The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

phiwum said:
Seems to me that you're saying obesity doesn't count as a disability because it's self-induced, but sports related injuries count as a disability because, although they are self-induced, they are a positive pursuit.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying they aren't equivalent at all. See above for further clarification.

If you think sport injuries and obesity are analogous, you can have that argument all to yourself.
 
The Atheist said:
No, I'm saying they aren't equivalent at all. See above for further clarification.

If you think sport injuries and obesity are analogous, you can have that argument all to yourself.
Click to expand...

Sport injuries, like overeating and smoking, are life style choices and 100% self inflicted.
 
The Atheist said:
No, I'm saying they aren't equivalent at all. See above for further clarification.

If you think sport injuries and obesity are analogous, you can have that argument all to yourself.
Click to expand...

In a post just above, it seems that you say a condition doesn't count as a disability "if it's 100% avoidable."

Surely, sports-related injuries are 100% avoidable. Hockey, for instance, is associated with concussions, broken bones, knee injuries, even paralysis due to a broken neck. Anyone who plays hockey -- even D-level, no-checking hockey -- is dramatically increasing their odds of such injuries, in the same sense that smokers dramatically increase their odds of lung cancer.

So, it seems to follow from what you've just said that paralysis caused by playing hockey doesn't count as disabilities. It's your own explicit arguments that lead to the conclusion we should treat such injuries exactly as you say we should treat obesity.
 
A nice situation arose this morning that I felt was pretty analogous.

Bloke rings because he lost his licence drunk driving in NOv 2014 and as a result cannot get to work.

His boss actually paid the cost of him getting to work up untiul Xmas, but has now told the bloke he's going to have to find his own way there.

Bloke now crying.

I told him to sort himself out - it isn't his boss' problem, it's his.

And yes that is a legal opinion based on current NZ employment law.
 
The Atheist said:
When it's something 100% avoidable.
Click to expand...

My knee injuries were 100% avoidable, if it wasn't for all the basketball, football and rugby I played as a kid, the thousands of miles I have run over the years and the year of skiing which finally culminated in my blowing my ACL completely, my knees would be in fine shape.

IMO (and I think you've confirmed this in earlier posts) you are applying the concept of deserving and undeserving disabled. The deserving disabled are those who are either not responsible for their disability or who have come by their disability through activities you deem worthy (like sport). Those who have acquired their disability through activities you disapprove of (eating, legal and illegal drug use) and where you deem that it was under their control then they are undeserving.

It's a view that many people share because it allows them to apply their own moral views. Of course it can result in differences of opinion which makes for difficult policy decisions. The "quiverful" crowd would be in favour of more government child support payments the more children you have, other people would stop at a certain number of children - both are applying moralistic judgements.

Under this kind of scheme, rather than an objective assessment of disability and associated need we'd end up in an adversarial situation where you as an employee needs to demonstrate that your disability is wholly or predominantly due to "good" actions and I as an employer need to demonstrate the opposite.
 
Jono said:
Just browsed through this thread... wow. Fat-Shamers R Us?
Click to expand...

No.

I repeat - I have no interest in what size someone is. It's only when their weight becomes an issue that someone else is expected to pay for I give a damn.

The Don said:
Under this kind of scheme, rather than an objective assessment of disability and associated need we'd end up in an adversarial situation where you as an employee needs to demonstrate that your disability is wholly or predominantly due to "good" actions and I as an employer need to demonstrate the opposite.
Click to expand...

Well, we'll wait and see how the court ruling pans out, but the funniest part to me is that if the law is implemented as in the initial court decision it is going to impact on all fat people seeking jobs, not just those with disabilities.

If an obesity-caused disability is going to cost employers money, sensible employers will just not employ fat people at all, thereby consigning an entire generation of tubbies to lousy jobs.

Fine by me.
 
The Don said:
My knee injuries were 100% avoidable, if it wasn't for all the basketball, football and rugby I played as a kid, the thousands of miles I have run over the years and the year of skiing which finally culminated in my blowing my ACL completely, my knees would be in fine shape.

IMO (and I think you've confirmed this in earlier posts) you are applying the concept of deserving and undeserving disabled. The deserving disabled are those who are either not responsible for their disability or who have come by their disability through activities you deem worthy (like sport). Those who have acquired their disability through activities you disapprove of (eating, legal and illegal drug use) and where you deem that it was under their control then they are undeserving.

It's a view that many people share because it allows them to apply their own moral views. Of course it can result in differences of opinion which makes for difficult policy decisions. The "quiverful" crowd would be in favour of more government child support payments the more children you have, other people would stop at a certain number of children - both are applying moralistic judgements.

Under this kind of scheme, rather than an objective assessment of disability and associated need we'd end up in an adversarial situation where you as an employee needs to demonstrate that your disability is wholly or predominantly due to "good" actions and I as an employer need to demonstrate the opposite.
Click to expand...

Whilst I am unsympathetic to those disabled through obesity, I think this is an excellent post and a point well made. And I speak as someone with a very unhealthy list of sporting injuries.
 
The Atheist said:
No.

I repeat - I have no interest in what size someone is. It's only when their weight becomes an issue that someone else is expected to pay for I give a damn.



Well, we'll wait and see how the court ruling pans out, but the funniest part to me is that if the law is implemented as in the initial court decision it is going to impact on all fat people seeking jobs, not just those with disabilities.

If an obesity-caused disability is going to cost employers money, sensible employers will just not employ fat people at all, thereby consigning an entire generation of tubbies to lousy jobs.

