A right to eat oneself to death?

A clean well-lighted plate.

Lots of folks set to pursue an addiction to its fullest. It's almost never as fun or glamorous as it seems.

Paleocon wrote:

It's a testimony to our disgusting entitlement mentality in the US that we are even discussing this as a possible "right". Of all the things she could apply herself to that would benefit humanity, why would she elect to replace them all with this? Seriously. Anyone asinine enough to devote themselves to this kind of horrific spectacle needs to be ignored, not encouraged.

SallyNasty wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The entire discussion of whether or not she has a "right" to do this to herself trivializes actual, meaningful freedoms. So rampant is exactly this sort of discussion that it feels like we live in a society where such bad choices are celebrated as badges of "individuality". Drive a fcking big car you can't afford gas for, eat crap you know will kill you, smoke to "piss off the Man". It's all part of "celebrating liberty".

This is precisely what is wrong with America.

I bet you would be an awesome guy to have a beer with.

Funny, I wanted to post that I would like to give Paleocon a hug, but didn't want to things to get weird. But since SallyNasty started it—Paleocon:

Paleocon wrote:

The entire discussion of whether or not she has a "right" to do this to herself trivializes actual, meaningful freedoms. So rampant is exactly this sort of discussion that it feels like we live in a society where such bad choices are celebrated as badges of "individuality". Drive a fcking big car you can't afford gas for, eat crap you know will kill you, smoke to "piss off the Man". It's all part of "celebrating liberty".

This is precisely what is wrong with America.

Perversely, it could be seen as precisely what is right with America. We live in such a free society that you even have the freedom to do ass-backwards things.

Jonman wrote:
Kraint wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Sure, she has a right to do it, just as I have the right to think it's a dumb lifestyle choice.

That, and not pay an undue amount on benefits/welfare for her. She gets the same level/limit of health care based on job (or potential national system), no disability benefits because she did it to herself, etc. People don't have the right to make themselves an excessive burden on support systems (that's why there are limits on total health care payouts).

Sure. But in this country, the burden on me due to this woman is minimal. No socialised healthcare, so I'm not on the hook for the inevitable medical bills as a result of her lifestyle (of course, if she works for the same company as me, then I kind of am ).

Were she and I still in England, I'd have more of an issue with this, because I *would* be on the hook for the medical costs. Here in the good 'ole US of A, she can have a beef dripping IV for all I care.

You're kidding, right. If she doesn't have heathcare, YOU will pay for any emergency care she needs. How likely is it that A) she has heathcare, given her condition (and she will get dropped, if she isn't already, especially if a provider reads her article) and B) that any care a 1000lb person needs isn't by default "an emergency".

Shoal07 wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Kraint wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Sure, she has a right to do it, just as I have the right to think it's a dumb lifestyle choice.

That, and not pay an undue amount on benefits/welfare for her. She gets the same level/limit of health care based on job (or potential national system), no disability benefits because she did it to herself, etc. People don't have the right to make themselves an excessive burden on support systems (that's why there are limits on total health care payouts).

Sure. But in this country, the burden on me due to this woman is minimal. No socialised healthcare, so I'm not on the hook for the inevitable medical bills as a result of her lifestyle (of course, if she works for the same company as me, then I kind of am ).

Were she and I still in England, I'd have more of an issue with this, because I *would* be on the hook for the medical costs. Here in the good 'ole US of A, she can have a beef dripping IV for all I care.

You're kidding, right. If she doesn't have heathcare, YOU will pay for any emergency care she needs. How likely is it that A) she has heathcare, given her condition (and she will get dropped, if she isn't already, especially if a provider reads her article) and B) that any care a 1000lb person needs isn't by default "an emergency".

Sure, I will pay for her emergency care. I'm not going to pay for years-long treatments of chronic conditions. Emergency care is cheap by comparison. Like I said, the burden on me is minimal.

I have a buddy of mine that teaches at the Maryland Fire Academy over in College Park. Among other subjects, he teaches how to do rescues on oversized residents of burning buildings. One of the things he emphasizes, though, is psychological preparedness for the inevitable triage process. As he puts it, "healthy people meet you at the door. Disabled folks need to be rescued.". He says that he counsels firefighters not to put rescuers in a position where executing a rescue would compromise the safety of the operation. You can not, for instance, cut open a doorway to get Kevin Smith out of a building because you don't know if you've just cut through a supporting wall in a burning building.

