[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 One basic, though perhaps not complete, difference is that being overweight can be related to a variety of reasons or factors. Not every overweight person is simply an over-eater. However, a smoker is simply someone who smokes.

Yes, but the majority of those factors are also health related: amount of exercise, consumption of trans and saturated fats, eating meat, etc. If people are genetically/hormonally predisposed to be fat, it's still a choice whether they exercise enough to overcome it. That'll be the argument anyway.

As I understand it, the actuarial tables for obese people are on par or slightly worse than smokers. So the corporate savings in getting rid of fat people would be close (at least within an order of magnitude) to the savings for getting rid of smokers. Since the only motivation here is profit, such a move is inevitable for some companies.

 

[TWIFOSP]

The question really becomes then: By making choices that alter your lifestyle, do you deserve the same rights as someone who hasn't? As the life style changes, why don't the rights change?

Regarding overweight people, I honestly think that it's a lifestyle decision in most cases. Yes some of it is genetic, or chemical, or whatever reason that is outside that persons control. Fast food, lack of excercise, and other choices lend to becoming overweight, which is a PROVEN health risk.

Regarding smoking, well that is a flat out choice, and health risks are also just as proven. Actually, it's not even a risk, it's a WHEN.

In either case, why is it actually discrimination to treat these people differently. They ARE different. All that is left to be determine is how differently they are to be treated. That level of difference COULD be indifference. And in some cases should be indifference. Some things truly shouldn't matter.

Such as Wodgy's example of pregnancy. Over the past decade or so, this has vastly changed. Pregnant women are now typically given very generous maternity leaves, and it is illegal to terminate somene based on pregnency. This is a lifestyle choice/change that is regarded as indifferent. There are probably still exceptions, but we can't argue that it hasn't changed for the better in recent years.

But whatever the lifestyle difference is, any lifestyle difference is just that. Different. And it's silly to think pretend it doesn't exist. Being politicaly is just putting on a pair of blinders.

If a private institution decides to make policy based on lifestyle criterea, that is not an attack on YOUR freedom. Proof of that is, 1. You are still free to do it despite the consequences, 2. The aforementioned institution is expressing freedom by enacting that policy.

Having said that, I still agree with Rick's assessment of land of the socialists, but that's another topic

 

[BigD]

Smoking and eating are simple pleasure of life. No company nor government should impose any discriminations upon the users. The point about insurance is pure BS. If every man/woman are simple numbers, we will lose right to freedom and liberty. Numbers can NOT dictate nor quantify nor qualify what people are really about. Absolutely I can NOT believe stupid numbers prevail over people's mind and value.

This form of discrimination is intolerable. Many also pointed out that smokers are easy target than the overweight. Very true to this statement. No group of people should be target for their lifestyle. To me, this practice is SIMPLE GREED! GREED! GREED!

I don't mind paying little more on insurance for those unfortunate, smokers, overweight, illegal alien... We are talking about life.

 

[Spankypoo]

I once asked an aquaintance who owns a factory of several hundred if he ever had any hiring inclinations which wouldn't be completely kosher, and he said racially, none at all, but he had a hard time justifying hiring an obese person - on a factory floor they tend to get injured more often, more severely, and be out for longer periods. Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

In more hilarious news, the gated community in which I live has a guardhouse which was remodeled a few years ago. The city wouldn't approve the new design, unless - get this - it had a restroom built to specs for disabled persons. A disabled guard! They assumed we'd hire a disabled guard. Isn't that hilarious? That's like requiring police departments to build their cruisers so a legless person could drive it.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy Bah! Having children is a choice.

Right, and going to work is a choice, and taking showers is a choice, and brushing your teeth is a choice, and using deodorant is a choice, and wearing shoes is a choice, and driving under the speed limit is a choice, and many things are supposedly a choice.

Having a baby is not a choice, it is the expectation of every society that its women will reproduce. Try being a woman who chooses not to have children and see how she is scorned as unnatural and pitied. By and large, women live up to society's expectations to marry and reproduce, as is expected of them. Our society, as overpopulated as it is, still expects single women to marry and reproduce at least once. Our whole society is structured to facilitate this, even while it penalizes women for doing so. Saying that bearing children is merely a choice that individuals make ignores centuries of custom and habit that are far stronger than any laws that men pass nowadays.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spankypoo In more hilarious news, the gated community in which I live has a guardhouse which was remodeled a few years ago. The city wouldn't approve the new design, unless - get this - it had a restroom built to specs for disabled persons. A disabled guard! They assumed we'd hire a disabled guard. Isn't that hilarious? That's like requiring police departments to build their cruisers so a legless person could drive it.

