View Full Version : Is obesity a left-wing issue? (Query about Fox news)
Is obesity seen as a partisan issue? I'd always thought it was one of those side issues where people did not line up on party lines, left vs right. If anything, I reckoned the left might be more sympathetic to the overweight, on anti-discrimination, affirming diversity type lines while the right might be more critical on personal responsibility, tough love type arguments. However, I wonder if - in the US at least - the opposite is true. Perhaps obesity is seen as a "nanny state" type issue of the left while the right disregard it on libertarian grounds (maybe even venturing into "climate change denier" type ground of scepticism over the science or defence of America's high consumption life-style).
The background to this question is a strange experience I had watching Fox News for the first time. As a Brit, I had heard - largely from the Simpsons :clown: - that Fox news was right wing but only recently caught a glimpse of it when channel hopping the other night.
I mainly watched a rather bizarre news program (what came after was an embarassing attempt at a right wing "Daily Show"). In the news program, a middle-aged male Brit presenter (this was possibly Fox's Euro version or something) did four short interviews. They were almost pantomime in their bias.
The two with right wing interviewees were cringingly fawning. First there was a lawyer lambasting Sotemeyer for being " a shoo-in, but for big government" ("Oooo, you saved the best for last" cooed the interviewer). The second was with Bill Kristol on whether Palin was right to say she might to campaign for conservative Democrats. (Oh boy, even Palin is not right wing enough for Fox).
By contrast, the other two interviews were "attack" style, imitating a "shock jock" type of badgering and disrepect. An interview with a black woman Democratic senator was appalling in its rudeness ("You madam, are just buying votes with your bail-out money, admit it!" repeated verbatim for two minutes, while the poor Democrat just tried to smile politely.)
But the other "attack" style interview was odd, in that it was with a young white woman who had written a book on obesity and who supported airlines refusing to put morbidly obese staff on as cabin attendants. I thought the woman seemed a rather harsh, self-satisfied Ann Coulter type who might naturally hang out on Fox. But she did seem to have an undeniable point - I could not imagine a size 22 woman actually being employed as a airline hostess. However, the interviewer really slammed her, on the grounds that mocking the obese was disgraceful (again, repeated verbatim for two minutes - the interviewer was a real mental gymnast). He treat her even more harshly than he did the Democratic senator - and she had to put on the same bemused smile - and so that made me wonder if there was some ideological sub-text I had missed. Was there? Or did the interviewer just have a plump wife or something?
Crazed Rabbit
07-21-2009, 02:06
But the other "attack" style interview was odd, in that it was with a young white woman who had written a book on obesity and who supported airlines refusing to put morbidly obese staff on as cabin attendants. I thought the woman seemed a rather harsh, self-satisfied Ann Coulter type who might naturally hang out on Fox. But she did seem to have an undeniable point - I could not imagine a size 22 woman actually being employed as a airline hostess. However, the interviewer really slammed her, on the grounds that mocking the obese was disgraceful (again, repeated verbatim for two minutes - the interviewer was a real mental gymnast). He treat her even more harshly than he did the Democratic senator - and she had to put on the same bemused smile - and so that made me wonder if there was some ideological sub-text I had missed. Was there? Or did the interviewer just have a plump wife or something?
Good for that girl. Employers ought to have the right not to hire unfit (literally in this case) people.
But who was the interviewer? I don't watch Fox News, so I don't know, but the guy sounds like a fool (i.e. Sean Hannity)
CR
Louis VI the Fat
07-21-2009, 05:16
Obesity has moved from a health issue to a political and policy issue. Five stakeholders: (http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAPeriodicals/OJIN/TableofContents/Volume102005/No2May05/Obesity.aspx)
There are several stakeholders in the legislative arena when considering obesity and health policy. Key stakeholders include the government, the food industry, health care providers, employers, and the middle class.
The government, the major payer of Medicare and Medicaid expenditures has a concentrated interest in holding down the rise in medical expenditures. Also, since obesity has become a visible public issue, both the administration and Congress realize the potential political advantages of addressing the issue. Congress may not care about the exact number of calories that people should consume, or the ubiquitous presence of "junk food" advertisement and vendor machines. But Congress does care about how much political capital may be achieved from legislation. By calculating which legislative positions provide the greatest amount of political support essential for reelection, legislators will propose and support laws most effective to achieve this goal.
The food industry recognized the threat of potential liability and successfully lobbied for a law to shield them from such action (Library of Congress, 2003). The industry’s approach to policy change is to alter but not diminish daily food consumption through changing the national dietary guidelines, and stressing and placing increased emphasis on physical activity. The recent publication of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (United States Department of Agriculture, 2005) was preceded by heated debates on balancing recommendations for caloric restrictions and activity. Food makers have donated heavily to members of Congress. In 2004, food processing and sales companies gave $4,636,835; the dairy industry donated $1,398,911; and the sugar interests gave $1,379,484 (Mishra, 2004), far outweighing public health interest group contributions. While nutritionist, scientists, and other health advocates promote the need to "detoxify food environment," the food industry places stress on physical exercises, upon which higher levels of calories will be expended.
Health care providers have dual interests: prevention and treatment. Numerous professional organizations have issued position statements related to obesity. The International Council of Nurses (1999) position statement, "Reducing Environmental and Lifestyle-related Health Hazards," advocates that "nurses and national nursing associations should play a strategic role in helping reduce environmental and lifestyle-related health hazards by…promoting a positive lifestyle, including exercise, stress management, accident prevention, weight maintenance, and nutrition education that is sensitive to socio-economic status and cultural beliefs" (International Council of Nurses, paragraph 1). The National Association of School Nurses (2004), "Position Statement on Overweight Children and Adolescents," includes recommendations for screening, primary prevention, advocacy, legislation, funding, and research. The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a major policy statement urging the restriction of soft drinks in the nation’s schools (Markel, 2004). Meanwhile, successful efforts to obtain insurance coverage for obesity as a diagnosis may increase the demand for health care and lessen uncompensated care.