He says that an unsurprisingly high number of obese shut-ins die in building fires.

I think there's too much focus on things like rights and responsibilities, and just not enough collective horror at the fact that there are men out there paying money to pleasure themselves while watching a 600-pound woman eat cheeseburgers.

Curse you, Rule 34.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I think there's too much focus on things like rights and responsibilities, and just not enough collective horror at the fact that there are men out there paying money to pleasure themselves while watching a 600-pound woman eat cheeseburgers.

Curse you, Rule 34.

Oh, the horror's there, but horror is ineffective and rather pointless. It's reactive, not proactive, so isn't worth much in resolving an issue. Vilifying people's kinks doesn't really get anyone anywhere if all parties are willing, it just makes outsiders feel better about themselves.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I think there's too much focus on things like rights and responsibilities, and just not enough collective horror at the fact that there are men out there paying money to pleasure themselves while watching a 600-pound woman eat cheeseburgers.

Horrifying because they can't just go down to the local McDonald's and do the same thing for free?

It's disturbing because it's fetishizing incredibly unhealthy behavior. People have their kinks, and that's fine. I reserve the right to be creeped out by and/or mock the ones that are patently dangerous. Sure, there are people who are turned on by the idea of eating somebody else's crap. Grand. Enjoy eating the poison, and I'll enjoy making fun of them.

Being turned on by somebody eating themselves to death falls into my "disturbingly unhealthy" file. Yecch.

Jonman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The entire discussion of whether or not she has a "right" to do this to herself trivializes actual, meaningful freedoms. So rampant is exactly this sort of discussion that it feels like we live in a society where such bad choices are celebrated as badges of "individuality". Drive a fcking big car you can't afford gas for, eat crap you know will kill you, smoke to "piss off the Man". It's all part of "celebrating liberty".

This is precisely what is wrong with America.

Perversely, it could be seen as precisely what is right with America. We live in such a free society that you even have the freedom to do ass-backwards things.

It is a perversity to be sure. What is right with America is that we have the freedom to pursue our dreams. What is wrong with America is the persistent and malignant narcissism that people confuse with "individual freedom".

Paleocon wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The entire discussion of whether or not she has a "right" to do this to herself trivializes actual, meaningful freedoms. So rampant is exactly this sort of discussion that it feels like we live in a society where such bad choices are celebrated as badges of "individuality". Drive a fcking big car you can't afford gas for, eat crap you know will kill you, smoke to "piss off the Man". It's all part of "celebrating liberty".

This is precisely what is wrong with America.

Perversely, it could be seen as precisely what is right with America. We live in such a free society that you even have the freedom to do ass-backwards things.

It is a perversity to be sure. What is right with America is that we have the freedom to pursue our dreams. What is wrong with America is the persistent and malignant narcissism that people confuse with "individual freedom".

Let's pull this thread a little. Yes, what she is doing is repugnant to most of us, but is she free to do it? Damn right. Just as most of us enjoy a drink or two and that is repugnant to teetotalers. Or those of us that might be gay might have to endure people who think that their lifestyle is repugnant.

Will this woman's lifestyle be a burden on society? Probably. But so do the lifestyle choices of every person on a motorcycle or everyone who thinks rock climbing seems like a good idea or enjoys smoking.

I think that we should be okay with a person's abilty to make choices for themself, regardless of how we feel about it, as long as they are not hurting anyone else (particularly kids). Because I can guarrantee that in every single person's case, we can find a lifestyle choice that somebody else disagrees with and thinks shouldn't be allowed.

For instance, I tend to think anyone that puts their little kid in a beauty pageant should immediately have their kids taken away. But do I really want to see law enacted to that effect? Not really because I do enjoy my scotch and cigars.

Nevin73 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The entire discussion of whether or not she has a "right" to do this to herself trivializes actual, meaningful freedoms. So rampant is exactly this sort of discussion that it feels like we live in a society where such bad choices are celebrated as badges of "individuality". Drive a fcking big car you can't afford gas for, eat crap you know will kill you, smoke to "piss off the Man". It's all part of "celebrating liberty".

