4 ms·

Well you don't have to be "a dick" to shame somebody. Just tell them the truth and help them realize the toll they take on society and themselves when they choo

by DiffEq 7y ago

Well you don't have to be "a dick" to shame somebody. Just tell them the truth and help them realize the toll they take on society and themselves when they choose certain actions over others. When they come to realize and understand the truth they will feel the shame they ought to feel...and thus pay a small part of the cost to others that they have incurred. Do you believe that a smoker that has thrown a cigarette out the window and burned down a home should not have to feel shame because of their actions? If you do then the obese ought to as well. Their obesity exacts great cost to the medical system that we all have to bear, it takes from their productivity that they could offer to others (society and their own family) and benefit from themselves in a multitude of ways. Their actions are the same as the careless cigarette smoker...selfish. And selfish actions are shameful and that shame should be felt. We should not try to be so "noble" as to protect them from it. When we do the selfishness tends to proliferate.

kup0 7y ago
It is likely that many people overweight are already ashamed and it helps absolutely nothing to attempt to further pile onto that negativity. Sorry, but no amount of "truth telling" in this way will come off as anything but being an arse. I'm sure you have your own selfish actions and your own ways of "taking a toll on society". This post reeks of a special kind of arrogance, whether you intend it or not. Your flawed analogy makes it worse. Why not just equate it with smoking itself- instead of something like a house burning down? It's far more complicated than "person does selfish thing and hurts society because of it". Your post speaks like someone that has never had to lose weight or break out of an addiction. I don't say any of this to attack you but just how ridiculous and supremely unhelpful this line of thinking is. It's like telling someone to just snap out of depression, or "just stop smoking", or whatever. It's not as simple and devoid of nuance as you'd like to believe. And trust me, as someone that has gained and lost weight both, the last thing that matters to me is something external and abstract like my effect-in-the-aggregate on society. I'm far more interested in feeling healthier, sleeping better, and gaining the personal benefits from it. The same goes for most people, I would think, and no amount of philosophizing about society will change that.
sneak 7y ago
Fat people already know they’re fat. “Telling them the truth” isn’t useful, to you or to us. Being fat isn’t selfish, it’s just self-destructive. Same as smoking (in private, where no other party is exposed to any smoke). Your “and burns a house down” example is an attempt to conflate the two.
speedplane 7y ago
> Their obesity exacts great cost to the medical system that we all have to bear, it takes from their productivity that they could offer to others (society and their own family) and benefit from themselves in a multitude of ways. This complaint runs into a more fundamental dispute: freedom versus collectivism. In a purely libertarian world, everyone would be absolutely free to do whatever they want. In a completely socialist world, one is only free to do what they want insofar as it has no negative effect on others, or if it does, they should compensate others for the harm they cause. There are problems with both extremes. Absolute freedom can lead to anarchy which will effectively prevent people from coordinating and building anything collectively. But forcing individuals to adhere to a strict cost/benefit analysis for every action stymies creativity and personal freedoms. When considering a ban on a particular individual behavior (e.g., eating too much), it's perfectly reasonable to talk about the larger social harms (e.g., increased medical costs). But it's also important to consider the freedoms that are being taken away by such a policy (e.g., the freedom to eat what you want). Western society has never solely been focused on maximizing overall social well-being, it has also balanced ideals of individual freedom with it. China, in contrast, has focused almost entirely on collective well-being over individual freedom. Many people (myself included), would prefer to live in a less successful but free country rather than a more successful authoritarian one.
- sneak 7y ago
  > When considering a ban on a particular individual behavior (e.g., eating too much), it's perfectly reasonable to talk about the larger social harms (e.g., increased medical costs). But it's also important to consider the freedoms that are being taken away by such a policy (e.g., the freedom to eat what you want). You get both individual freedom and remove the harm to others from obesity if you stop forcing service providers to work for free. The only reason that people who choose to become obese are a drain on others is because there is currently a mechanism for them to force others to absorb the cost of their resulting health care. Make it so that people have to pay for healthcare for themselves either out of pocket or via insurance instead of forcing hospitals to serve all comers (like any other service that is provided to people), and suddenly you get the best of both worlds: everyone gets to eat what they want, smoke what they want, inject what they want, and nobody else is forced to pay for the poor decisions of anyone else. Everybody wins.

by DiffEq 7y ago

kup0 7y ago

It is likely that many people overweight are already ashamed and it helps absolutely nothing to attempt to further pile onto that negativity. Sorry, but no amount of "truth telling" in this way will come off as anything but being an arse. I'm sure you have your own selfish actions and your own ways of "taking a toll on society". This post reeks of a special kind of arrogance, whether you intend it or not. Your flawed analogy makes it worse. Why not just equate it with smoking itself- instead of something like a house burning down? It's far more complicated than "person does selfish thing and hurts society because of it". Your post speaks like someone that has never had to lose weight or break out of an addiction. I don't say any of this to attack you but just how ridiculous and supremely unhelpful this line of thinking is. It's like telling someone to just snap out of depression, or "just stop smoking", or whatever. It's not as simple and devoid of nuance as you'd like to believe. And trust me, as someone that has gained and lost weight both, the last thing that matters to me is something external and abstract like my effect-in-the-aggregate on society. I'm far more interested in feeling healthier, sleeping better, and gaining the personal benefits from it. The same goes for most people, I would think, and no amount of philosophizing about society will change that.

sneak 7y ago

Fat people already know they’re fat. “Telling them the truth” isn’t useful, to you or to us. Being fat isn’t selfish, it’s just self-destructive. Same as smoking (in private, where no other party is exposed to any smoke). Your “and burns a house down” example is an attempt to conflate the two.

speedplane 7y ago

> Their obesity exacts great cost to the medical system that we all have to bear, it takes from their productivity that they could offer to others (society and their own family) and benefit from themselves in a multitude of ways. This complaint runs into a more fundamental dispute: freedom versus collectivism. In a purely libertarian world, everyone would be absolutely free to do whatever they want. In a completely socialist world, one is only free to do what they want insofar as it has no negative effect on others, or if it does, they should compensate others for the harm they cause. There are problems with both extremes. Absolute freedom can lead to anarchy which will effectively prevent people from coordinating and building anything collectively. But forcing individuals to adhere to a strict cost/benefit analysis for every action stymies creativity and personal freedoms. When considering a ban on a particular individual behavior (e.g., eating too much), it's perfectly reasonable to talk about the larger social harms (e.g., increased medical costs). But it's also important to consider the freedoms that are being taken away by such a policy (e.g., the freedom to eat what you want). Western society has never solely been focused on maximizing overall social well-being, it has also balanced ideals of individual freedom with it. China, in contrast, has focused almost entirely on collective well-being over individual freedom. Many people (myself included), would prefer to live in a less successful but free country rather than a more successful authoritarian one.

sneak 7y ago
> When considering a ban on a particular individual behavior (e.g., eating too much), it's perfectly reasonable to talk about the larger social harms (e.g., increased medical costs). But it's also important to consider the freedoms that are being taken away by such a policy (e.g., the freedom to eat what you want). You get both individual freedom and remove the harm to others from obesity if you stop forcing service providers to work for free. The only reason that people who choose to become obese are a drain on others is because there is currently a mechanism for them to force others to absorb the cost of their resulting health care. Make it so that people have to pay for healthcare for themselves either out of pocket or via insurance instead of forcing hospitals to serve all comers (like any other service that is provided to people), and suddenly you get the best of both worlds: everyone gets to eat what they want, smoke what they want, inject what they want, and nobody else is forced to pay for the poor decisions of anyone else. Everybody wins.