The role of employers and the middle class in the policy debate is linked to the willingness of these segments to accept a tax burden that may be seen as related to a behavioral and moral issue (Smith, 2004). As the health insurance costs of obesity continue to rise, employers need to choose between decreasing profit margins and passing back costs to consumers through higher premiums, thus decreasing take home wages.
There are two discordant sides in terms of the multiple legislative options on the table: one is that government has a limited role, and the other that it has a significant one. Supporters of the first view insist that overweight and obesity result from daily lifestyle choices. They believe adults should not only make positive choices for themselves, but also supervise their children in terms of nutrition and physical activity. They feel the government’s role is to provide health information and facilitate behavior changes through the support for education, research, and community-based interventions. Proponents of a more active government role argue that overweight and obesity result from a complex interplay of behavioral, environmental, and genetic factors, and that the government needs to undertake broad policy initiatives ranging from regulating the food environment and prescribing physical activity and nutrition for children, to supporting urban planning for increased physical activity through transportation and public safety provisions.Interesting is the food industry. Not unlike the oil industry, their lobby in Washington is to get Americans to consume as much as possible. This they do by buying 'science' and government policy. People are blown up to huge sizes as much as cars are transformed into SUV's.
(Americans eat an awful lot of food. Strike for the South consumes three to four times my amount of calories. And stores it in muscles he gains while working out. Personal choice? At any rate, the US food industry actively lobbies in Washington for support of 'consume, and excersize' As ever, people are more part of a culture than they may be aware of. Strike as much as me)
As for Fox - Fox is not rightwing. Fox is unmitigated hardright.
Need to sell oil-guzzling SUV's? Fox will deliver. Fox 'supports' the troops who die in some godforsaken desert to make it happen.
Need to sell torture? Fox delivers. See '24', the television series. 'Patriotic' Americans who rat their own son to have him tortured. Son shouts a bit, then shrugs it off showing torture is no big deal. Propaganda that would make Kim Young-Il blush with envy.
Need food-guzzling obese people? Fox delivers. Obese are the new Blacks.
kinda funny, in the short time we had fox chanel we called foxy because of the excessive amount of porn, different fox for different country I guess.
But... we don't have "a black female senator".... :help:
Sounds like the sort of gibberish you could expect from Beck's, Hannity's, or O'Reilly's shows though. Maybe the "Brit presenter" was a fill-in for one of them on that particular night. :shrug:
HoreTore
07-21-2009, 07:03
Good for that girl. Employers ought to have the right not to hire unfit (literally in this case) people.
Unless it's because of logistics(ie. the cabin crew won't fit in the plane....), I really can't see why on earth a persons looks should determine their job. Especially not jobs like cabin crew, where looks are completely irrelevant.
Qualifications should determine whether a person gets the job or not. Not looks, heritage, wealth, sex, race or religion. Period.
But... we don't have "a black female senator".... :help:
Good point - maybe Congresswoman? But you don't have too many of them either. She seemed not too old, fairly knowledgeable and pleasant, but maybe I completely messed up on her position.
Maybe the "Brit presenter" was a fill-in for one of them on that particular night. :shrug:
I may also have been wrong about the Brit part - he sounded like the kind of accent-less presenter we get on ITN or Sky, but could well have been an American without a marked accent. The chap whose show followed the interviews and who seemed to be attempting (and failing) a right wing Daily Show routine was Beck. I haven't been able to place the one who actually did the interviews (a website of Fox news presenters seems to show them almost all to be female).
Unless it's because of logistics(ie. the cabin crew won't fit in the plane....), I really can't see why on earth a persons looks should determine their job.
The guest who supported the airline was arguing that a morbidly obese person would be a hindrance if there was a need for an emergency exit of the plane.
Meneldil
07-21-2009, 10:32
As far as I know, there's way less obeses in France than in the US, despite a much more developped 'nanny state'.
It all comes down to the food lobby. As long as fast-food, McDonald's, and eating at midnight will rightly be regarded as utter garbage in France, we'll be spared of too much obesity.
French are the most slender folks of europe. Obesity is alower class problem, less lower class in western europe, except the uk.
Maybe the "Brit presenter" was a fill-in for one of them on that particular night. :shrug:
He was filling in for Clifford Banes who was currently hunting sharks in Guatemala. :sweatdrop:
Hosakawa Tito
07-21-2009, 11:10
Obesity and Food Culture. (http://ejas.revues.org/document1363.html) An interesting article. I must leave for work so I will comment later.
if the french have such great taste for food then what are they doing in french restaurants, rather bland menu they all serve the same crap. Restaurants are much better here, both in quality and diversity. The only acceptable place I know in Paris is the grand louvre and I have six places vastly superior in my street alone.
InsaneApache
07-21-2009, 12:43
As Jo Brand famously said. "Inside every fat person ther is a thin person trying to get out, because they ate them".
My particular favourite one was the T shirt I saw on an obese bloke. It read; I beat anorexia!
Not sure on this one. The libertarian in me says, so what! It's their choice what/how much they eat. The fascist in me says wire up their teeth and keep them away from melted butter.
As for the aeroplane thingy. Ask yourself this one. Would you like to share a row of seats with someone who weighs in at 25 stones? Blimey, it's bad enough travelling 'cattle class' as it is you've hardly enough room to twiddle your toes.
The Fox news interview sounds bit like a python sketch.
Rhyfelwyr
07-21-2009, 13:46
My particular favourite one was the T shirt I saw on an obese bloke. It read; I beat anorexia!
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
There is definitely a cultural problem with obesity though, reflected as Frag said, mostly in the working classes. When you're working long days on a shipyard or in a coal mine, you can get away with going to the chippy every night. But when the big industries disappeared and now those ex-workers sit in their house all day watching cable TV, then fast food starts to take its toll on them.