This is precisely what is wrong with America.

Perversely, it could be seen as precisely what is right with America. We live in such a free society that you even have the freedom to do ass-backwards things.

It is a perversity to be sure. What is right with America is that we have the freedom to pursue our dreams. What is wrong with America is the persistent and malignant narcissism that people confuse with "individual freedom".

Let's pull this thread a little. Yes, what she is doing is repugnant to most of us, but is she free to do it? Damn right. Just as most of us enjoy a drink or two and that is repugnant to teetotalers. Or those of us that might be gay might have to endure people who think that their lifestyle is repugnant.

Will this woman's lifestyle be a burden on society? Probably. But so do the lifestyle choices of every person on a motorcycle or everyone who thinks rock climbing seems like a good idea or enjoys smoking.

I think that we should be okay with a person's abilty to make choices for themself, regardless of how we feel about it, as long as they are not hurting anyone else (particularly kids). Because I can guarrantee that in every single person's case, we can find a lifestyle choice that somebody else disagrees with and thinks shouldn't be allowed.

For instance, I tend to think anyone that puts their little kid in a beauty pageant should immediately have their kids taken away. But do I really want to see law enacted to that effect? Not really because I do enjoy my scotch and cigars.

Well said.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

It's disturbing because it's fetishizing incredibly unhealthy behavior.
< snip >

Being turned on by somebody eating themselves to death falls into my "disturbingly unhealthy" file. Yecch.

You've just described 99% of people's responses to 99% of kinks.

The more I've been exposed to kinks, the less judgemental I've become of the apparently-batsh*t-insane things that people do to get their rocks off. I've seen people enjoying the hell out of things that I would literally run away from screaming if it was done to me.

IMAGE(http://wondermark.com/c/2008-11-14-461weirdo.gif)

Jonman wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

It's disturbing because it's fetishizing incredibly unhealthy behavior.
< snip >

Being turned on by somebody eating themselves to death falls into my "disturbingly unhealthy" file. Yecch.

You've just described 99% of people's responses to 99% of kinks.

The more I've been exposed to kinks, the less judgemental I've become of the apparently-batsh*t-insane things that people do to get their rocks off. I've seen people enjoying the hell out of things that I would literally run away from screaming if it was done to me.

I will readily admit that enough Midwestern vanilla runs through my veins in that the more . . . "unusual" proclivities squick me out. That being said, I absolutely and utterly believe that people should be able to do these things. People who like to eat feces should be able to eat feces. And, I, of course, should be able to totally make fun of them for that. Everybody wins. Well, except hotel housekeepers who have to clean up after these people.

Nevin73 wrote:

Let's pull this thread a little. Yes, what she is doing is repugnant to most of us, but is she free to do it? Damn right. Just as most of us enjoy a drink or two and that is repugnant to teetotalers. Or those of us that might be gay might have to endure people who think that their lifestyle is repugnant.

Will this woman's lifestyle be a burden on society? Probably. But so do the lifestyle choices of every person on a motorcycle or everyone who thinks rock climbing seems like a good idea or enjoys smoking.

I think that we should be okay with a person's abilty to make choices for themself, regardless of how we feel about it, as long as they are not hurting anyone else (particularly kids). Because I can guarrantee that in every single person's case, we can find a lifestyle choice that somebody else disagrees with and thinks shouldn't be allowed.

For instance, I tend to think anyone that puts their little kid in a beauty pageant should immediately have their kids taken away. But do I really want to see law enacted to that effect? Not really because I do enjoy my scotch and cigars.

To be clear, I'm not advocating using government power to restrict a person's ability to engage in self destructive behavior. If someone wants to eat herself to death, great. Knock yourself (herself?) out.

It's the seeming celebration of self destructive idiocy in the name of "freedom" I find offensive. It trivializes freedom and makes a mockery of the sacrifices people make for things like the right to self determination or speech.

It's only freedom if you have the freedom to do things that other people think are self-destructive idiocy.

Hell, in this case, I completely agree with that stance. It IS self-destructive idiocy. The woman's gone loony. But her ability to f*ck herself up any way she wants is contingent on your ability to do your particular unpopular activities.

It's pretty much guaranteed that some segment of the population in a free society will use that freedom in ways you find repugnant.