Really depends on whether the bathroom in a guardhouse constitutes a public bathroom for others to use as well as the guards. In NYC, despite all the signs posted that facilities are only for patrons, all restaurants must make their bathrooms available to anyone on the street because there are no public bathrooms. It's the law, but bathrooms are often put up or down flights of stairs, or are not equipped for the handicapped. Older establishments are grandfathered in, but newer restaurants have to make their facilities wheelchair accessible. Even if no one in a wheelchair ever buys a meal there, those bathrooms are public facilities.

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigD Smoking and eating are simple pleasure of life. No company nor government should impose any discriminations upon the users. The point about insurance is pure BS. If every man/woman are simple numbers, we will lose right to freedom and liberty. Numbers can NOT dictate nor quantify nor qualify what people are really about. Absolutely I can NOT believe stupid numbers prevail over people's mind and value.

I don't see how gathering statistics and categorizing people infringes on your freedom.

Quote:

This form of discrimination is intolerable. Many also pointed out that smokers are easy target than the overweight. Very true to this statement. No group of people should be target for their lifestyle. To me, this practice is SIMPLE GREED! GREED! GREED! I don't mind paying little more on insurance for those unfortunate, smokers, overweight, illegal alien... We are talking about life.

It's not really discrimination as you're using it. It is discrimination technically, but so is me saying you like headphones. Negative discrimination what your context is speaking to, so assume I'm talking about that.

Let's use an analogy.

Note: I don't condone or practice speeding or racing on public roads.
Speeding on a highway is pleasurable. At least, to me it is. I've done it before, and I've enjoyed it. But the government says I shouldn't an says if they catch me, they'll fine me. But am I still free to speed? Yup, sure am. If they catch me multiple times, will they classify me as dangerous and take away my freedom? Yup, sure will.

So this analogy isn't perfect because speeding is illegal. But the point is still the same. You're freedom is not infringed upon, because your right to work for that company isn't implied. In fact, by penalizing a company for inflicting it's OWN policy is infriging on the companies freedom. Just because the worker makes out better, does NOT, in any way, mean your freedom was preserved.

You have the right to eat whatever you want and smoke cigarettes. But other people also have the right to do whatever they want based on your choices to practice those things. If they didn't, your infringing on their freedom.

This practice is likely greed based, I agree with you. And I personally tend to disagree with the policy both fundamentally, and because of it's basis [greed]. But I'll defend their right to make their own policy how they see fit, because they are free to do so. Don't like it? You're free to change. Don't want to change? Go somewhere else. Private companies are not servants of the people.

Bad business policies do NOT equate to infringed freedom.

 

[aeriyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears Having a baby is not a choice, it is the expectation of every society that its women will reproduce. Try being a woman who chooses not to have children and see how she is scorned as unnatural and pitied. By and large, women live up to society's expectations to marry and reproduce, as is expected of them. Our society, as overpopulated as it is, still expects single women to marry and reproduce at least once. Our whole society is structured to facilitate this, even while it penalizes women for doing so. Saying that bearing children is merely a choice that individuals make ignores centuries of custom and habit that are far stronger than any laws that men pass nowadays.

This is a good point, Bunny. I imagine I'll receive this kind of treatment as I get closer to the "child-rearing" age, but don't have kids because I don't like men. I'll neither get married to a men nor have a child, and I'm sure that the general population will blast me for it. But that's really nothing new. They already blast me for being gay.

Oh, and my other lady friends, mostly the ones that don't know I like other girls, have been pestering me about dating and trying to "hook up" with some guy. Some are asking me why I'm not married yet and others are inquiring if I'm ever going to have kids. Sheesh! I'm 20 years old! I'm still a kid! -.-'

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears Right, and going to work is a choice, and taking showers is a choice, and brushing your teeth is a choice, and using deodorant is a choice, and wearing shoes is a choice, and driving under the speed limit is a choice, and many things are supposedly a choice. Having a baby is not a choice, it is the expectation of every society that its women will reproduce. Try being a woman who chooses not to have children and see how she is scorned as unnatural and pitied. By and large, women live up to society's expectations to marry and reproduce, as is expected of them. Our society, as overpopulated as it is, still expects single women to marry and reproduce at least once. Our whole society is structured to facilitate this, even while it penalizes women for doing so. Saying that bearing children is merely a choice that individuals make ignores centuries of custom and habit that are far stronger than any laws that men pass nowadays.

Having a child is most definitely a choice. An implied expectation does not mean you aren't free to ignore the expectation. If there are social penalties and negative stigmas attached to your choice, fine. But it's a still a choice and saying otherwise is completely incorrect. No one forces women as an entire gender to reproduce. Pressure and social stigma's increase the likely hood that any given female might make the choice to have kids, despite her wishes not to, but she still makes that choice. Even biologically, a female is being told to have children. Which is probably why society echos that pressure, because it is a natural expected one. But it is still a free willed choice. And if you do not want to have a child, you do not have to. Do not confuse the fear of living differently than society expects you to as lack of a choice.