The government should help to tackle such cultural problems, nanny state style I guess. But I'm libertarian when it comes to the businesses, nobody should get told who to employ, it's their business, not the governments. Fat people are just not ideal for certain jobs, and I guess working in such a confined space as a plane would be one of those examples.
What can the goverment do that effectively combats obesity? Im guessing absolutely nothing.
Personelly I fall into the catagory where im eating 5000-6000 calories a day but I do my best to run/work out/sweat it all out. I love me food.
my particular favourite one was the T shirt I saw on an obese bloke. It read; I beat anorexia!
Nah, its "I wupped anorexia's ass"
Centurion1
07-21-2009, 15:48
There is no British host on Fox News. Maybe they have a separate European Outlet. Sounds like O'Reilly though. He has a very obnoxious interviewing style, i watch but sometimes i end up screaming at him.
Obesity is bad in America. Really bad. however, i don't think the governemnt shouls control my weight. It is perceived as being a left issue currently because obama has been trying to tax sugary foods ie sodas, candy, etc. with a sin tax. Much like liqour and cigarettes. I think it is bull and persons weight should be a personal issue. I am currently trying to gain weight for football and i eat thousands of calories a day but i'm still skinny. You really can't judge the issue without looking at things like metabolism and such. True, fast food doesn't help but there are other factors to be included into the equation.
I don't think this can be solved and you should just stop trying. Healthy lifestyle is promoted enough as it is, I really can't think of a European checking out how many calories a certain hamburger has, an inquiry would certainly get you some funny looks. What more can you do, beats me. Some will eat that crap, Darwin at work.
Centurion1
07-21-2009, 16:12
Amen, it is personal so why try to alter that which is. You can try to count your calories and all that (beep) but it isn't going to change the way the lord made you
Amen, it is personal so why try to alter that which is. You can try to count your calories and all that (beep) but it isn't going to change the way the lord made you
What I mean is that Americans are already much more obsessed with healthy lifestyle than we are, nobody here knows how much calories a big mac has, nobody cares. It's crazy how many Americans are seriously obese, something went wrong somewhere. Don't ask me where and when no idea.
Centurion1
07-21-2009, 16:35
I think there is something to the fast food argument. And the misconception there is that, yes we know how many calories something has but we don't care. The whole problem stems from our on the go lifestyles its not as relaxed as Europe. For example, historically a European gets around 30 more minutes to eat lunch than the average American. This is without factoring in things like siestas in Spain. The whole problem can be connected to rapid industrialization, a catapulting of our world dominance over the British empire in the 50's and even the HIGHWAY system.
You hardly see any fat people in New York, all tight like a drum. Can't be just American culture.
Centurion1
07-21-2009, 16:55
Aha there you go. New york is similar to europe in that it is highly urbanized. Most people walk everywhere. In the vast majority of the rest of america people drive and drive and drive and drive.... well you get the picture. for example, it takes around thirty minutes to get anywhere from where i live. and there are millions of americans who live that same way. On tuesdays and thursdays my schedule is so packed that i can ONLY eat fast food. i dont have enough time to go home.
Crazed Rabbit
07-21-2009, 17:06
Unless it's because of logistics(ie. the cabin crew won't fit in the plane....), I really can't see why on earth a persons looks should determine their job. Especially not jobs like cabin crew, where looks are completely irrelevant.
I wasn't talking about looks, but about prohibiting the morbidly obese. Extra weight means extra costs for a plane, and significantly higher difficulty moving around a plane. In short, because of their weight they are less able to perform their duties.
Qualifications should determine whether a person gets the job or not. Not looks, heritage, wealth, sex, race or religion. Period.
For certain jobs employers can discriminate on looks because of what's called 'customer bias' - in that customers don't want to see ugly people, so if you hire them they won't patronize your business. Mostly applies to places like Hooters.
CR
Aha there you go. New york is similar to europe in that it is highly urbanized. Most people walk everywhere. In the vast majority of the rest of america people drive and drive and drive and drive.... well you get the picture. for example, it takes around thirty minutes to get anywhere from where i live. and there are millions of americans who live that same way. On tuesdays and thursdays my schedule is so packed that i can ONLY eat fast food. i dont have enough time to go home.
That make sense, my clogs are my main method of transportation, and ze bike. In the NY metro you are really walking the whole distance anyway it's like a pitstop.
HoreTore
07-21-2009, 17:18
For certain jobs employers can discriminate on looks because of what's called 'customer bias' - in that customers don't want to see ugly people, so if you hire them they won't patronize your business. Mostly applies to places like Hooters.
.....Which is just plain sexist, and there's no way that should ever be allowed.
Centurion1
07-21-2009, 17:26
And now fragony you can see the beauty.... and the inner evil of living in such a large country. what once made us tough outdoors men, has now turned us into lards (not saying fat people aren't tough).
And now fragony you can see the beauty.... and the inner evil of living in such a large country. what once made us tough outdoors men, has now turned us into lards (not saying fat people aren't tough).
Oh I like America, ownage by proxy I guess. Like comming there anyhow, nice place.
Centurion1
07-21-2009, 17:52
Well the Netherlands are nice and i find the people there to be more centrist politically than the rest of Europe.
.....Which is just plain sexist, and there's no way that should ever be allowed.
Do you know what "Hooters" is?
Crazed Rabbit
07-21-2009, 18:05
.....Which is just plain sexist, and there's no way that should ever be allowed.
So, employers shouldn't be allowed to hire the people who will help their business the most?
And btw, this is the Hooters I'm talking of; http://www.hooters.com/home.aspx Probably not exactly work safe.
CR
Centurion1
07-21-2009, 18:11
Hah, if hore tore is serious he is basically saying, that it is sexist when playboy wont hire men as centerfolds. There are limits to where work discrimination applies. certain jobs are and can be legally designated as gender-specific. Mostly those that involve sex appeal. nothing wrong with that and it is not sexist in the least. The day a bi-gender porno rag gains appeal will be the day i put a bullet in my head.
