Japan Legislates Fat
 

http://www.allvoices.com/userevents/...s-wasit/images

Do people have the right to life, liberty and being morbidly obese? Or does the government have the right to address a national health emergency?

In my opinion, this is smart legislation. The spirit of making laws would be protecting people from each other and themselves. Being overweight means that you're at a much higher risk for heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes, but many people are unaware of the danger they put themselves in by an inactive and unhealthy lifestyle.

I'm sure this will piss off some overweight people and some libertarian people, but the reality is that this type of decision will likely help the health of the country. I can't imagine placing denial about weight or personal ideologies above the health and well being of your country.

I think it's a good idea. It's not punitive... it's not like you'll be imprisoned for being fat, or sent to a fat labor camp. I guess it depends on what is meant by "referred to a diet regiment", but it seems reasonable to me.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...at-waistlines/

That's kinda brilliant, actually.

I think this is avoiding the problem. Which is, the type of food available and allowed to be marketed, and also educating people to live and eat more healthily. Hey, we stick kids in front of the TV all day and feed them junk. What else could we expect?

I also don't think this is a good precedent to open...I mean do you agree with the Chinese population control policies? I'd say this is always something that will get twisted...

"33.5 in"

Holy crap, am I the only one that thinks that's really thin? I'm 75" and weigh around 200lbs and consider myself in pretty good shape, and I think my waist is 34". Then again, Japanese people are closer to 65" than 75" . . .

I read an article a year or two about about Philadelphia creating legislation to restrict or ban trans-fats.

I think it's perfectly reasonable, given the expense of health care, the expense to the government, and given that the Japanese population is aging. If they don't deal with the problem of rising obesity rates in Japan (their obesity rates put ours to shame--they're not nearly as high as ours--they're really being quite proactive), it's going to cost everyone in the long run. Obesity costs everyone, not just the person who is obese.

I wish the United States would wake up and do something like this.

It's interesting, because in doing this the Japanese have come up with a new word for someone who's overweight: metabo.

Here is a link to the NYTimes article about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/wo...prod=permalink

I do agree with the chinese population control, to an extent. Of course, I don't believe in killing little girls like sometimes happens in the more rural areas, but I believe the one child per family law is ideal. There are too damned many people there and they have a hard time supporting it across the board.

As for the "type of food available and allowed to be marketed", well... why should one person NOT be able to get something tasty because three other people can't control how much of it they eat? THAT doesn't make sense to me.

I'm sure that it takes into account the BMI system or something similar. It'd be silly to try and get a 6'3" man into anything under a 34. Or a woman that's 6'3" for that matter.

Why is it everything Japan names sounds like a pokemon?

i just read this thread to Mrs dlish (shes a dietitian) and she rekons its a great idea. although she did say it will be hard to police.

i told her that we are moving to japan so that we can cash in on all the new business!

metbo?! I like it!

I agree with the posters here that with a sense of nationalism and with incentives one could ask their popu to lose weight. I think it is a cost effective and healthy measure. And I think something does need to be done. However, I dont like the idea of taking that personal of a freedom away. I dont think if it were put to a vote that I would back it. It is just too intrusive I think.

And I certainly dont like the idea of hiring/firing people based on physical attributes good or bad, nor do I like that there is a particular age group addressed.

I don't think this is the government's first foray into public education of food and health. They are battling a specific problem here. They are using this to ensure the education of those they deem to be the highest risk.

Sumo wrestling will never be the same.

I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand, I can certainly see the merit in it, which I don't think needs to be explained.

On the other hand, I see mandating something like belt size as setting a dangerous precedent.

For the record, I'm well under the proposed limit; the 32" jeans I'm wearing while typing this are a bit loose on me.

I'll admit I thought this, too, but I couldn't formulate an argument that wasn't a slippery slope to support the thought. Think of it: why are they doing this? Driving down healthcare cost. What could be done, besides promoting good health, that would be so bad based on the precedence set by this legislation?
And if they regulate your fedora size? :expressionless:

I'm not entirely concerned about the legislation itself so much as the enforcement. Right now it has no teeth; if you're overweight, you get referred. I'm assuming they're not going to force you to follow the diet regimen proscribed, so it won't really do much.

On the other hand, if they follow up by deciding that they are going to enforce it, then we get into dangerous territory. This is what I'm referring to. Telling people they're not allowed to be overweight is the first step in legislating lifestyle. While I'll be the first to admit that some 'lifestyle legislation' is necessary, it's a very fine line between the clear good of the people and protecting the people from themselves. That's a line I'd prefer not to walk at all.

I will successfully argue for an exemption by using my GIGANTIC BRAIN.

I like the initiative of the government to try and help there people and ease the health care system but not sure if I agree with this action.

Frankly I don't care if your fat, until you start to drive up the cost of my taxes because your always needing medical care...etc But if you paid for your own medical expenses and it had no monetary or personal impact to the general population why do I care if you eat crap food and get fat? Too each his own.

I quoted the enforcement in pst #3. If you aren't in reasonable health, the company you work for will pay more taxes for the healthcare system, which will in turn put pressure on you.

This is a restriction of personal freedoms, and shouldn't be supported by anyone who believes in such freedoms.

I think it'd be nice to have my employer realize that sitting on my ass for 8 hours a day because it's a requirement of my job, should also be compensated in the form of a free gym membership.

