I tried, but that someone else hasn't gotten back to me yet. I don't think he's gonna.

Also, Schrödinger's big-boned.

You're using nonconformity to describe intent, while Baraka is using it to describe action. I can understand your use, but I don't understand your dismissal of Baraka's use.

I think there should be an incentive to lose weight and live a healthy lifestyle. If that means a fine for not exercising and eating natural foods, then so be it.

I would even go one step further and say if 14-15 years olds are overweight, they should get sent to a boot camp type of environment for 6-12 weeks over the summer. It might be hell for them, but their attitude development and increased self-esteem in high school will effect the rest of their lives.

I would guess that you put no value on the freedom of the individual to make his or her own decisions, but would rather give that power to the all powerful nanny state.

It's not a nanny state, though. It's universal healthcare. It's your own investment and the investment of all your countrymen.

If you're trying to dictate my personal decisions it's a nanny-state. The investment of my countrymen, does not give them the authority to make my personal decisions w/r/t to what I eat. Studies say that married men are healthier, and live longer, should this "investment" give them the authority to decide that I must get married by a certain age, (or face penalties) even if I haven't found Ms. right? I think not.

It's your investment, too. It's the case of "if you don't like it, change the system or leave". But it's not a nanny state if you give them the power.

BTW, would you still whine about your personal freedom to be unhealthy if you were paying like 35% of your current medical coverage?

Nanny-state policies and regulations are often beneficial to the overall efficiency of the nation. I don't see much problem with that. In a way, it's like legislating a major part of the social contract—a moving force behind the enactment of it, if you will.

There are some things you are missing about Japanese society and culture that will allow this to work. It will probably give a lot of Japanese workers more quality of life than less.

First, the Japanese are not typically obese. In spite of many "bad" habits health-wise, such as smoking and drinking to excess on a regular basis, being fat isn't such a big problem. But it could be, and that's what the government aims to head off at the pass. By raising awareness to the possibility of the problems and burdens related to being overweight, they are promoting a more fit society. "Metabo bad, fit good". The social pressure here will give this program a high chance at success.

Second, business is one of the reasons that there is any problem with weight. Employees often work from 8AM to 10PM or more. Regular employees feel a high sense of guilt if they leave before the boss, therefore they don't. They will wile away several hours with "busy" work until the boss calls it a night. There is a term here that roughly translates to "death by overwork," and there are more than 4000 claims made against companies yearly for this. These employees often eat at their desk, get food from vending machines or convenience stores, or at the fast food places. They are sedentary, with little time to spend at the gym. By putting a financial incentive on the companies, the government will improve the quality of life of employees because companies will make sure that they have the chance to eat healthier food, and get away form their desk for an hour a day or more to exercise.

Third, this is not a culture of conformity. It is a culture of shame. People don't conform because they want to, but rather because they don't want to risk embarrassing their family or company by bad behavior. No-one wants to be the one who cost the company money, or lowered their co-workers bonuses. It would be shameful, and would result in the end of promotions and advancement for the worker in question, not to mention the shunning of said employee within the company. Every year we are required to take two health check-ups courtesy of the company and the health system. Hospitals have special buses that they drive to the company that are fully equipped to perform these checks. After age 35, this check includes a yearly cancer screening. It also includes chest x-rays, blood analysis and urine analysis to turn up health problems associated with smoking and drinking in their earliest stages, when they are more likely to be treated quickly and successfully, and most of all, more cheaply than if they were discovered in a more progressed stage.

There is some truth to the idea that no-one wants to be a burden to society and all the others paying into the system, but that is a rather minor consideration in the big picture, which is why the Gov't took the approach they did instead of exhorting those that are sick to suicide to relieve the burden.

I seem to remember awhile back when 'single payer healthcare' was the topic, that it would only be a matter of time when congress, who will be the guarantor or healthcare payments, would regulate such things as how big or small one can be and if one is outside that specified body size, then diet would be regulated.

Do you people truly want some outside entity controlling all aspects of your life? Are you that desirous of ridding yourselves of all responsibility for your actions that you would cede control of your decision making to government legislation?

I don't think that they should have the power. They don't have the power here in the US to legislate Fat, at least not under Art 1 Sec 8 under Powers of Congres (though our Judiciary has been lax in restraining Congress as well as the State Legislatures historically, so have our Executives) not so sure in Japan. But it's still a case of nanny-state, whenever any government is so presumptuous as to use their power to legislate something as the weight of individual citizens, even if it's popular to do so.