HoreTore
07-21-2009, 18:19
Do you know what "Hooters" is?
Yes I do, and I see no reason for them to exist. And I see their very existence as proof that our society still has a long way to go.
So, employers shouldn't be allowed to hire the people who will help their business the most?
So.....
You believe that shop owners should feel free to avoid hiring gay people because the shop is in a conservative area...?
Hah, if hore tore is serious he is basically saying, that it is sexist when playboy wont hire men as centerfolds. There are limits to where work discrimination applies. certain jobs are and can be legally designated as gender-specific. Mostly those that involve sex appeal. nothing wrong with that and it is not sexist in the least. The day a bi-gender porno rag gains appeal will be the day i put a bullet in my head.
I'll happily make certain exceptions. Bars, shops and cabin crews are not on the list though. Because honestly, it's irrelevant.
Centurion1
07-21-2009, 18:27
Bars my friend are not irrelevant to this country and too the rest of the world. They bring in hundreds of billions of dollars a year. If you shut down bars because they were being sexist in fitting into their theme (be it hunks or babes) entire cities could be ruined ie Vegas.
People enjoy vices and hooters is definitely an innocent vice so men like pretty girls serving them food, its not like they are prostitutes or even strippers. Many people will tell you they go to hooters for the hot wings..... and they are serious
Crazed Rabbit
07-21-2009, 18:34
So.....
You believe that shop owners should feel free to avoid hiring gay people because the shop is in a conservative area...?
And you clearly believe in strawman arguments.
CR
HoreTore
07-21-2009, 18:41
And you clearly believe in strawman arguments.
....And you do not?
Yes I do, and I see no reason for them to exist. And I see their very existence as proof that our society still has a long way to go.
Indeed we do....
I hope that one day we can have a bar on every corner with hot waitresses that are completely topless...this 'tight tank top' thing is for sissies...
I have a dream!!:laugh4:
HoreTore
07-21-2009, 18:51
Indeed we do....
I hope that one day we can have a bar on every corner with hot waitresses that are completely topless...this 'tight tank top' thing is for sissies...
I have a dream!!:laugh4:
I honestly can't see why the hotness of the waitress has anything to do with whether I go to a bar or not, because:
1. She's at work. She won't come home with me.
2. She's sober. I will be drunk. You can't hit on sober people when you're drunk, that's rule #1.
3. I will be thirsty, I will be looking for the beer.
4. With my beer goggles on, everyone is a supermodel.
5. She will be over at the beer, working. I will be at my table, drinking and chatting with friends. Contact is highly unlikely.
6. I will be looking for hot costumers, as they will also be drinking and as such could well end up in my bed later.
Rhyfelwyr
07-21-2009, 18:57
Why should a business-owner get told who he/she can or cannot employ? If it's a private business, then it should be up to the employer and the employer alone.
If the employer is really being bigoted then why make the government step on him, instead of just letting the people speak? Boycotts or whatever would do fine surely.
I honestly can't see why the hotness of the waitress has anything to do with whether I go to a bar or not, because:
1. She's at work. She won't come home with me.
2. She's sober. I will be drunk. You can't hit on sober people when you're drunk, that's rule #1.
3. I will be thirsty, I will be looking for the beer.
4. With my beer goggles on, everyone is a supermodel.
5. She will be over at the beer, working. I will be at my table, drinking and chatting with friends. Contact is highly unlikely.
6. I will be looking for hot costumers, as they will also be drinking and as such could well end up in my bed later.
I cannot see why people should bother to go to places where you may see men in shorts running around and kicking a spherical thing. I say we ban these freak shows. :inquisitive:
HoreTore
07-21-2009, 19:23
Why should a business-owner get told who he/she can or cannot employ? If it's a private business, then it should be up to the employer and the employer alone.
If the employer is really being bigoted then why make the government step on him, instead of just letting the people speak? Boycotts or whatever would do fine surely.
1. Discrimination is illegal. Society is king, I won't accept having my country degenerate into dozens of petty kings doing whatever they want. I will not let peoples bigotry rule my country.
2. The power of the market is, contrary to what the market hippies say, weak. Why else do you walk around with a t-shirt made by a 7-year old slave? We buy what is offered, when forced to choose between our wallet and desire, and our ethics, we will choose the former 99% of the time.
I cannot see why people should bother to go to places where you may see men in shorts running around and kicking a spherical thing. I say we ban these freak shows. :inquisitive:
I've been warned by the mods enough lately, I'd better not respond to that one...
I've been warned by the mods enough lately, I'd better not respond to that one...
Nevermind. I thought you were close to dragging taste into the discussion. Bah.
Rhyfelwyr
07-21-2009, 19:41
1. Discrimination is illegal. Society is king, I won't accept having my country degenerate into dozens of petty kings doing whatever they want. I will not let peoples bigotry rule my country.
Wow I have a new found libertarian steak. Anyway, would such a system where society is king and has absolute power, not be open to abuse?
2. The power of the market is, contrary to what the market hippies say, weak. Why else do you walk around with a t-shirt made by a 7-year old slave? We buy what is offered, when forced to choose between our wallet and desire, and our ethics, we will choose the former 99% of the time.
So you want the government to have the power instead of the people? In which case, what do you expect a politician to do when faced with a choice between his wallet and good ethics? Surely all parts of the developed world, whether big government or small government, abuse child labour in the developing world?
And I was genuinely asking that last question, I really do not know the answer to that...
Meneldil
07-21-2009, 20:02
if the french have such great taste for food then what are they doing in french restaurants, rather bland menu they all serve the same crap. Restaurants are much better here, both in quality and diversity. The only acceptable place I know in Paris is the grand louvre and I have six places vastly superior in my street alone.