Fine by me.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a funny moral compass. You claim not to care whether someone is fat or not, but then act gleeful at the thought that employers will discriminate against fat people, regardless of whether they have anything at all to do with the status of obesity as a disability.
 
phiwum said:
You seem to have a funny moral compass. You claim not to care whether someone is fat or not, but then act gleeful at the thought that employers will discriminate against fat people, regardless of whether they have anything at all to do with the status of obesity as a disability.
Click to expand...

I'm not gleeful at all, in fact I find it bloody sad that an entire group will be discriminated against.

I just have a warped sense of humour that lets me see a funny side of bleeding hearts wanting to allow obesity-disability when they are actually doing a disservice to all overweight people.
 
The Atheist said:
I'm not gleeful at all, in fact I find it bloody sad that an entire group will be discriminated against.

I just have a warped sense of humour that lets me see a funny side of bleeding hearts wanting to allow obesity-disability when they are actually doing a disservice to all overweight people.
Click to expand...

Oh. I guess I misread your post. Where you obviously intended concern for the poor, mis-served obese, I thought that "consigning an entire generation of tubbies to lousy jobs. Fine by me," indicated glee at the suffering inflicted.

I'm not good at subtleties like that, I guess.
 
The Atheist said:
Well, we'll wait and see how the court ruling pans out, but the funniest part to me is that if the law is implemented as in the initial court decision it is going to impact on all fat people seeking jobs, not just those with disabilities.
Click to expand...

It's possible but by no means certain - not least because as the population as a whole becomes fatter it will be more and more difficult to find suitably qualified skinny candidates and the employers themselves may be portly (they're not called fat cats for nothing ;)) Then again if an employer is shown to be discriminating against the disabled obese then there will be repercussions (as there are for those employers who discriminate based on gender, age, religion and so on).

The Atheist said:
If an obesity-caused disability is going to cost employers money, sensible employers will just not employ fat people at all, thereby consigning an entire generation of tubbies to lousy jobs.

Fine by me.
Click to expand...

Contrary to your statement to phiwum, it seems to me that you aren't too sad about it otherwise you'd have said something like "which is a shame" rather than "fine by me". IMO natch
 
The Don said:
It's possible but by no means certain - not least because as the population as a whole becomes fatter it will be more and more difficult to find suitably qualified skinny candidates and the employers themselves may be portly (they're not called fat cats for nothing ;)) Then again if an employer is shown to be discriminating against the disabled obese then there will be repercussions (as there are for those employers who discriminate based on gender, age, religion and so on).
Click to expand...

As it happens I think we've reached peak lard. The signs seem to show at least a flattening of obesity growth, so I don't see that as a problem.

Also, it's going to be very hard to prove discrimination. We're very careful to make notes showing we're not discriminating when we are.

One case occurred to me yesterday.

Two years ago, I recruited a National Operations Manager for a large public company. Salary was about $200k + $50-80k benefits. Very nice little earner.

The choice came down to two blokes of similar experience. One was average build, the other was bloody enormous. 5 foot 10 and weighed 147 kg/324 lb. Nice BMI of 46.4. How can I be so sure of the numbers?

The guy's weight was clearly an issue. Aged early 40s, he was round and clearly a candidate for problems caused by obesity. Easy: get both to go through a medical check, which he passed with no problems.

The only real difference between the two candidates was that the average-sized bloke was a good bloke, but a bit quiet. The big fella was quite charismatic, with a really pleasant personality that everyone bought into.

Two years ago, I very happily told the company to hire the big bloke, which they did.

In a world where the employer might have to fork out money to cope with disability that will almost certainly follow a bloke with a BMI like that, he wouldn't have made it to first base. I'd have dropped him as soon as I saw him.

To me, the opportunity is to work to tell these people NOW that their weight is a problem and they need to fix it because only they can. And if they don't, society will not be a party to providing for them.

Sitting back and allowing them the luxury of calling for help because they're too goddamned fat to climb the stairs seems to be detrimental to everyone.

The Don said:
Contrary to your statement to phiwum, it seems to me that you aren't too sad about it otherwise you'd have said something like "which is a shame" rather than "fine by me". IMO natch
Click to expand...

Like I said, I have a strange sense of humour, which saves me from the loony bin.

If I allowed myself to feel sad over discrimination against fat people, I'd be in tears at the treatment handed out to transgender people, bawling my eyes out at kids being ill-treated by their parents, and a gibbering wreck at the thought of children dying of starvation and preventable disease.

It's a big, nasty world out there and I only have so many ***** to give.
 
Well, if too fat is, why not shyness, inability to speak in public, or being tone deaf?
 
The Atheist said:
As it happens I think we've reached peak lard. The signs seem to show at least a flattening of obesity growth, so I don't see that as a problem.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to support this ? In the UK there seems to be no let up in the growth of obesity:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/02Febru...y-stats-for-England-are-alarming-reading.aspx

Now maybe things are different in NZ, but that may be because you're already miles ahead of the U.K.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11263969

An international study has shown Kiwis have a higher rate of obesity than Australians, with two thirds of adults classed as obese or overweight.

This figure has risen over the past 30 years from 50 per cent, the biggest increase among developed nations in the study.
Click to expand...

I suppose it is difficult to increase the obesity levels much further.

The Atheist said:
Also, it's going to be very hard to prove discrimination. We're very careful to make notes showing we're not discriminating when we are.
Click to expand...

You may think that but if you're a big enough employer you may still find yourself being prosecuted on a statistical basis alone (at least that's what's happened in the U.K).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom