[None of their business] Japan measuring people's waistlines

Hey man. I'm so awesome. I go to the gym 10 times a week. I have 56 inch pecs. 30 inch biceps. 20 inch neck. I made a video to show how awesome I am.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ALjcr3cHDc4&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ALjcr3cHDc4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

What about minimum height and boob size ordinances in Japan? I think that affects a much larger chunk of the population.

In all seriousness, there just aren't that many 'fat' Japanese...this is is a serious overreaction on the part of the Japanese. I don't mind the government sponsoring "get fit" programs, but I just don't think the mandated waist size is indicative of a healthy individual. A skinny individual, maybe, but not a 'healthy' individual.

Being skinny does not mean being healthy...

 

"Democratic" does not equal "Free"..

 

4 pages in, and we finally reach the answer. HFCS is horrible.

along those lines, you fatties are not only getting bigger you're also poisoning yourselves.

saccharin, aspartame, sucralose, maltitol, and HFCS are terrible. i can't find the stats online, but look at the time in america before these were implemented and present day, and it's just stunning. all of the aforementioned sweeteners are chemically enhanced, and those "natural" labels are completely false.



some education would easily solve our weight issues... and no government involvement would be needed.


5'7 32" waist.

 

I'm way over the Japan measure but under the estimated US waistline standard. I guess thats how you establish credibility in this thread....

Its goverment telling people who are already exceedingly skinny to get skinny....So they save themselves money and the people get little to no benefit from it (And they'll probably still pass the costs along ANYWAY).... No matter the reasoning behind, who the heck wants to be down for that?

No one really wants to think hard on Japan's internal issues though, only how things relate to the U.S.... Some people might not be affected by any testing administered to them, good for them being patient and understanding. It should still come down to the principle of the effort.

Government and big business directly telling citizens what do do generally doesnt fly too well in the U.S. I do think a government sanctioned effort aimed at getting American's thinner and healthier would be understandable, even if its cut and dry body measurement. Its more HOW its done - APPEALLING to the citizen and offering them a benefit, unlike Japan's effort.

Or, heavily penalizing businesses for not meeting the standard always motivates actions....

 

I think Japan should make the overweight people wear a star on the shirts to indicate that they are fat. Oh, maybe a star is a poor choice of symbols, but perhaps a picture of a donut. This way when others see these a person wearing these pictures of donuts, the crowd will know this person is overweight.

 

Wow, what a concept. I have always seen Democracy in the same sentence with Freedom.

So which society/country in the world is democratic but not 'free'? How do people there enjoy democracy without freedom? Or how do people have freedom without democracy? Or how does a democratic government withhold freedom from it's people?

I am here to be educated and I will be all ears.

 

Locke doesnt have any kids or make a million bucks...I think he was being hypothetical.....but anyway. Nice of you to be so amazingly judgemental so late in the evening.

 

I feel sorry for those that are so ignorantly intolerant.

 

it's off topic but it's pretty simple. if people in a democratic society vote to restrict a behavior then that would be a limitation of freedom. check out singapore.

 

just in general?

 

This is a fascinating topic - especially when discussed on a forum frequented by Americans. On one side you have perhaps the most "politically correct" country that has pushed the limits of cultural relativism when applying them to human rights. Being fat is the carry-through of a right and a decision by an individual of what to do with their own body. On the other side, you have Japan and a culture that stresses more emphasis on teamwork, and the idea that each individual is a part of larger success, that of their social networks. Being fat here would perhaps be morally wrong; by not prolonging your life and increasing chances of disease, you are limiting your productivity towards society.

Firstly to robbie380 - citing Singapore was a really poor choice as an example of a democracy. If you were to look at Singapore's government within the last 40+ years, you would see that it has been dominated by a single party, the People's Action Party. In that single party, there has always been a powerful figurehead that has had indefinite stays as Prime Minister. Any student of politics would likely refer to Singapore as more of an authoritarian state than a democracy.

This thread ties right in to a thread posted not long ago in the Hangout "Is it morally wrong to be fat?" At the center of whether someone or some institutional decision should be able to guide the actions of an individual and their body is whether the action is morally unacceptable by society. I'd guess that no one here has casual consensual sex with their siblings or immediate family (maybe a few outliers). Probably most responses to the above are an immediate repulsiveness yet if I asked you what exactly is wrong with it, could you say it? I anticipate that some would respond with "genetic defects" yet note I said casual [even the idea of genetic defects, the argument is a misconception. Genetic mistakes and genetic advantages are both enhanced with inbreeding - sometimes you might produce an individual that thrives in an environment due to inbreeding. And just in case, I would also point out that inbreeding does occur in nature]. Do you stop from having casual consensual sex with family members because of some exact moral wrong? Yes, but it's because of tradition and a societal taboo passed on and perhaps not any exact moral grievance.