If you're looking for good restaurants in Paris, then I don't know what to say :sweatdrop:
I'm not saying french food is superior to all other foods (though I think it's superior to what north-americans and britishmen call food), but we have a real food culture. Travelling all around France to try local dishes is an awesome thing to do. But then, yes, if you're eating in half-arsed restaurants that effectively serve the same crap, you won't find anything good (though still centuries ahead of anglo-saxon food).
Note that I've also been served the exact same crap in Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and your country (in typical half-arsed restaurants). I'll try your street next time.
If you're looking for good restaurants in Paris, then I don't know what to say :sweatdrop:
Glad I am not imagining things, dear god terrible, really terrible everywhere. They eat it fine but not me. The food you get in the shops is terrific though.
HoreTore
07-21-2009, 20:38
Wow I have a new found libertarian steak. Anyway, would such a system where society is king and has absolute power, not be open to abuse?
Still as socialist as ever.
And you're forgetting the two other things I didn't mention; that of the rule of law, and respecting the minority and opposition. I am not in any way proposing a tyranny of the majority. In fact, I'm doing the opposite.
So you want the government to have the power instead of the people? In which case, what do you expect a politician to do when faced with a choice between his wallet and good ethics? Surely all parts of the developed world, whether big government or small government, abuse child labour in the developing world?
And I was genuinely asking that last question, I really do not know the answer to that...
There is no "government vs. the people". The government should be the people. That's what democracy means to me. And I want a democratic economy as well, I see no reason why the economy should be left as a dictatorship, ruled by those with money.
Rhyfelwyr
07-21-2009, 21:47
Still as socialist as ever.
And you're forgetting the two other things I didn't mention; that of the rule of law, and respecting the minority and opposition. I am not in any way proposing a tyranny of the majority. In fact, I'm doing the opposite.
Well the law, or respect for minorities, are all ideas implemented by a government at some point, so it will be up to the government to take them away. I guess the only way you can lay down things such as minority rights are through a constitution, but then unless you want to be like the Spartans and claim your constitution comes from the gods, at the end of the day it's just another invention of the government and can be removed by a government if they really want to.
There is no "government vs. the people". The government should be the people. That's what democracy means to me. And I want a democratic economy as well, I see no reason why the economy should be left as a dictatorship, ruled by those with money.
But is there such a thing as "the people"? One person might not want to employ X type of person, another person might not want to employ Y type of person, everyone is different. Why should anyone have the right to tell an employer what to do with his own private business, least of all some abstract idea of "the people"?
Note how in the fist part of your post I quoted, you appeal to the "liberal" part of liberal democracy, but in the second part you appeal to the "democracy" part. But, unless the people democratically choose to be liberal, then I don't think democracy is an appropriate name for the system. Just admit it's liberalism being forced on everyone, all that democracy can do is tweak the system. Maybe that is a good thing, because strictly speaking, democracy is majority rule.
Centurion1
07-22-2009, 02:07
Dude this thread is so off topic......
Look there are places where it stops being discrimination and it begins being common sense.
Hypothetical
i own a rickshaw company (my dream) and i am hiring a new driver
My choices are a 300 pound lard and a 180 pound olympic athlete
I choose the athlete because he is not fat. this is my sole reason, am i discriminating illegally?
Dude this thread is so off topic......
Indeed, but perhaps it validates my inital supposition - that (opposing) obesity is not a left wing issue.
If the debate in this thread is anything to go by, the libertarian right focus on the rights of employers to employ who they like (and so not employ the obese).
While the left focus on the rights of the workers to work without discrimination (on the grounds of being obese).
But it leaves me no wiser about why Fox News went all "shock jock" on the woman supporting the airline's refusal to put obese people on as flight attendants. I suspect it was an attack interview just for the sake of being an attack interview - to provide entertainment (heck, I guess it worked - I was a causal viewer and here I am still talking about it several days after the event).
Why they went for the woman interviewee in particular, I don't know. I can't help wondering if it was at least in part because she was young and female rather than old and balding. It's weird, but I've seen established males exhibit otherwise inexplicable hostility to bright attractive young women who seem to be getting above their station in other settings (e.g. academic seminars).
Anyway, I found it unpleasant, so this thread was partly a disguised way to vent.
HoreTore
07-22-2009, 06:44
Well the law, or respect for minorities, are all ideas implemented by a government at some point, so it will be up to the government to take them away. I guess the only way you can lay down things such as minority rights are through a constitution, but then unless you want to be like the Spartans and claim your constitution comes from the gods, at the end of the day it's just another invention of the government and can be removed by a government if they really want to.
That goes for every type of government. Well except anarchy I guess, where there wouldn't be one.
But is there such a thing as "the people"? One person might not want to employ X type of person, another person might not want to employ Y type of person, everyone is different. Why should anyone have the right to tell an employer what to do with his own private business, least of all some abstract idea of "the people"?
Note how in the fist part of your post I quoted, you appeal to the "liberal" part of liberal democracy, but in the second part you appeal to the "democracy" part. But, unless the people democratically choose to be liberal, then I don't think democracy is an appropriate name for the system. Just admit it's liberalism being forced on everyone, all that democracy can do is tweak the system. Maybe that is a good thing, because strictly speaking, democracy is majority rule.
Change "liberalism" with "socialism", and I'll happily agree.
I can make a compromise with social liberalism though. Just keep me away from market liberalism....
InsaneApache
07-22-2009, 10:53
If you want your beer and food served to you by hairy arsed men in mankinis (ala Borat) that's your choice Horetore. Me? I'd go for the 19 year old looker everytime. Taste is just personal I guess, or maybe I'm just a dirty old man. (My lifes ambition BTW) :beam:
Furunculus
07-22-2009, 11:35
The guest who supported the airline was arguing that a morbidly obese person would be a hindrance if there was a need for an emergency exit of the plane.
that is a false argument imo that serves no purpose but to pander to the PC consensus, that there must always appear to be a fair and equitable reason for every decision, regardless over who agrees on how "fair" and "equitable" should be defined.
morbidly obese people shouldn't be airline stewards because they would block isles full stop, making it damned inconvenient for me to go for a pee. the whole emergency thing as a justification for discrimination is a sham in which i won't participate.
