Sure and one benefit us fatties will give to others is better treatments for diabetes and other diseases.

but I thought you're hypothetical was about thin people being obliged to take a drug to protect us fatties - in the water perhaps like flouride. There could equally (if not more likelly) be diseases that overwhelmingly impact people of 90+ or 100+ or 120+ with the same hypothetical but this time with us fatties being obliged to take it.

That's the same ethics isn't it? so lets discuss that version of the hypothetical if you think the cries of fat shaming are a problem.

a large portion of the food in the USA would be illegal in Europe. its that "unhealthy".

I agree with a lot of what you say but I just can't see the big pharma angle here. Covid is a communicable disease where diabetes isn't. No healthy person is going to be forced to take diabetes drugs. I can agree that it has cost us and will continue to cost us a lot of money.

Fair enough

yes it is the same ethic thus why I generally agree with it. I do believe in things that I would define as societal obligations to our fellow members such as mutual protection and 'goods'.


However i think there is a curve in that 'mutual obligation' albeit the ability to define it and enact any differentiating policy might be so impossible or improbably that we might all just have to accept that while we see something is not as fair as it should be, we still have to all suck it up and act on behalf of the other.

I would define the areas of 'Personal Choice that assume much greater levels of risk' as one where that question becomes much less clear.

For instance if a virus popped up that had devastating deadly effects on those with smokers lung and a vaccine was developed that had side effects but at a way lower and less devastating impact than the virus was having on the smoker, should the rest of society be compelled to take the vaccine to lower their death rate and thus accept some of the people who do not smoke will not have issues with the vaccine, maybe for the rest of their lives?

Some look at this as a simply equation that if this saves 100X smokers for every 1X non smoker lost, than that should be done.

But i have more of an issue with that if compelled, when it was very understood and known risk the smoker took in partaking in their indulgence.

I think that ethical discussion needs to be engaged as I think this is more the norm of the future than it has been in the past as medical science tends to now manage (not cure) ailments.

And until science actually cures this imposition, on those who make healthy choices will only increase.

And I honestly think as more and more people indulge and give up on being healthy they will give less and less of a sh*t about imposing on the healthy. The majority will want to protect themselves, full stop, and won't give a **** about a minority of healthy people who made different choices to try and avoid most of this.

Is that why Pets are getting increasingly obese Victor?

is it as simple as you would have people believe or are there other factors, like personal responsibility and discipline' at play?


I feel like you will avoid this question as you have thought through the answer and don't like it.

the point of that post is not that diabetes is communicable, nor any of the underlying comorbidities of obesity but rather they are becoming much more prevalent and thus we have this vastly growing cohort of citizens amongst us that is extremely vulnerable to things such as a new virus outbreak where more healthy populations are not...




Look at that curve above and understand that if that is a covid spread curve we are in red alert area knowing we must start doing things to address and turn that curve down, if we do not believe it will arrest itself.

It is just not tenable to allow that curve to continue and the danger it presents.

And yet with obesity the exact opposite is happening. The more that curve goes up, the greater the call to stop talking about it, the greater attempts to normalize it as also healthy, beautiful, etc, which then just feeds the curves escalation and also then the need to protect that group increasingly from their own choices.

I agree it's an important conversation and it has come up with covid. There is a concern that has been well voiced about how young people/children have been forced to give up so much (and take drugs) which offer them little benefit but protect others. The main group being protected is the elderly.

It's a pretty horrible ethic perspecive imo but ageism is a vast and growing problem. That's where the the real life ethics of this is being played out with covid and it will get worse as the population get's increasingly skewed towards old and very old people. You may want to point the finger at us unhealthy fatties but we skew the population younger and if anything that helps with these issues.

Yup. Agreed on most.

I think the only distinction being is that while I think the long living seniors bucket will continue to grow, so too will the younger (but not young) obese people bucket and they face similar vulnerabilities. Meaning the obesity is making up for the lack of advanced age.