The government in such a case have assumed the role of parents and are treating the citizenry (free adults) as if they are children and are telling them what they can or cannot eat, what they should or should not weigh. This is not something that the government of any free society should do. What's next are they going to tell the people that they're grounded or cannot have their allowance if they don't eat their vegetables.:rolleyes:

I would be opposed to the state infringing upon my freedom regardless of the finances involved, based on the principle of the thing. I don't want the state making my personal decisions for me under any circumstances. As an adult those decisions are for me to make. And the state should be told in no uncertain terms where it can take it's paternalism, and which orifice it can shove said paternalism up. hint: it's the one where Sol doesn't shine.

I don't want the state telling me or anyone else what to eat or in what quantities, whether or not to use drugs, which consenting woman to have sex with, which books to read, which political philosophies to believe, when to go to bed, when or whether to get married, to have sex outside or marriage or not, with or without a condom, to have children or not (I'm childfree), whether or not to get a vasectomy (or for the ladies a tubal), whether or not to use contraceptives, whether or not to have an abortion (for the ladies), or what religion I should believe in. When it comes to personal decisions, my personal philosophy is that the government should have NO, ZERO, ZIP ZILCH authority in those areanas to make decisions, and should butt out as far as adults are concerned.

Terrell, you'd not like to live in a libertarian world. Paying $200 a month for police and firefighter insurance, paying a monthly fee for a private contractor to fix roads between your house and work, paying $20 to mail a letter to a friend who can't afford a computer because Microsoft created a monopoly...

But back to reality, Japan isn't libertarian. Japan's people aren't libertarians. This thread isn't about libertarianism at all, it's about the Japanese and how well this system could work for them.

I'm a Social liberal/libertarian, on most but not all issues and somewhat of a non-conformist. I want the government off my back as far as my personal decisions are concerned. I don't want the government micromanaging people's personal decisions, and I don't want the government using economic arguments to justify said micromananaging of personal lives.

I support such services as Police, Firefighting, public roads, military, Postal service, public schools, or laws against people violating the person, property or rights of non-consenting 3rd parties. None of those things are affected, however by whether or not I get married, believe in Christianity, have children, engage in pre-marital sex, get or don't get a vasectomy, have a waisline of a certain size, have or don't have a particular BMI, or most other intimite personal decisions. (I wish I could remember where that thought left off)

man....

I think this thread outlived it's lifespan yet people keep posting more stuff.

I think we passed that threshold of "sharing an opinion" and went straight in to the "why I think your point of view is invalid" phase.

Pretty much.

And Ratman, I really appreciate your post. I think that's one of the problems with this thread--people don't fully grasp how different Japanese society is from our own.

Seriously, governments can't even balance their own checkbooks or distribute welfare and social services in a fair manner or even in a manner that it was written by law, yet we want them to take care of our diet?

It never ceases to amaze me the shit government can fuck up, but what's more amazing is the people who want to give even more power to these failures. I think some of you need a reality check.

Um, Japan's medical system is quite good. It's a lot better than the US. Japan is ranked 10 in the world. The US is ranked 37.

I want to see this ranking list.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

The original is on the WHO website in a pdf.

Can you give us something a bit more current? A lot has changed in the last eight years, ya know.

I support your right to do whatever you want, including eating all you want. But, the government currently just tells you of the health problems (and should also tell you about the social/emotional problems as well). But there isn't any incentive currently for people to live a healthy lifestyle, and with the health care problems that will happen a few years from now, the people who choose to eat what they want and put off exercise should be financially penalized. It may give a few people incentives to not work 5 more hours a week, but exercise or eat a balanced home-cooked meal instead.

How would you feel if the private health care companies started charging people by the pound? They already have a smoking charge and a female charge. I could see them doing this (if they haven't already) with very little reaction because they are doing it in the shareholders best interests. (it's another debate if private companies would do a better job of helping overweight people lose weight or if the government programs would)

Why would anything have drastically changed?

This map shows what changed.

http://health.msn.com/fitness/articl...ntid=100133520

And I don't believe the current administration has done anything to fix any other of the things the WHO graded everyone on.

So what about Sumo wrestlers? Are they just big boned? or exempt from this "obese" definition?

seems to be that they are "nonconformists" of Japanese culture...

I think it would be tough to find many (if any) active sumo wrestlers into their forties. (The regulation is to measure those between the ages forty and seventy-five.)