Furunculus
07-22-2009, 11:41
I honestly can't see why the hotness of the waitress has anything to do with whether I go to a bar or not, because:
1. She's at work. She won't come home with me.
2. She's sober. I will be drunk. You can't hit on sober people when you're drunk, that's rule #1.
3. I will be thirsty, I will be looking for the beer.
4. With my beer goggles on, everyone is a supermodel.
5. She will be over at the beer, working. I will be at my table, drinking and chatting with friends. Contact is highly unlikely.
6. I will be looking for hot costumers, as they will also be drinking and as such could well end up in my bed later.
so because the hotness of a barmaid is not important to you, its ok to ban bars from choosing hot barmaids even though they consider it a very important factor to their clientele?
If you want your beer and food served to you by hairy arsed men in mankinis (ala Borat) that's your choice Horetore. Me? I'd go for the 19 year old looker everytime. Taste is just personal I guess, or maybe I'm just a dirty old man. (My lifes ambition BTW) :beam:
heh I feel like a dirty old man having a guilty pleassure looking at the 19 year old hotties and I am 32, for some reason they seem so young. Odd. I am getting old.
rory_20_uk
07-22-2009, 12:40
Why just obesity? I am sure that with effort the following groups could be made safe to work on a plane...
those in wheelchairs (just widen the isles)
the registered blind high (contrast lighting / bigger signs everywhere)
Severe respiratory or cardiac (disease personal oxygen supplies)
Are all going to have rights to be basketball players for example - don't let the disability that they're crap at basketball get in the way and they need support.
I can't be a fighter pilot. My eyesight isn't good enough. Can I sue against this discrimination?
Unlike many of the other conditions I've mentioned all can loose weight with restricted calorific intake.
Titillating young women are attractive. No hot 19 year old looked at me when I was 19 - and OK the same is probably true now :laugh4: But they are either doing it as they want to or as they view the pay as sufficient. Just like any other job really.
~:smoking:
Why just obesity? I am sure that with effort the following groups could be made safe to work on a plane...
those in wheelchairs (just widen the isles)
the registered blind high (contrast lighting / bigger signs everywhere)
Severe respiratory or cardiac (disease personal oxygen supplies)
Are all going to have rights to be basketball players for example - don't let the disability that they're crap at basketball get in the way and they need support.
I can't be a fighter pilot. My eyesight isn't good enough. Can I sue against this discrimination?
If we ignore wheelchair basketball teams, then I agree with you.
You are German you are not supposed to be hilarious.
HoreTore
07-22-2009, 18:09
so because the hotness of a barmaid is not important to you, its ok to ban bars from choosing hot barmaids even though they consider it a very important factor to their clientele?
Yes.
Looks should not have anything to say when applying for a job.
Why just obesity? I am sure that with effort the following groups could be made safe to work on a plane...
those in wheelchairs (just widen the isles)
the registered blind high (contrast lighting / bigger signs everywhere)
Severe respiratory or cardiac (disease personal oxygen supplies)
Are all going to have rights to be basketball players for example - don't let the disability that they're crap at basketball get in the way and they need support.
I can't be a fighter pilot. My eyesight isn't good enough. Can I sue against this discrimination?
Unlike many of the other conditions I've mentioned all can loose weight with restricted calorific intake.
Titillating young women are attractive. No hot 19 year old looked at me when I was 19 - and OK the same is probably true now :laugh4: But they are either doing it as they want to or as they view the pay as sufficient. Just like any other job really.
~:smoking:
Nice try Rory, but sorry, logistics and looks are two different things.
Centurion1
07-22-2009, 20:19
Hore tore i want you to answer my rickshaw question. I believe the answer is pretty much common sense (and it doesn't involve 19 year old babes)
HoreTore
07-22-2009, 20:23
Hore tore i want you to answer my rickshaw question. I believe the answer is pretty much common sense (and it doesn't involve 19 year old babes)
I have no idea what a rickshaw is.
InsaneApache
07-22-2009, 20:37
A rickshaw is something that evil capitalists are literally dragged about by the poor downtrodden workers. I like them.
Centurion1
07-22-2009, 20:54
A rickshaw is something that evil capitalists are literally dragged about by the poor downtrodden workers. I like them.
It really is a beautiful concept isn't it *sniffle* brings a tear to my eye.
I have no idea what a rickshaw is
Really? Well a rickshaw is a human-powered taxi of sorts, which is indigenous to china. Basically it is two wheels a seat and two poles that a person holds onto while they drive you around.
Oh i have another asian oriented question. i have a palanquin company and i am hiring a new carrier, the other three carriers are conveniently 5'9. now my two choices are a 3 foot "little person" (dont want to be politically incorrect) and another 5'9 guy. I choose the 5'9 guy simply because of his height, am i discriminating?
HoreTore
07-22-2009, 21:12
Really? Well a rickshaw is a human-powered taxi of sorts, which is indigenous to china. Basically it is two wheels a seat and two poles that a person holds onto while they drive you around.
Ah, well then I understand. Well, your example is quite irrelevant then, isn't it? You would hire the most qualified driver, which would be the one best capable of riding the rickshaw. If that's the big guy, you hire him, if it's not, you hire the other. You don't hire the athlete because of his looks, but because of his qualifications.
Ah, well then I understand. Well, your example is quite irrelevant then, isn't it? You would hire the most qualified driver, which would be the one best capable of riding the rickshaw. If that's the big guy, you hire him, if it's not, you hire the other. You don't hire the athlete because of his looks, but because of his qualifications.
And if the qualifications are being well shaped, it isn't discrimination either.
HoreTore
07-22-2009, 21:36
And if the qualifications are being well shaped, it isn't discrimination either.
