Pursuit of happiness is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, not the Bill of Rights; nowhere in the United States or Japan is your so-called right to the pursuit of said happiness protected.

Yes, but obesity could be explained as a food addiction and as such your judgment would be impaired. Or would you not pump the stomach of someone addicted to painkillers?
She's not technically breaking indecency laws, but I'm pretty sure there can be a consensus that what's seen in that picture is indecent.
Except that you're not operating under a US framework. Government healthcare is a reality in Japan, and as such it's tax dollars being spent more efficiently. Asking someone to lose weight is simply a part of having that system. You may disagree with the system, but that's what they have and they show now signs of abandoning it.

Ooooh, pictures!

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/8394/gattacaye0.jpg

Don't know much about the Japanese Constitution but the United States Constitution has the 9th Amendment, that says:

If the Founders had intended that the Constitution only protect the rights that were explicitly mentioned therein, including the Bill of Rights, they would not have passed and ratified the 9th Amendment.

Oh my God! It's a fat woman! Kill it!

Do you believe that the government should be able to prevent you from ingesting a substance that can impair your judgment and have negative effects on your health, as well as causing risk to society at-large?

Hope you don't drink.

But if you don't see the governments role in protecting adults from themselves then there should be no protections against suicide, and laws preventing adults from abusing drugs should be removed to since those are choices that an adult makes themselves.
I think that regulating the body weight only goes halfway and that if you really wanted to make a change you would need laws against cheap fast food that is high in fats.

There shouldn't.

See, you're catching on :p

That's not necessarily true, because you can get fat off cheeseburgers, but also off broccoli.

And fattening foods in moderation are not a threat, anymore then alcohol in moderation.

These aren't necessarily linked to waist size. I could find someone with a 28" waist with lifestyle-related risks of heart disease and diabetes.

You can drink, but don't get drunk in public.
You can eat bacon or fried mayonnaise balls, but don't get too fat.

Where's the difference?

There are plenty of causes for heart disease and diabetes. Obesity is a biggy. No pun intended. Obesity is the simplest way to determine if someone is more likely than average to be the victim of heart disease and diabetes.

You can't become fat off of broccoli--it has only trace amounts of fat and the amount of calories per serving is incredibly low. You literally could not consume enough broccoli to equal the caloric intake of eating a Triple Whopper. A Triple Whopper is 1250 calories and 84 grams of fat, while broccoli has 30 calories per 3.5oz--meaning you would have to eat 9.18445781 pounds of broccoli to equal a Triple Whopper in caloric intake. That many pounds of broccoli still only has 15.42 grams of fat, considerably less than a Triple Whopper.

Let's say we choose a smaller cheeseburger--the McDonalds cheeseburger. A McDonalds cheeseburger has 300 calories and 19 grams of fat. You would have to eat 2.19 pounds of broccoli to equal that cheeseburger, and it would have 12.95 grams of fat.

It's not at all a valid assumption--it's considerably easier to eat a McDonalds cheeseburger over 2.19 pounds of broccoli. No one's going to do it, so trying to suggest that someone could get fat off of broccoli is a really awful argument.

Snowy takes the high road. I would have challenged him to get fat off broccoli so he could experience it.

Obesity may not be an addiction to food, it can be caused by many factors, and it's probably not as simple as an addiction to food, and the reasons/specifics probably vary from person to person.

Unless that person who is addicted to pain killers has is in the ER with an overdose pumping his stomach is probably going to do him more harm than good, so I don't really see any point in doing so.

Except that the very same woman at the very same weight would not be indecent if she wore a different outfit. One more apropriate for a woman of her weight. The attire that she has chosen to wear is what makes her photo indecent. It would be like Roseanne if she decided to walk down the beach in a g-string thong.

Being overweight isn't what's indecent. But if you're a 200lb woman and you're trying to wear something that's apropriate for a 120lb woman that's what's inapropriate, the same thing is true for men, just add about 50-75lbs to those numbers.

I'm aware of that, though I do tend to think in US terms. I could support education about obesity, but this program is enforcement which also costs money, and I cannot support this, even in a govt heathcare system.

I'm all about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If being fat makes me happy, then damnit, I'm bulking up.

The underlined are basically my positions on those issues.

Such a legislation is really vanity driven. The sight of a fat person is just so offensively abhorrent that it must be legislated off the face of the planet!