The two active Yokozunas (highest rank) are twenty-three and twenty-seven. There are lower-ranking sumos in their thirties, but I couldn't find any over forty.

Oh... then you're WRONG.
for my friend...

"Why don't you eat more healthy?"

gee.... he doesn't want to eath the way that people who are healthy want to eat... smacks of NONCONFORMIST to me.

but hey, you've got to be right. :shakehead:

There's a difference between having to be right and being right, but that discussion does not belong in this thread... and presenting it is a big fat red herring.

Judging by your description, your friend is apathetic. Nonconformity would be him eating what he eats to be different. He doesn't seem to have that agenda.

okay will, you're right. :rolleyes:

This proves that I am truly invisible.

not at all... i didn't read the entire thread as I do normally, I've had lots going on IRL.

just asked off the cuff.. .sorry :) you're not invisible.

So what about professional football players? Are they nonconformist in American culture? This is a ridiculous threadjack that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

BTW, there is one sumo rikishi that is over 40- Tochitenko at Maku no shita 59. He is 41 years old, 178cm tall and 147.3kg. There is also a 39 year old, Kimenryu at Ms 55, 189cm, 135.6kg. In Japan, you are considered your age for the whole year, not just after your birthday, so technically he is 40. There are 734 wrestlers in
the professional ranks, plus collegiate and others. Suffice to say this is a very, very small percentage of the Japanese population. As their weight is a part of the sport, I would bet that exceptions would be made for them, as for Judo Olympians, K-1 fighters, American football players, and so on.

There are always going to be those that fall outside of the norm, which is why it's the norm and not the all. This legislation does not punish the offender, it pays attention to those who need help. It punishes the companies that demand so much from employees that they have little chance at a healthy lifestyle. If the companies decide to simply pay the fines, with medical intervention they have to accommodate the doctor's orders. so either way, the patient has a chance at success. For those that don't work, it is now unfashionable to be "metabo", and the social pressure will help push those people into healthier lifestyles.

You simply cannot compare Japan and the US in these terms. The very reasons this will work in Japan are the reasons why it wouldn't work in the US. If you are determined to be fat, a drug addict, a scofflaw, or anything else outside the norm of Japanese society, please do not move here. Stay in the US where you have the "right" to do whatever you want, including scream about how "wronged" you are by this law or that law, and you can probably win a "fat" settlement against your heatlthcare provider because they didn't "make" you lose weight.

He tends to overlook the "non" in "nonconformity." It is important, as it implies a refusal (or failure). "Non-" is a negation, not necessarily a will to action.

This is not to say that he isn't partially right.

Yes. They are in the same manner that I have spoken to. In fact, it's very widely touted how much food they eat and how many calories they intake. It does not conform to anything within the realm of normal food intake.

Q&A with Bengals dietitian Michele Macedonio
The FDA recommended daily allowance of calories:
I'm not interested in moving to Japan. I've not said it either. I'm not even concerned about how it affects the Japanese culture because it's so radically different and articles I have read state it's something unique to them. My only application to the discussion has been toward how the same rules could not apply to here, not just because of the lack of universal healthcare, but because of the freedom to be who you want to be, regardless of societal norms.

The only interjection for Japanese culture was me asking how Sumo wrestlers fit within the realm of this law.

I would argue that NFL players are exactly conforming to American society, because they are doing everything they can with what they've got (in spite of the health risks involved) to succeed. But that's a discussion for a different thread. Maybe in Tilted Philosophy?

Please don't take my post as a reply to you (Cynthetiq), as it was to the ubiquitous you. And you (Cynthetiq), are completely right that the same rules would not apply in the US, as I have stated in my posts. Unfortunately many others have replied without any understanding of why it works here and not there. This is true for other things as well, like gun control. It is irksome to read statements along the lines of "no-one is going to take away my right to be whatever I want" as though that is what's happening here, with no understanding that it is simply the government working in what it feels is the best interests of it's people.

Edit: With the people's support. The Japanese understand the need for this law, and they agree with it. They understand it is not in their best interests to be fat, and they appreciate the Gov't stepping in to help them.

Again, none of my posts have been directed at any individual in particular.

an interesting point... still conforming in one area while not conforming in another.

Actually, I would say that both the Sumo as well as the NFL players are (and have to) conform extremely to their archetype/cliché in order to even succeed.

I suppose some groups just naturally fall outside of the general norm but are tolerated because of the specific nature of their group.

Generating some form of choice I suppose.