She has a "right" to it, I suppose, even if it's a questionable right. Just as runway models and young girls with cripplingly-low self-esteem have a right to starve themselves into anorexia-related multiple heart attacks and prolonged hospital stays for nutrient drips and recovery programs.

Psychologically, they seem to be about the same. Her ideal is towards ultimate fatness, whereas the anorexic archetype's is towards ultimate, unachievable thinness. Either way, both have a pretty good chance of dying before they reach their unrealistic ideals because the human body wasn't meant to sustain either extreme.

People in this country have the freedom to do things that dramatically shorten their lives in countless ways, and do so with less publicly-stated vigor. If we're going to question this woman's idea, we're doing it because it's publicized. There are plenty of people out there who make decisions and have desires just as bad as hers (or worse), but carry on more or less freely under the guise of anonymity.

Her right? I guess.

I sure worry about her kids though.

One of my biggest regrets was visiting Baltimore last May, ignorant of how close Paleocon lived to that city, and thus failing to contact him for some beers.

Since my brother lives out there and I liked the city so much, I hope to rectify that mistake sometime this summer.

err! oh right, the fat people. I do tend to side with Paleo in that I'm not entirely sure this is a discussion of rights -- this woman is a 21st century circus freak; other people pay to view her grotesque-ness. We should perhaps be discussing the enablers who are bankrolling her continued hideousness, and whatever happened to her psychologically for her to equate obesity with happiness.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Her right? I guess.

I sure worry about her kids though.

Exactly. She can do whatever she wants to herself if that's what makes her feel good, but if it's going to have a serious negative impact on her 3-year-old infant I think there's a serious problem. I'm one of those people who believe that once one has children, their life is no longer just their own. By devoting herself to being the ___________ person in the world, with the support of her husband, she's making her life more about her gratification of being this goal than about being part of her child's future.

The fatness and weight issue doesn't matter to me. If someone were striving to be the best professional drug-smuggler or thinnest person ever, I would still feel that they were being incredibly selfish (and possibly disordered) in their pursuits when it will most certainly remove them early from their child's life.

But that's just my opinion. To each their own, I guess.

I think she should get a Herostratus treatment. Of course since people (including us) already pay attention to her it's impossible to reach. Somehow I have a feeling that if people wouldn't give a rat's ass about this incredibly fat woman she would drop the behavior. One can dream...

That said, I consider her behavior irresposible because of the kid. Otherwise I don't really care - with her planned weight it's impossible to get her into an ambulance or to treat her meaningfully, so there is almost no health spending at risk.

Nevin73 wrote:

Will this woman's lifestyle be a burden on society? Probably. But so do the lifestyle choices of every person on a motorcycle or everyone who thinks rock climbing seems like a good idea or enjoys smoking.

I find parts of this argument flawed. Leaving smoking to the side for the time being, usually when people partake in activities like rock climbing or riding am motorcycle, they practice risk mitigation. Rock climbers don't use dental floss as climbing rope, wear flip-flops, or try to climb a smooth 90° wall on their first attempt. People who ride motorcycles wear helmets, protective clothing, and have a license indicating that they have taken courses, and passed, that teach them how to ride.

What this woman is doing is voluntarily engaging in incredibly risky behavior, with little to no regard for the consequences.

I find that too often in North America people cry out for their "right" to do something, but are as equally vocal about passing the burden of responsibility to someone else. If you have the right to do something, then the responsibility for the consequences are also yours as well. We as society should not be forced to share the burden of the consequence that came from you making a conscious, dedicated, effort to hurt yourself.

I can't stop this woman from eating herself to one tonne of mass, but I can cry foul if/when she expects society to step in and help her when the consequences of her risky behaviour bites her in the ass. The human body simply can't support that much mass, and it is only a matter of time before something gives out. When that time comes, this woman will be seeking support from the society that she thumbed her nose at for oppressing her "rights" as an individual.

Frankly, I find this woman's behviour disgusting. She should be a candidate for the Darwin awards.

Will anyone mind if Southwest Airlines charges her for two seats the next time she flies?