I suppose my point for mentioning the above is to warm-up people to the difference in perceptions people may have and some of the preconditioned responses when it comes to moral questions. It was also to show that although people may feel their individual rights being infringed upon by an institutional, society has and always has done this for the majority of our actions, whether you realize it or not. Does that mean it's always ok? Of course not.

But I will say that whereas my above example has few actual arguments against it, choosing to be obese has actually several arguments against it for being morally wrong.

- excess consumption when there are people starving
- the perception of excess consumption being ok (think of a Hummer)
- the perception of laziness or inactivity being ok
- reduction of lifespan. For various reasons, choosing to have a shorter life is considered morally wrong.
- majority of doctors/researchers in the US treat obesity related diseases when their energy could be used elsewhere i.e. cancer. [a difficult one because there is another moral question behind this one that fights with capitalism]
- as a result, corporations may begin to be more morally responsible for the ingredients in their foods. [there may be other resultant programs like better exercise programs in schools, the office etc.. ]

Where I do believe being fat by one's decision has justified arguments for it being morally wrong, this was not the point of my post. Instead, I am merely trying to encourage readers not to look at Japan's decision and immediately slam it down as infringing on people's rights. There is a lot of good thought to be exercised in this topic and it's worth doing.

 

^^^Gluttony is a sin.

 

I seem to remember all that being taught in grade school. But, perhaps much of our population didn't learn jack in school, if they even went at all.
Good grief.

 

The decision to value individual freedoms over dictating morals is a decision that dictates morals in itself. That said, I personally value individual freedoms over government interference.

Japan's guidelines are ridiculously simplistic though. Perhaps a more detailed and varied set of guidelines that has a better understanding of health and fitness would do.

Along the lines of individual freedom and lack of government interference, I don't believe in universal healthcare as an inherent right. Make no mistake, for I am no fan of the current system in the U.S.A., and I do advocate universal healthcare, but it's shouldn't be a right; it should be a privilege that is available to most anyone.

If Japan offers free healthcare then it would be consistent with my set of values for what government should be for Japan to set a standard for which one can qualify for coverage. While that's not exactly what is happening here (with the $ penalties and "re-education"), I wouldn't be opposed to program that promotes a national standard (read: complex understanding of the varieties of healthy), helps people achieve the national standard, and then has the power to deny people government healthcare coverage (with alternative private insurance available) if there are those who blatantly do not want to get with the program (read: no condition that prevents them from becoming healthy).

It should never be illegal to smoke in excess, drink in excess, nor eat in excess. I personally value one's right to do those things over any moral government intervention. The only penalty that the government should be able to impose on citizens who choose to be blatantly unhealthy are penalties that reduce the privileges that governments afford its citizens, not the rights.

 

I'm a slim 155 at 6' tall, and this idea is just silly. It seems that most of this forum is of the mindset that government should control every aspect of our lives. It'll never happen to the extent that Japan is doing, here in the US.

People know good and well what they can do to lose weight if they choose to.

 

I anticipate the global warming fanatics will use this scenario to furthur the cause. Remember the thread about a British (?) article claiming that fat people contribute to excess greenhouse gas emissions?
When the hysteria has reached critical mass, anything can happen....almost.

 

So is pride in ones trim waistline.

 

You have to understand that it's Japan though. A Japanese person with a waist of 33 is like an American with a waist of 38-40. Among the developed countries, it has the highest population per square ft by far, so not only is health an issue but also the increased burden on society imposed by a population that requires more natural resources (food, water, living space) and puts a cramp upon others in public places (subways, malls). I was there in March, and from what I saw the Japanese people in general have a much greater desire to not be a burden upon their neighbors, and this leads to their habits of being much tidier in their homes and being quiet on the bullet trains among other things.

In America we like to think about the government in terms of our "rights". But for the Japanese it comes down to being able to function civilly and efficiently so you don't infringe upon the rights of your peers. They have no choice. They have to make do with a population over a third that of the US with a total landmass approximately 3.8% the size.

 

Concerning you last sentence, there are plenty of situations that can be "penalized". The govt knows that certain guidelines will not be complied with, and the stage is set for more revenue.
What would a business have to do in this obesity scenario? Take extra time and expense to educate people? We can then start blaming obese people for causing businesses to raise their prices on everything under the sun. Obese education surcharge...yeah. All businesses? Perhaps obese people shouldn't be offered jobs?