The qualifications for being a rickshaw driver isn't being "well shaped", it's having good stamina.
But with every job with such requirements, there better be a damned good reason for it. And attracting costumers ain't one of them.
The qualifications for being a rickshaw driver isn't being "well shaped", it's having good stamina.
But with every job with such requirements, there better be a damned good reason for it. And attracting costumers ain't one of them.
That would be in reference to Hooters and similar places; where it appears to be not just about attracting customers, but also about a theme that the place has set.
Is a gay bar that would only allow homosexual bartenders a discriminating place?
HoreTore
07-22-2009, 21:47
That would be in reference to Hooters and similar places; where it appears to be not just about attracting customers, but also about a theme that the place has set.
Is a gay bar that would only allow homosexual bartenders a discriminating place?
Yes?
Shall I mention a strip club? :sweatdrop:
HoreTore
07-22-2009, 21:50
Shall I mention a strip club? :sweatdrop:
I see no reason for strip clubs to exist in the first place, so....
I see no reason for strip clubs to exist in the first place, so....
So everybody better adjust to your opinion because that will obviously make the world a better place and bring freedom and democracy. :rolleyes:
Yes?
I think it was a pretty poor example, on a second thought, since it wouldn't really have any impact on their performance in any way; while on Hooters, it's a theme that you'll notice once you've entered.
Restaurant openly seeks attractive women. Woman A is deemed prettier than woman B and is therefore selected. Not discrimination.
Woman C is a foreigner while woman D is not. Woman D gets selected because of that. Discrimination.
Centurion1
07-22-2009, 22:12
Look he obviously isn't going to back down. if we say something like Playboy doesn't have to hire men he would say well playboy shouldnt exist. whenever he doesn't have an answer he makes it moral.
Oh and you would not hire the fat :furious3: because he is FAT. He doesn't have any stamina, because he is FAT. so face up there are certain jobs that fat people cannot perform as well as in shape people.
The same goes for women men. If i ran a hooters i would never hire a male waiter (even if his man boobs were big, heehee)
Because it is a business pleasing the customers (not costumers, that had me confused...) is your main priority. It is the only thing that matters cause if a restaurant &%&% of its clientele they will lose their business and then there wont be ANY jobs, be they hot or not.
Furunculus
07-22-2009, 23:16
So everybody better adjust to your opinion because that will obviously make the world a better place and bring freedom and democracy. :rolleyes:
i know the TV show Yes Minister reached Finland, but maybe it never got to Norway which thus explains why he doesn't appreciate the irony of such a publicly stated attitude?
Rhyfelwyr
07-22-2009, 23:35
But with every job with such requirements, there better be a damned good reason for it. And attracting costumers ain't one of them.
You don't think attracting customers is an important part of the job?
I don't get what makes choosing people based on looks any different from choosing people based on intelligence. Both are things which will affect a person's success in some jobs, both are things which some people will be born with and others not, they can't help it. So what's the difference?
HoreTore
07-23-2009, 07:17
Look he obviously isn't going to back down. if we say something like Playboy doesn't have to hire men he would say well playboy shouldnt exist. whenever he doesn't have an answer he makes it moral.
How 'bout actually reading what I write?
If you do, you just might notice that I've stated "such things should have damned good reasoning behind it" multiple times. Not that looks shouldn't matter anywhere.
See the extreme difference between the two?
In fact, I believe we agree completely in principle. I'm pretty sure that you agree that if someone is looking for a new garbage driver, and the two applicants are a middle-aged guy with plenty of driving experience, and the other one is a 22-year old babe with no experience, it should be treated as discrimination if the boss decides to hire the babe because he can think dirty thoughts if he does.
The rest is just about where to draw the line.
So the better driver makes a better garbage collector, and the hot waitress a better looker, now isn't that the point.
Crazed Rabbit
07-23-2009, 08:57
The qualifications for being a rickshaw driver isn't being "well shaped", it's having good stamina.
But with every job with such requirements, there better be a damned good reason for it. And attracting costumers ain't one of them.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?!
Have you never heard of salesmen? Face it, for some jobs physical attractiveness helps the business and therefore it's legitimate to discriminate based on that.
Sorry, but you seem to be deviating from the reality of business here. :shrug:
CR
HoreTore
07-23-2009, 09:03
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?!
Have you never heard of salesmen? Face it, for some jobs physical attractiveness helps the business and therefore it's legitimate to discriminate based on that.
Sorry, but you seem to be deviating from the reality of business here. :shrug:
CR
Bah.
Leftism at it's finest, aren't equal chances that count but equal outcome. CR rabbit is 100% correct you are shutting down your eyes for the reality of business. Can't shape reality, it just is. People like hot waiters, and thus prefer to be served by hot waiters.
HoreTore
07-23-2009, 10:36
Leftism at it's finest, aren't equal chances that count but equal outcome. CR rabbit is 100% correct you are shutting down your eyes for the reality of business. Can't shape reality, it just is. People like hot waiters, and thus prefer to be served by hot waiters.
Alright, I'll elaborate, because you really did hit the nail here.
Capitalism isn't about selling the most, or making the biggest profit. That's as wrong as you can get.
Capitalism is a way to achieve the best product in the most efficient way. Capitalism is about innovation and efficiency.
Marketing, in todays form, counter-acts the innovation and efficiency capitalism tries to achieve. Let's take your example with the hot waitress, having a hot waitress is a form of marketing in this example. The restaurant attracts more costumers because of it, fine. But where's the innovation and efficiency in that? Where's the incentive to come up with new things and improve efficiency when all you need is that hot chick? Why do you, Fragony, want to lower the quality of the food you eat as well as increase its cost?
Marketing should go to hell. Plain and simple.