*shrug*

I think it's a bad idea. I don't think that it's government's rightful place to legislate what people's waistlines should be. Not to mention when I was 21 I would have not been able to meet that standard despite being 6'1, 156lbs, and having a 36" waist at that point in my life, which made me very skinny. Government should keep it's grubby paws off of my waistline. Funny thing is that I was in the Military (USAF) at the time and they didn't seem to have a problem with my weight at all.

Japanese people, on the whole, are considerably smaller than Americans. They aren't as tall as we are--a person who is 6'1" in Japan is a giant. Therefore, the waistline size they've chosen is relative to the people the government is governing.

Yes, but it's the freedom to be fat. I'd hardly compare that to freedom of speech or press. Is being fat really a freedom you want to fight for? I mean it's really disrespectful to categorize fat with freedom to speak against the government.

Furthermore, it can't be denied that obesity drives up health care costs--should a fat person have the freedom to cost me more money because they choose to be fat?

This is a slippery slope. There are many things that "drive up" health care costs based on lifestyle choices.

* * * * *

We shouldn't read too much into this. It looks to me like people are going to be told what foods to eat and not to eat if they are deemed overweight or obese. They aren't forced on a diet. It's a legislation of education.

Heart disease and diabetes have a direct relationship with obesity and are leading causes of death in Japan, immediately behind Cerebro-vascular disease (strokes).

So what happens to those Japanese that happen to be well above the norm as far as height is concerned? I don't think that such "one size fits all" legislation should have a place in people's lives with respect to a person's life. In my opinion it's an abuse of governmental authority to legislate that the population must maintain a certain waist size, or a certain weight.

The proper role of government is to protect it's citizens from being harmed by other people, and to prohibit people from inflicting harm (which includes reckless endangerment such as driving while intoxicated) upon any non-consenting 3rd party or their property. In my opinion, it is not the proper role of the government to legislate to an adult what their choices in life should be outside of those paramaters

It's under "pursuit of happiness". Same thing as Prohibition and criminalization of drugs.

Why should I not be allowed to do to my body whatever I want?

Are you taking into account the universal healthcare? This is about ensuring that universal healthcare continues to be a good investment for their people.

Because, in Japan, it's not just effecting you.

Let me frame it this way. What happens when you have a heart attack while driving home from work on the highway? You take out a dozen people because you couldn't stop cramming bacon in your mouth. Suddenly you're effecting other people due to your mistakes (and being fat is a mistake, not a freedom).

While I am for people having assistance controlling their weight, I can see the slippery slope argument.

however, the grey becomes black and white rather quickly if you start asking fat people if they WANT to be fat.

not going to find a lot of support there.

however, if you try to compare it to something like smoking? yeah, people want to smoke, despite it driving up health costs, so theres no way you could convince people that businesses jumping in and throwing nico-gum/patches and whatever else is required to stop people from smoking would gain even remotely the same support as this.


so Yeah, I'm totally for this.

I think ths slippery slope argument is invalid in this particular case

Even if they have Universal Healthcare, I could not support being told that the government should be allowed to tell adults how to live their personal lives in that manner. I'm more a limited government type w/r/t the personal decisions of individuals. I have mixed feelings on the concept of Universal Healthcare, I don't like the idea of said health care being able to be used as a reason for giving the government any additional authority in our lives, it already has too much as it is.

I again see the value in having these types of policies but I think in the end it is just too much government intervention and not enough personal freedoms.


Anyway this law/action will only really get big once the government can properly utilize this plan to rape the average citizen out of more of there money.

In a universal system, one's BMI isn't "personal". At the very least it's public decency, but in reality it's an economic drain.
For the sake of the thread, I think we should avoid discussion about universal healthcare in general and keep this on Japan's legislation.

Any mandatory measurment of my physical body is by definition personal, because it requires me to allow another person to touch my body without my consent. If someone touched my body against my will without said government mandate it would be called simple battery at the very least and would be a crime against my person. Probably a misdemeanor, depending on the jurisdiction, but a crime nonetheless. Tell me again how is it not personal simply because the government decides to violate my person against my wishes?

My weight has nothing whatsoever to do with public decency.

On disease, one can only be deemed a risk for disease based on being overweight, unless a person has actually been diagnosed with said disease, and had said disease tied specifically to their obesity (easier said than done, since there are often multiple factors involved).

I didn't bring universal healthcare into the discussion, I merely pointed out my mixed feelings on the issue, particualrily how it could be used as an excuse to expand already excessive governmental authority.

This is simply incorrect. If you were injured and paramedic were touched, there would be no legal violation of your person in treating you.
http://argville.com/images/funny-pic...nder-dress.jpg
Obesity is a disease. Those who are clinically obese are ordered to seek treatment just as someone who has a flu. It's something to cure. While obesity clearly causes many health conditions, it is in and of itself a health condition.
I never said you introduced it, I said this isn't the thread for it. Please, no threadjacking.

the whole thing is just silly.

This thread could have continued on fine without that picture Will!

Sure, but it communicates more than a thousand words.

True, it also communicated to me that I am now officially not hungry for dinner.



Beer it is then.

Only if I'm unconscious or incoherent and cannot refuse. If I am conscious and coherent and say that I don't want treatment, then he has to honor my right to refuse treatment, and is liable if he does not.

This photo is an example of the person not choosing the apropriate clothing for their body weight, rather than their body weight in and of itself. There's a difference

I would see ordering a competant adult to seek treatment for obesity (in themselves) as an abuse of governmental power. I don't see government's rightful role in society as protecting an adult from himself.

I really don't want to talk about universal healthcare that much either, I was trying to make a point about keeping it out of the discussion. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

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".

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.