this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024

309 points (93.3% liked)

Canada

7230 readers

303 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL)

List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

List of All Teams: unknown
Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

List of All Teams: unknown
Toronto Raptors

Soccer

List of All Teams: unknown
General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Universities

UBC
UWaterloo
SFU
UoGuelph
OTU
McGill
U Western
UofT
UofA: unknown

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

309

Woman who was denied a liver transplant, after review highlighted alcohol use, has died (www.ctvnews.ca)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

273 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You've gotten a lot of downvotes but rather than doing that I want to explain to you why your position here is flawed.

First think of every lifestyle activity whether it be food, motorcycle riding, music, etc. Now consider that there are some activities that are statistically safer than others.

If we took your position to the point of being law why would we stop at food lifestyle choices? Why not just any risky lifestyle choices? Eventually you end up with a society where individuals have less choice and freedom and are constantly obligated to live the safest possible lives.

You and I both know that isn't a desirable outcome. We should be empowering people to live the lives they choose and encouraging them to be healthy, not punishing them for make the "wrong" choice.

[+] [email protected] -16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I attempted to address this but perhaps I wasn't clear:

Yes, some activities are risky then others, however many of them have absolutely 0 negative impact on you unless something major happens all at once. In fact, many of them have major health benefits for the vast, vast majority of participants.

Contrast the above to overeating, chronically eating stuff that's not good for you (ex. excessive sugar, salt), drinking too much, doing lots of drugs, smoking... that kind of behaviour will basically screw up everyone who partakes given enough time and has no positive health benefits at all.

You talk about a loss of freedom... I've already lost freedom by paying for a bunch of people who purposely fuck themselves up for no tangible benefit to themselves. There is stuff that would be good for me that I literally can't afford because of the amount of taxes I pay.

Here's an idea for your route of encouraging healthy lifestyle rather than removing freedom: include a physician form in my taxes where my doctor attests that I am generally in good shape (given my age) and he has no reason to believe I am doing anything that is a risk factor for chronic cardiovascular or lung diseases, diabetes or related chronic illnesses, and give me a significant tax break for doing so.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Consider what you just said can apply to motorcycling or buying a classic car with outdated safety features. There is no tangible health benefit to motorcycling or driving a classic car, it basically "has no positive health benefits at all" (as per your own words) and only increases risk. Show it be banned? What about every other risky hobby? If not, then neither should eating junk food which is measurably less dangerous/risky. Keep in mind that for smoking the overall trends of diminishing smoking habits in younger generations basically highlights the proof that encouraging healthy habits rather than punishing the individual is the correct way to approach this.

[+] [email protected] -9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Buying a motorcycle or classic car doesn't necessarily lead to injury in the same way that overeating and being lazy to the point of becoming a land whale does.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Being a judgmental asshole increases your likelihood of being assaulted. I shouldn't have to pay your medical bills when you get punched in the face by a stranger.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Free expression bud, it's my right to be a judgemental asshole. Take that up with Pierre Trudeau.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

And I'm free to eat a bag of chips whenever I want.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I suggest you look up just how often motorcycle injuries/deaths happen. What you're saying only applies if you never get into an accident or fall off the bike ever, in the entire period it is owned (which could be 20-30 years). Something which is incredibly unlikely. From the language you're using (i.e whale) I'm getting the impression that your position isn't rational and instead based on a dislike of overweight people. I've done what I can here but I don't think you're messaging back in good faith and don't want to entertain the perspective of someone who tries to put others beneath them based on their body and eating habits.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'd be willing to bet that the number proportion of motorcycle owners with health problems caused by riding is a hell of a lot lower than the proportion of people who don't eat right and don't exercise enough and have health problems linked to that.

And no, it's not just overweight people I don't like, it's also people that are sick all the time (like, weak immune coughs and colds type of stuff).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think if you seriously hold those views you should consider the fact that there are many reprehensible individuals which thought exactly like you do in the past. Though the groups they chose and the reasoning provided varied, all being equally irrational, they found reasons to neglect if not outright try to erase individuals which they perceived as somehow inferior to themselves because of their lifestyle choices. They falsely thought, like you do, that society would be better off if these individuals were not part of it and "punished" for their lifestyle choices.

This is a point where you need to actually realize for yourself what you're arguing for is reflective of a worldview which is objectively evil. You need only to look up the horrors of eugenics, of every ethnic genocide, of every society which chose to discriminate rather than uplift its members.

From the way you speak you seem to think that those who are strong or smart or talented have no duty to anyone but themselves. But you fail to realize that one day you may get sick, one day you may be old, one day you may be involved in an accident through no fault of your own, or by means of your lifestyle choices. At that time, you will need people to care for you, and you will realize exactly what I'm trying to tell you here.

For reference, the way you think is not new. I suggest you look through the chapter in Plato's republic where Socrates speaks with Thrasymachus about how "might does not equal right" to gain perspective on this. Thrasymachus held your worldview. It was one of the first positions that Socrates showed to be indefensible.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Right now you're on the internet instead of being physically active, that's a health risk.