Back at you, where do you draw the line, I am sure we can agree that we don't want to be confronted with the hidious mass of an arterie-trafficjammed pig when we are visiting a strip-club, we expect hotties who know their ways with gravity. Certain businesses have certain requirements, it ins't discrimination to deny someone a job as bus-driver if he has poor eyesight. A night out is an experience, restaurant wants to give the best, or they should do something else. You shouldn't be mean to ugly people, but that is where it ends.
edit, your point is much more interesting than I took it for. All work and no play makes Fragony a dull boy, if you put all the colours of the rainbow of a disk and spin it around all you see is grey. I like beauty, and yeah I want to consume it. Each and every one. When I go to a museum I want to see great works of art, not a collection of what the world has to offer, I have that it's called daily life.
InsaneApache
07-23-2009, 11:58
That's where I went wrong. You see I set up a business to make money. As much of it as I could. Now if I'd only set about making the best product in the most efficient way and innovated a bit more.........
Deluded, absolutley deluded. :wall:
Rhyfelwyr
07-23-2009, 13:09
Well capitalism in some ways doesn't exactly maximise innovation and efficiency. When you get to very 'pure' capitalist systems, then a lot of people would be denied the education to show the world their talent and contribute their best. You need socialised elements to give everyone a chance, getting the balance is where the debate is.
Well capitalism in some ways doesn't exactly maximise innovation and efficiency. When you get to very 'pure' capitalist systems, then a lot of people would be denied the education to show the world their talent and contribute their best. You need socialised elements to give everyone a chance, getting the balance is where the debate is.
Ya. That middle ground. There is no perfection just the best choice for the time being. For a person seeing himself as rightwing I have some pretty leftist idea's on social issues, just picking the flowers I like. It's of no use trying to put capitalism against socialism because neither have fully existed and we will never know how they would perfrom if they did. Now if rightwing wouldn't be automatically regarded as evil xenophobic and selfish bastards there would be something to discus, and I would stop seeing lefties as aggresive intolerant and arrogant bastards.
Rhyfelwyr
07-23-2009, 13:36
Ya. That middle ground. There is no perfection just the best choice for the time being. For a person seeing himself as rightwing I have some pretty leftist idea's on social issues, just picking the flowers I like. It's of no use trying to put capitalism against socialism because neither have fully existed and we will never know how they would perfrom if they did. Now if rightwing wouldn't be automatically regarded as evil xenophobic and selfish bastards there would be something to discus, and I would stop seeing lefties as aggresive intolerant and arrogant bastards.
Yeah, I like to cherrypick as well. I'm not necessarily in the 'centre', sometimes I am, but other times I go with the right or the left on certain issues, admittedly more often the left. Also very true about just using the best option for the time being, never mind the global revolution, it just won't work for some countries.
Yeah, I like to cherrypick as well. I'm not necessarily in the 'centre', sometimes I am, but other times I go with the right or the left on certain issues, admittedly more often the left. Also very true about just using the best option for the time being, never mind the global revolution, it just won't work for some countries.
Democracy at it's best no? I don't trust the left because I don't trust people who don't trust people, there just aren't enough problems to put their idealism to use and their need for perfectionism freaks me out. We are having a great life here. Enjoy it.
I see no reason for strip clubs to exist in the first place, so....
now you´re going too far!! them be fighting words!!! you wanna step outside?? :laugh4:
Portugal air pressure normalllllllll yes must be you :inquisitive:
HoreTore
07-23-2009, 19:25
That's where I went wrong. You see I set up a business to make money. As much of it as I could. Now if I'd only set about making the best product in the most efficient way and innovated a bit more.........
Deluded, absolutley deluded. :wall:
You're in it for the money, that doesn't make it the goal of capitalism.
Capitalism is about progress.
Crazed Rabbit
07-23-2009, 19:51
Alright, I'll elaborate, because you really did hit the nail here.
Capitalism isn't about selling the most, or making the biggest profit. That's as wrong as you can get.
Capitalism is a way to achieve the best product in the most efficient way. Capitalism is about innovation and efficiency.
To paraphrase Adam Smith; capitalism is the result of each person working for their own gain. It just so happens that it has a whole bunch of side benefits.
Marketing should go to hell. Plain and simple.
:rolleyes:
None of this has to do with companies discriminating in their hiring. And even then, you're wrong. Hooters also has a reputation for good 'wings', and they want people to think they've got good food as well.
And marketing goes hand in hand with innovation - how else are you going to inform people of the latest and greatest invention if not by marketing?
CR
HoreTore
07-23-2009, 21:33
And marketing goes hand in hand with innovation - how else are you going to inform people of the latest and greatest invention if not by marketing?
How 'bout..... Actually reading what I write? ~:)
InsaneApache
07-24-2009, 01:03
You're in it for the money, that doesn't make it the goal of capitalism.
Capitalism is about progress.
Capitalism is about making money. The clues in the name.
Marketing should go to hell. Plain and simple.
You don't even seem to know what marketing entails...
Hint: It's not just advertisement.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-24-2009, 15:54
You're in it for the money, that doesn't make it the goal of capitalism.
Capitalism is about progress.
Actually, pure Capitalism is about using what you've got (your capital) to get more (capital).
So, it's about getting rich and using what you've got to get ahead, rather than just making money.
It certainly isn't about efficiency and innovation, those are just ways of making your capital go further. Ruthlessness and mysanthropy are equally ways of making your capital go further, but Capitalism isn't about those either.
Centurion1
07-24-2009, 22:48
Your statements about capitalism are incorrect as the people above me have so nicely pointed out. Innovation is just a side effect of capitalism. Capital is the sole motivator in a capitalistic society.
HoreTore
07-25-2009, 00:05
You don't even seem to know what marketing entails...
Hint: It's not just advertisement.
I do indeed, and I wish they would all go away.
And if Adam Smith were alive to see todays world, I'm damn sure he would agree with me.
a completely inoffensive name
07-25-2009, 09:01
You are German you are not supposed to be hilarious.
I want to sig this.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.