If they were about healthy lifestyles, they'd ban smoking. There's tons of more smokers than there are fat folks in Japan.

But smokers aren't ugly like fat people are, so we must eliminate the fat folks.

I already know this. We should include smokers, drinkers, breeders, the malnourished, the sedentary, amongst others, into such legislation.

You forgot the homeless. Those bastards are always getting sick.

I could find a psychologist in 20 minutes to diagnose someone with a food addiction. How? MOST Americans are addicted to food. As a matter of fact, obesity is one of the main symptoms. And most overweight people have some form of depression, be it clinical or not. Combine those two and you've got a solid case.
That was the picture I was painting, as it relates to spending public money for an individual's physical problem with a substance that's not illegal.
http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Sc...re_hydrant.jpg
Tell that to the hydrant. How many airplane tickets do you suppose he'd have to buy before he could honestly say that he wasn't invading someone else's personal space. 3? There is an issue of how one presents one's self in public and how decent that is.
Actually, the enforcement MAKES money. Remember?

I admit, I'm addicted to food. It's a horrible addiction, like heroin. Whenever I go through food withdrawals, I feel like I'm dying.

Funny, but food addiction is a serious problem for a lot of people. I myself am still recovering and it's been years.

I find food addiction a little hard to swallow, considering all members of the animal kingdom require food consumption simply to survive. I don't necessarily think that everyone who is overweight has any form of depression either, not without some stats to back that up, and since there are likely many people who could use to get more exercise that don't see a doctor about their psychological state, I think it's going to be rather difficult to get accurate statistics to do so.

You said that the person had an addiction to pain killers. A person with an addiction may not necessarily have ODed on said painkillers. Weaning them off said painkillers would be more apropriate than pumping their stomach, that was my point.

Hydrants don't have feelings, to consider they're inanimate objects.

How big are the seats in First Class? Coach airplane seats aren't exactly comfortable even for a person that's not overweight, when I was 21 a window or aisle seat was rather uncomfortable on the side where another person sat (I mentioned my size at that age earlier in this thread) so I'm not going to blame fat people so quickly on this one as it seems that anyone other than a child or a petite woman is going to invade the space of the adult next to them in coach to some degree.

The guy in that picture isn't violating public decency either, now if he were walking around wearing only a thong you would have a point.

Whenever law enforcement is in the business of making money, it's rife with the potential for abuse, if the law enforcement agency gains from the money made in any way shape or form, that is even worse.

You may want to google "food addiction".
The hypothetical situation I put fourth included the necessity of pumping a stomach, which suggests ODing. It all fits if you look at it. Public funding (ambulance) going to help someone addicted to something that's not illegal and that one might call a personal problem.
Hardy har har.
The gentleman on the hydrant would likely stretch from the window seat to the aisle seat. That's 3 seats. Would you ned 3 seats?
As I already said, it's not about public decency laws, it's about decency.
It's better because they have a more efficient system, but again, that's for another thread.

I wouldn't want Shauk to think this was ignored, so I'll go back and actually reply with what I was thinking when I read it.

The problem with this argument is that the very existence of obesity refutes it. Sure, nobody wants to be fat, but I would posit that someone who is fat isn't bothered enough by their condition to change it, or else they wouldn't be that way to begin with. Losing weight takes effort, but it's really quite simple, conceptually. Therefore anyone who is overweight is someone who is almost certainly someone who for whatever reason isn't willing to put in the effort; it seems absurd to me to think that it could be an issue of education.

I'm really not sure what food addiction has to do with anything. If someone has a serious psychological problem, then they need to be treated or seek treatment for that. On the other hand, if we take as granted that food addiction is a real issue for some people, then I should say that it's not particularly harmful from a societal standpoint. A food addict (or cigarette addict, for that matter) isn't someone who's likely to turn to crime or prostitution to feed their addiction, and it's possible for those who suffer from the addiction to be useful contributing members of society. It's a drain on the healthcare system, but then so is skin cancer and I don't see anyone suggesting government mandated sunblock.

Fucking excellent. I was 280 pounds a year ago and now I'm down to 205 and I simply forgot how excruciating life is when you're considerably overweight. I agree with Japan's decision 100%.

If that person requests it. If that person refuses said help however my point would stand, their right to refuse said help would still stand.