Dysplastic wrote:

That being said - as a cost calculation, there are areas that we can recoup the money. Hefty taxes on cigarettes can be justified not only as a disincentive to smoke but as a recouping of inevitable health care costs as a result of long-term smoking. As a smoker, you are essentially investing in your own future health care with every pack of cigarettes bought. I can't begrudge them for that.

I wouldn't mind a similar disincentive/recouping tax for fast food and the like - although that's the start of a very slippery slope that may not be worth it in the end.

Isn't the state of NY trying to do something like this with soda and snacks? I seem to recall some kind of tax on junk food being considered.

Again. I'm not stopping her from engaging in whatever self destructive behavior she wants. I just think that the entire discussion of "rights" when it comes to someone being pointless and decadent is trivializing to meaningful freedom.

I remember getting a good laugh at the irony of the song "Fight For Your Right (to party)" (Beastie Boys 1986) when it first came out. We were in the middle of the Cold War and folks in the Eastern Bloc were taking extraordinary risks for representation. Pro-democracy demonstrators (one of them being my wife) in South Korea were gassed and beaten by riot police. The city of Seoul was locked down in a state of martial law. Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement in Poland looked like it would get crushed by Communist tanks. And here was a group of teenagers singing (if you could call it that) about "fighting for a right to party" (presumably with their parents' money).

This is precisely what I think of whenever I see stories like this fat woman or folks complaining about the "tyranny" of a government that dares to impose taxes.

Paleocon wrote:

Again. I'm not stopping her from engaging in whatever self destructive behavior she wants. I just think that the entire discussion of "rights" when it comes to someone being pointless and decadent is trivializing to meaningful freedom.

I remember getting a good laugh at the irony of the song "Fight For Your Right (to party)" (Beastie Boys 1986) when it first came out. We were in the middle of the Cold War and folks in the Eastern Bloc were taking extraordinary risks for representation. Pro-democracy demonstrators (one of them being my wife) in South Korea were gassed and beaten by riot police. The city of Seoul was locked down in a state of martial law. Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement in Poland looked like it would get crushed by Communist tanks. And here was a group of teenagers singing (if you could call it that) about "fighting for a right to party" (presumably with their parents' money".

This is precisely what I think of whenever I see stories like this fat woman or folks complaining about the "tyranny" of a government that dares to impose taxes.

Define "meaningful".

What's meaningful to you is irrelevant to someone else. If you're suggesting that some forms of freedom should be restricted on the nebulous basis of 'meaningfulness', aren't you missing a fundamental point about freedom?

Jonman wrote:

Define "meaningful".

What's meaningful to you is irrelevant to someone else. If you're suggesting that some forms of freedom should be restricted on the nebulous basis of 'meaningfulness', aren't you missing a fundamental point about freedom?

I see those kinds of arguments a lot. "What a bunch of [insert adjective]. Do you have any idea how bad people in [sh*tty locale] have it?"

I'm always somewhat confused by those arguments. Sure, it's true that we have it much better off, but if you're that concerned about the other places why are you here arguing with me about it and not out helping the disadvantaged? I'll grant you that "Whatever, why don't you go help them out then!" isn't a good counter-argument, but it is somewhat fitting as a response to "Suck it up, people in the world have it much worse than you!"

I'm reminded of an episode of The Sopranos where Tony is telling his psychologist (I can't remember her name) about how he was ridiculed by the one-legged Russian woman for whining about trivial stuff compared to the difficulties the people in her old homeland had. The psychologist told him (paraphrased) "Well, don't you think that now we have progressed beyond the struggle of basic need with regard to daily living we have the right to work on other issues?"

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

I'm reminded of an episode of The Sopranos where Tony is telling his psychologist (I can't remember her name) about how he was ridiculed by the one-legged Russian woman for whining about trivial stuff compared to the difficulties the people in her old homeland had. The psychologist told him (paraphrased) "Well, don't you think that now we have progressed beyond the struggle of basic need with regard to daily living we have the right to work on other issues?"

It is a triumph of our society that we have all but eliminated the challenges of basic needs. But instead of filling the void of those challenges with pursuits that enrich our society and that our children can be proud of, we diminish ourselves with decadent crap like watching a fat woman eat herself to death (and enshrine her pointless pursuit as some kind of basic "right"). It's a squandering of our collective inheritance and, I, for one find it distasteful.