Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Are the Obese immoral?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
For the purpose of this topic obese will not include anyone who is obese due to athletic pursuits or a disease of some kind (thyroid, etc.) Only those obese who are that way simply because they ear more than necessary.

The basic argument is that it is not right to eat more than necessary to sustain a healthy life, while knowing that other people have no food to eat at all.

A normal adult consumes 2427 calories per day, 533 or 18% less than the 2960 calories an obese consumes.

A baby requires 1000 calories per day so every two days each obese is personally responsible for the death of a third world baby, over a period of 40 years that's 7300 infants' lives.

Where I live, we have universal health care, anyone living in Canada who is obese is immoral, due to the strain they put on the health care system and the money they cost others.

Obesity is also immoral if you believ ein the seven deadly sins. (gluttony)

Do you think the obese are immoral?

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This'll go well :D


    *makes popcorn*

    *puts up deckchair*
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    This'll go well :D


    *makes popcorn*

    *puts up deckchair*
    Joins in!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No. The reasons there are children starving in the third world have nothing to do with obsese people; poor political leaders, corruption, lack of natural resources/appropriate environments for growing crops, unequal distribution of international (and national wealth) are just some of the much more signficant causes.

    And yes, you could say obese people put a strain on the health system, but no more so than smokers, athletes, people doing dangerous jobs, people who drink alcohol/take drugs to excess, etc. etc.

    What a bizarre argument!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought the Canadian medical system was supported through a government backed medicare system with nearly a third of medical spending through private medical treatments (especially once the full cost of medications and services such as dentistry are factored in). In effect it's a tax funded health care system balanced out by the cash element of the Canadian Health Transfer.

    Given the system is based on tax and taxable income plays a significant part in the resources provided through the system there are far too many variables that could affect an individuals contribution to the health service. You may not understand how other systems of health-care work, but in most universal health care systems an equal amount is taken from each individual, with the amount of tax they pay not taken into account. So in the system you mention there is a huge variance in people's contribution before any health issues are considered.

    Even if you ignore that there would surely then be a vast list of what could make a person 'immoral' in the eyes of greedy politicians desperate to cut health spending. I suppose being old, being into sports, being a drug user, being unemployed, being disabled, having more children than the average family, people whose faith excludes certain medical care, people who refuse to be donors, people who won't give blood, being a smoker, being a drinker, having unprotected sex, spending too much time in the sun, eating a high-fat diet (without being obese), driving cars too fast, being a logger, or anything else that a person chooses to do that increases the possible need for future medical attention would then have to be considered.

    To be honest it sounds more like you're arguing against universal health care, after all once you decide to start excluding certain people then that isn't what you have anymore. Of course that may be want you'd like, which is a view people hold, but then you don't get to complain when that broken ankle in a hockey game never heals right because you couldn't afford proper treatment.

    However the argument about obese people being responsible for the death of people in the third world is extremely childish and unpleasant. It undermines any chance people would have to conduct a debate about the distribution of treatment in a universal health system and hardly makes you look like someone interested in a real conversation. So if people could ignore that, that would be great, otherwise this thread will be closed.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do I think obese people are immoral?

    No. Next thread, please.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    However the argument about obese people being responsible for the death of people in the third world is extremely childish and unpleasant.
    And untrue. Obese people never throw good food away like the rest of us. Who are the real criminals? :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who are the real criminals? :p

    Murderers. And shop lifters. And arsonists. And Phil Collins.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    th3pr3tz3l wrote: »
    A baby requires 1000 calories per day so every two days each obese is personally responsible for the death of a third world baby, over a period of 40 years that's 7300 infants' lives.

    I know this sounds harsh and a bit heartless, but doesnt disease usually kill them first?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    I know this sounds harsh and a bit heartless, but doesnt disease usually kill them first?

    Yeah, heart disease normally picks off the fatties before they can do too much damage.



    Even for me, that's amazingly tasteless. For the record, I'm only being flippant because this is a ridiculous thread.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know this sounds harsh and a bit heartless, but doesnt disease usually kill them first?

    Well you know, poverty, childhood diseases AND THE MAN IN EAST LONDON WHO ORDERED TOO MANY CHICKEN PIECES FROM KFC

    Btw, where are you getting your stats from? Sounds like something that would feature in Bad Science.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I did mean the disease as in the malnourished babies.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it would depend on what the obese person ate. An obese person who ate a lot of meat would use up more natural resources than somebody who was vegetarian and the vegetarian would potentially use up more than the vegan (if they both lived in a city, it may be a different case in rural areas ect).

    There are so many factors to take in to account... It isn't just simply calories.

    During the 1980s famine, corn from Ethiopia was being traded with Europe for livestock (I think the source is Eating by Mason & Singer). Famine is a political issue, not an issue of resources. If we want to beat famine, we need to start looking at the conditions in which it thrives as well as attacking trade laws or some actions from bodies such as the IMF which often cause the most vulnerable people to fall in to the worse poverty.

    I think the only thing obese people are responsible for is the health of themselves and if they have kids, it is an even greater responsibility.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I think the only thing obese people are responsible for is the health of themselves and if they have kids, it is an even greater responsibility.

    That sounds plausible. In which case obese people are immoral.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :lol:

    Yes they are, how could they sit around muching all day long and not notice they've ate every other cunts food.

    On the other hand maybe they're unintentionally fattening themselves up for 2013, when Planet X comes so we can all much them
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Famine in the Developing World is very largely to do with;
    - Dodgy borders put into place by us in the West
    - Deeply unfair trade laws put into place by us in the West
    - A whole collection of nasty leaders put into place by us in the West
    - Political problems of their own making
    Oh and climate change isnt helping either.

    It isnt because fat people eat more.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lulz @ OP.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ive eaten lots and lots and lots today. more than required. i was hungry!

    does that meanz im a horrible person and have committed one of the seven sins?

    ps - im not obese :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The OP made me chuckle; I think they understand the problem of world hunger to be a conveyor belt with Greggs at the start, a fatty in the middle, and Ethiopia at the end. Clearly fatty needs moving to the end of the line for a few weeks and 'hey presto!', problem solved!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's immoral considering all the hunger in the world...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    mrsmith wrote: »
    It's immoral considering all the hunger in the world...
    How did you work that one out? eating less isn't going to make a plate of food pop up in a third world country.
Sign In or Register to comment.