 

[Kurt]

Every time the taxes on tobacco get raised we hear the “higher health care cost” argument. In that sense I pay double the normal prize for health insurance already.

IMO it is a company’s right not to hire smokers if they cost the company more.

But it is not their right to ask you what you do in your spare time.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWIFOSP Having a child is most definitely a choice. An implied expectation does not mean you aren't free to ignore the expectation. If there are social penalties and negative stigmas attached to your choice, fine. But it's a still a choice and saying otherwise is completely incorrect. No one forces women as an entire gender to reproduce. Pressure and social stigma's increase the likely hood that any given female might make the choice to have kids, despite her wishes not to, but she still makes that choice. Even biologically, a female is being told to have children. Which is probably why society echos that pressure, because it is a natural expected one. But it is still a free willed choice. And if you do not want to have a child, you do not have to. Do not confuse the fear of living differently than society expects you to as lack of a choice.

To say that no one forces women as a gender to reproduce is to ignore the reality. When you say, "Even biologically, a female is being told to have children," you are beginning to understand reality. Why is biology telling women to have children and not telling men? No one states that it is a choice to survive and breathe, but suicide is treated as a crime. Try and exercise any right you may think you have not to live. The only reason there is no legislation that says that women must have children or attempt to have children is because society has been so very adept at keeping women reproducing. It is not a choice to reproduce, it is a social imperative. Eventually, if women do not reproduce, then society will start to pass laws that will act as an incentive to women to get pregnant, as they now do in France. And if women choose to reproduce more than society wishes, there will be legislation penalizing women for not limiting the size of their families. At the same time, I doubt there will be any mandatory sterilization policies for men. After all , men merely make laws not babies.

 

[rickcr42]

looks like i opened up another can of worms but any way (up...up...and.....

)

Quote:

Rick, I do not think that you are understanding my point. No one is taking away the God given right to smoke, or be fat, or stick a frickin stick on your eye. A company has decided to not employ people who chose to do so. If you want to work for this company, follow its guidlines. If you don't want to work for it, do whatever you want.

hiring is one thing but then changing the rules mid stream and threatening unemployment if you don't do as you are told during OFF DUTY hours is flat wrong and should not be allowed to get a toe hold.I guarantee you right here it is only the first shot and if allowed to pass will mutate into other areas.all in the name of "what is best"
again.i do't smoke so it means nothing there.i am just a very die hard freedom first kinda guy who actually beleives in the right to my "pursuit of happiness" as long as it does not infringe on others directly.

do i have the right to tell the higher ups to cut out the dinner parties with exotic foods,most of which are very unhealthy or the three martini lunches ?

Yeah right.That will go over well !
i have no "base" no drumbeat,no media outlet to push my agenda over time.

Not hat i would.Just an example folks.if someone wants to die of a heart attack or liver damge it is on them

Quote:

Wodgy - I meant it is socially acceptable to tell a smoker how harmfull cigarettes are, but go up to fat person and tell them they should put that burger down because they are killing themselve and chances are you will get your ***** beat by a very large person and his or her friends. Just a side point I find interesting.

Quote:

I don't know where you are in the country, but it seems to me that it has become perfectly acceptable to crack jokes about fat people, and the "honey, are you sure you really want to eat that?" kind of comment is not uncommon. The general public perception, however unfair and misguided, is that obesity is a willpower issue, and that fat people are lazy. Fat people, especially women, feel ugly and self-conscious, and they will not in general beat you up for a nasty side crack. IMO, you're more likely to have your head bitten off by a smoker for criticizing them.

Exactly !

first you make it acceptable to crack jokes about a group (try that with a minority group and see what happens !) and make them less than human then you can do damge with impunity.there wasa time where kids were brought up to not point out differences out of flat out human kindness and manners but when it is a segsamnt of the government and the media outlets that attack one group or another the message is that it is alright to call names and make fun.
Do these people not have feelings ?

are they less than human because they have a weakness ?

Maes me sick how the winds change and who becomes a target depending on the times and who is "in fashion"

Quote:

Case in point: remember the media reaction to John Banzhaf's lawsuits against McDonalds for making several people fat? Complete ridicule. Banzhaf's lawsuits against the tobacco companies were never ridiculed in the same way. The general public perception is that obesity should be an easier willpower issue to conquer than a cigarette addiction. (Not that I condone such an attitude, just pointing it out.)

To days ago the case against McDonalds was reinstated and has the green light to proceed by a higher court.

ridiculous ?

We shall see what the definaition means

Quote:

I understand what you are saying Wodgy, but around here, it wouldn not be take too well if you were to go upto a fat person and ridicule them for being fat, or tell them what they should do to change.

as the drone continous this WILL be something not uncommon.What is the message ?
Fat people have no control and are not normal like you and me and if they just stopped eating so damn much they will be like us "normal' people.