No I would not, I only need one, but I would still find another person that close to me in a coach seat, uncomfortably close given how tightly people are packed in airplanes, that was my point. Even when I was 21.

And I say he doesn't violate decency, simply by being in public. He could wear clothing with a looser fit, that's the only criticism I could potentially level at him on appearence.

Then quit bringing it up.

You'd refuse to do a possibly life saving procedure on someone who was clearly effected by addiction? Most doctors would disagree with you.
I'm about 6' to 6'1" and about 175 pounds. Who would you rather have in the seat next to you, me or captain hydrant?
I'm concerned this will devolve into aesthetic relativism, which is a very theoretical discussion. Maybe there will be an "Agree to disagree" on this one.

If that person says, "Keep your hands off of me" I would respect his wishes.

I'd rather not have either of you in the seat next to me on the airplane. I'd rather have a pretty and intellegent woman there whose about 5'4" and 110lbs with blonde hair and green eyes. However, my personal peference doesn't make his (fire hydrant guy) existence indecent, nor give me the right to regulate his body weight, or his wasitline.

Probably, 'cause I can go all night.

Then we're talking about a right to suicide. Which I believe is a different conversation.
What if your taxes were paying for his obesity?
It's going to devolve into what you find indecent and what I find indecent, which is simply differing opinions. As it's a matter of opinion, I'm backing off.

Reason: Soon 45% of the population of Japan will be over 65 years of age.
There is no narcissism behind this law, only health concern.

Even if that wasn't the case, I wouldn't mind the law wherever I was. ..
Not to say I wouldn't object to it philanthropically; I don't know what I think in that regard.

I think that if an adult wishes to commit suicide then he should have the right to do so. I'm okay with assisted suicide too.

I don't much like the idea of my taxes paying for it, but I dislike the idea of regulating someone's waistline much, much, more.

Acknowledged.

+1.
Also, why punish the employer for their employee being fat? The government can protect society by forcing the fat person to pay more into the healthcare system, and possibly reducing their access to health care. There is no compelling cause for restricting someone's right to make lifestyle choices when the public can be adeuately protected by other means.

Yes! Yes! We shall make them conform!!

Not only is this a good idea, I strongly support additional legislation to outlaw the flu, pneumonia, and cancer. If those go through, bad knees, bad backs, and arthritis will be the next to go.

I'm an obese person. I am also not a food addict. I have a sedentary lifestyle that is my choice.

By posting those pictures, you are bringing in a completely different argument: that people should not be allowed to get fat because it is unpleasant for you to see. In which case I think we should ban all tattoos, piercings, tank- and halter-tops on women who have less-than a B-cup and makeup in colors that are not natural skin-tones.

As for taxes, if right-to-suicide is a different argument, then the subsidized/universal health-care aspect is as well. I don't want my taxes paying for "that guy" in the picture, but I also don't want them paying for anyone's health care.

My healthcare costs already are, as is medicare and medicaid recipients. I pay for unisured, smokers, cancer patients, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and hosts of other debilitating diseases and disabilities. There are even social programs that I pay for like ACCESS-A-RIDE, Food Stamps, WIC, Welfare....

so I pay for obesity in there too... over lapped with those things.

So one day it's because you are fat... next it's because you're type 2 diabetic because you ate too much sugars and are fat, but not obese....

Please give me a fucking break.

sorry just in from the patio checking the scoreboards and I refreshed this thread....couple wobbly pops in me...

anyway, i remember watching a TLC show about the worlds fattest man who lost all the weight, then gained it back only to lose it all again. He said a drug addict does not have to do drugs three times a day, an alcoholic does not have to take a drink 3 times a day but he still has to put a fork in his mouth 3 times a day. not that it is an excuse.

I never thought of it before in those terms and i can understand how hard it is for someone who is addicted to food. not to trivialize other addictions, there all hard to overcome.

I've been waiting for something like this to happen.

One step closer to conformity for everybody.

The scary part is, I see that there are already several people won over for this point of view. All because they consider it good&healthy&easy on the eyes for everybody.

Health is not subjective, Nisses.

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, Will.

Conformity and growing direct interference by state & law does not make for a mental & social well-being, quite the opposite.

Being that this thread is about fat, that would be physical health.
Being fat is not being a nonconformist.

Losing fat means better physical health, thus it does make for "well-being".