I see someone in this thread trying to rationalize their poor choices and it reminds me much of a serial killer trying to justify stabbing underage girls in the throat.

Seriously, check your mindset. There is no healthy, valid reason for choosing to live the life of an obese person.

Actually, strictly speaking it is. Or can be, at least. Modern societal standards dictate that thin is beautiful. If one were to intentionally maintain obesity as a way of subverting that concept, one would be a fat non-comformist.

Note that taking heroin could also be considered a non-comformist act. Non-conformist does not equate to good.

Martin, show me a person who becomes fat to be nonconformist and I'll eat my hat.

if everyone is skinny, and one chooses to be fat, he's being nonconformist.

It's a theoretical state. How many of the over 50% of Americans are being fat to be nonconformist? And how does one be nonconformist being something that describes over half the population?

Show me a person who's fat to be a nonconformist.

I have a friend who doesn't give a damn about the whole look right, eat right.

He loves to eat, and he doesn't care how many calories it is. He'd rather eat it the right way than the low fat, low calorie way, "No, you can't make popovers that are low fat/low cal that taste any good." He doesn't do anything that's trendy, mass approved, he likes small niche things.

He is a nonconformist. He hates Macs, laughs at the 1984 commercial because he believes that all the people in the audience are all Mac users an the face on the screen is Steve Jobs. He doesn't use iPods, prefers Zen.

Uses as many products as he can that aren't used by everyone else. He is a nonconformist through and through. I don't know what his tipping point is, but once it's "mainstream" to him, he moves on.

Apathy to physical health isn't intentional unconformity.

cool. you know, you're right! :rolleyes:

Unwise - but not unjust - uses of a right require no healthy, valid reason. Because they aren't any of your business.

I'd be perfectly okay, actually, with obese people losing the privilege of free health care - provided they lost the responsibility of paying along with that - but beyond that, I can't think of any justifiable penalty. Punish the fake crime by revoking a fake right, I sez.

Just to echo, this no-teeth educational legislation seems okay to me. Legislation that's possibly a waste of money, though. (And in other news... yep, sun's setting in a Western direction today.)

Unless it's intentional apathy to physical health? I'm just trying to get a feel for this statement.

It's still apathy and not nonconformity.
"Why are you fat?"
Apathy: "I don't care."
Nonconformist: "I don't want to look like the ladies in the magazine."

I think you might be romanticizing nonconformity. Are you suggesting nonconformists all need to be culture jammers? They can very well be made up by apathy and little else.

Nonconformists are active against conformity. Apathetic people aren't active against anything.

Nonconformists do not act in accordance with conventions, standards, and/or the wishes of others. Apathy could be a reason for this.

If the convention is to be thin and/or healthy, and the standard is to have a certain BMI, and I simply don't give a shit, this is nonconformity.

Nonconformity requires intent. Apathy has none.

Why? Who told you that?

Nonconformity is simply a refusal, an unwillingness, whether through apathy or not.

I disagree. Acting counter to the norm requires an understanding of the norm and acting against it in some way.

Some folks just have a hard-on to hate fat people, and deep down could honestly care less about the greater good, health care, etc, blah blah blah. Whether it's because they were a fat kid and overcame it with their iron willpower, or their mom/dad/grandma-pa was fat and died of a heart attack, or maybe some fat guy kicked their puppy, they've got it in their mind that fat people are weak and stupid, and that all it will take is some healthier-than-thou to point this out to them (over and over again), to make them wanna turn their lives around so they in turn can live a full prosperous life berating fat people into thinness.

Okay, if the "norm" (the standard) is to have a BMI within a certain range, and I'm well beyond that because I'm apathetic, am I conforming to the standard or not?

To conform is to act in accordance or to comply with the norm. The norm is to have that healthy BMI, but I love junk food, hate exercise, and don't care what I look like. Am I conforming to this standard of health? If not, what am I doing instead? What is the opposite to conformity? If I'm not conforming, I'm a nonconformist—a nonconformist who refuses to be bound by a certain set of parameters. Whether this is by accident doesn't matter.

Your understanding of "nonconformity" is a specific (i.e. limited) usage and only applies within a certain context. You might want to use it here, but it would be more accurate for you to say that fat people aren't being activists if they are apathetic to the issue. And it would be true; they aren't likely steeped in fat activism in this case.

You'd have to have someone else answer that question for you, who was apathetic. From your own perspective (which was in question waaay back), it's irrelevant. It's the Schrödinger's cat of fat; you don't know until it's measured. I'm calling it Schrödinger's Fat.

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)