Of course the definition of "normal' keeps moving and shifting ,not that i ever had to worry about being normal

Handicapped MUST be considered for employment even if they are not really up to the job.these are PC positions.
but smoke or eat too much and no matter what your qualifications you are toast ?

what about people who wear glasses ?

how about people with poor personal hygene ?

Bad dressers ?

folks with an accent ?

how about butt ugly people ?

Again,what about mental midgets or plain old FOOLs who do nothing but run around screwing things up and pissing people off ?

See where these things can go ?

Once the smokers and chubbies are dealt with it will just be someone else targeted and some way some how it will be justified and on the surfsace sound plausible.
any erosion of freedom should be a cause for concern.the alarm bells should be screaming but they are not and people just don't take notice until something directly infringes on them.then the creams can be heard for miles.

HOW DARE THEY !

well folks,you get what you deserve if you let bullies pick on a small group.it just may be your group next after they dispose of the present "enemy"

Hope i didn't bring this thread too close to TIO territory.not my intent to cause it's closure or start trouble but some things just have to be said and as usual i can not keep my mouth shut

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears To say that no one forces women as a gender to reproduce is to ignore the reality. When you say, "Even biologically, a female is being told to have children," you are beginning to understand reality. Why is biology telling women to have children and not telling men? No one states that it is a choice to survive and breathe, but suicide is treated as a crime. Try and exercise any right you may think you have not to live. The only reason there is no legislation that says that women must have children or attempt to have children is because society has been so very adept at keeping women reproducing. It is not a choice to reproduce, it is a social imperative. Eventually, if women do not reproduce, then society will start to pass laws that will act as an incentive to women to get pregnant, as they now do in France. And if women choose to reproduce more than society wishes, there will be legislation penalizing women for not limiting the size of their families. At the same time, I doubt there will be any mandatory sterilization policies for men. After all , men merely make laws not babies.

Men aren't being told by their bodies to reproduce? There is a reason people say men think about sex every 7 seconds. It's because it's pretty much true. In fact, I would argue that men think more about sex, and thusly reproduction, than women do. The male libido is pretty much ready to reproduce at any given time. Now I'm not saying it's the same thing, but we each have our side of the coin here. It's not the same thing, because men don't feel the same draw to just have kids, as merely to engage the act. I mean, men do, but trying to compare a man's want to have kids to a women's biological clock is not giving the women nearly enough credit. So we'll just leave it as not the same.

You're acting like reproducing is a negative thing here anyway. Society really doesn't have much to do with it. As a species we are being told to reproduce by ourselves. Society's pressure is only a reflection of that, a mere by-product if you will. If ANYTHING society rejects the reproduction because it is a drain on our resources. However, society is not strong enough to over come the will of men wanting to have sex, and females desire to have children.

It is not a social imperative whatsover. It's biological, and society might reflect that, but it's not an imperative. Society pressure is pressure. Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing that. But it's still a choice. You're still free to make that choice and live with either consequences. Do not confuse fear with lack of choice. Incentives, penalties, whatever the pressure to do or not to, there is always a choice. There is no mandate. There is only the personal fear of the results of someone's actions driving consequences. To say otherwise means everyone is predetermined to have a child. And that's just not the case.

I'll concede there is social pressure. But you never ever lack the choice. You can still exist, contribue, be successful and live a fulfilling life without having a child. If you believe otherwise, then we need to go back to talking about society vs reality.

 

[Bunnyears]

Btw, I just saw a news show on this very subject. The employer operates a health care company, and he gave his employees time and help to quit smoking, but the policy was announced a year ahead of time and it is legal in Michigan, so that's that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in670168.shtml

Quote:

"If you test positive for tobacco, you lose your employment here," says Howard Weyer of his health care company Weyco.

Quote:

Weyer says the drastic action was needed because increasing health care costs threaten to choke his business. A smoker, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, will cost a company almost $3,400 more in loss productivity and health care costs every year.

Quote:

Asked if this is about saving money or saving lives, Weyer says it's both.

Quote:

Weyer says he gave his smoking employees more than a year and plenty of help to quit. Most did, but those who didn't had to leave.

Employers are allowed to test for drugs, and even alcohol if necessary. The same laws that permit that are used to enforce the nicotine ban.

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 If i DO want to stick a metal rod in my eye who are YOU to stop me ?

LOL...Feel free to do so, but dont ask to the insurance system to pay the bills. And that's exactly what you are asking. BTW the foundation of insurance is....socialist in his logic....

If in the morning you want to put butter on your bacon are you thinking of the others, yes the others, who are managing more wisely their health?

At some point the cost saving of the wisdom of some could end up paying for careless conducts of others. Nothing new in that. What is new is the fact now the systems is trying to find a way to balance itself.

Solidarity is a good thing but at the same time it's also a fragile concept.


Amicalement