whole and not just at two different groups of risk-takers. To go back to the crime example - doesn't your position commit us to not punishing any criminals unless we're sure we've caught all criminals?

Certainly not. I would say that a justice system is useless if we don't at least attempt to prosecute all criminals. Your position seems to be that since some criminal activity is hard and expensive to police we should let those slide. I don't think the analogy applies in any more than a limited way.