Big pharma is getting better at managing both, which is a great thing, but then lends itself to the problem we are discussing.

I agree except that as science is helping obese people live longer, it is also helping older and otherwise frail people become even older and frailer. I doubt fatties will get close to overtaking age in this respect until ageing itself is conquered.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-60834822

"The parents of a disabled teenager have been charged with causing her death by allowing her to become morbidly obese.

Kaylea Louise Titford, 16, was found dead at her home in Newtown, Powys, in October 2020.

Alun Titford, 44, and Sarah Jane Lloyd-Jones, 39, from Newtown, are charged with gross negligence manslaughter and causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person."

This will be a tough case to prosecute.

Certainly the parents are complicit and negligent but that does not mean, even if they were not, that the child would not have abused food in a way to be morbidly obese regardless. In today's society just being a parent does not mean you can absolutely prohibit your child from doing anything. You cannot physically stop them or jail them and punishment after the fact is limited.

So I think the parents can argue they pushed more healthy choices but the child defied them. Then what? The prosecutor says 'you make them'? Which begs the question 'how?'

I am not sure this should be prosecuted.

Separate but far less serious is the case for negligence against pet owners who let their pets get morbidly obese. Obviously not as serious as this case, but I think any Pet that is obese, without solid medical reason for being so, should be taken from the owner and the owner charged with animal negligence (cruelty) and prevented from having any more animals in the future. Just as they would be for other forms of animal abuse.

Would anyone argue against it being 'pet abuse' to just keep giving your pet more and more food until they are morbidly obese when it is so simple to cut it back and let them be healthier and happier?

Gravity

I always found it interesting that 2 people in that movie went on to be governors.

A friend of mine was an extra in that, he was cheering in the crowd.

Who's paying for all of that? gl trying to find no-kill shelters for every fat pet in America. To say nothing of the cruelty of taking them out of their home environment and into some strange kennel.

Obesity covers a lot of ground but the principle is clear and of course animal nglect shoud be illegal and acted upon.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/...lwelfare.world

Protection for children who are being neglected is taken far more seriously of course. It's not an easy area though. Especially when it's a sort of neglect by incompetence rather than not caring or deliberate abuse..

Are you making an argument to leave a pet in an abusive household because introducing them to a new environment could be challenging?



I am not talking about an active campaign to go door to looking but the same person who might ticket someone for having a dog off leash, could be empowered to write a ticket that compels the owner to take their pet to a Vet for a "health check', and if obese the Vet gets to prescribe a diet and do follow ups until the pet is no longer obese. If they do not do it, they lose the pet. All paid for by the offender.

There simply is no excuse for 99.99% of obese pets other than lazy, undisciplined owners. And it is one thing to allow being lazy or undisciplined to impact oneself and quite another to impose it on another and to harm them, when they have no choice.

Pet obesity should just not be a 'thing' at all. You can even be lazy and avoid it just by being slightly disciplined and adjusting the quantity of food downwards, slowly over time, until you get to the correct weight.

Who’s going to take that dog in? You? Shelters are already at full capacity these days.

I struggle to even understand how pet obesity can be a growing thing. I really do.

I mean, fine if you are not the type of person to exercise your dog and you are on the lazy end, in that regard. Caloric intake can offset that easily.

it solely comes down to discipline and neglect. Instead of scooping out 1 cup of kibble, 3 times a day, scoop out 3/4 cup 3 times a day. And keep adjusting down. Voila. No extra work, you can stil be lazy and your pet is not neglected.

So with it being so painfully easy, I struggle to see how a person fails to do it. It almost has to go from ignorant neglect to willful neglect, imo.

Oh god, he’s going to spam the board with fat pet pics now.

Oh god, not another troll post

How is this a troll? I sincerely think the cops shouldn’t be abducting peoples pets if they’re fat.

Difficult one this, the lady next door obviously loves her dog but the love takes the form of over feeding her to the point where she is twice the weight that she should be. Education rather than punishment would seem to be the answer.