We must stand and fight the freedom-hating fat lobby
Debate Rounds (2)
Well, Americans certainly do enjoy greater freedoms of speech and expression than, say, North Koreans, but there are still limits.
For example, in an American city called San Francisco, it is a crime to be "fat-ist" - that is, to make negative remarks about people who are overweight. (1)
But these restrictions on free speech do not go far enough for the fat: they have now banded together to lobby legislators around the world to have people who make negative remarks or judgments about overweight people criminalized. For example. in Britain, ordinary citizens may soon be prosecuted for hate crimes if they make certain remarks about the fat.
Sadly, this means that gossiping women will no longer be able to 'chew the fat' but will, instead, have to 'chew excessive body mass'; farmers will no longer live off 'the fat of the land', rather the 'high-calorific dietary bi-product of the land' and 'corporate fat cats' will, in future, have to be referred to as 'corpulent feline businesspersons'.
Furthermore, in order to avoid prosecution, music stores will have to clear their shelves of any records made by Fatboy Slim and Fats Domino, as well as all copies of Lip Up Fatty by Bad Manners.
In addition, history books dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict will have to be burned because they will contain references to the former leader of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Yasser Arafat (Yasser Araweightproblem in future texts).
And, worst of all, one of Britain's best loved restaurants, the Fat Duck (2), will either have to change its name or close its doors.
Of course, people who are targeted for an aspect of their physical appearance that is beyond their control, such as the colour of their skin or a disability, should be protected but the law should not be extended to cover lazy or greedy people: over 99% of people who are overweight are so because they exercise too little and eat too much.
We must resist the attempts of the fat lobby to limit our freedom of speech. We must make the fat understand that we, the people, will not be gagged - we must make it clear that this fight will not be over until the lady with a higher-than-average BMI measurement sings.
When does the right of freedom of speech need to be limited,certainly I say when prejudice and hate are involved.If one is against discrimination based on the criteria of Sex,Race,Religion,etc.Then certainly and logically one must be against the discrimination of overweight or obese persons.
Freedom of speech while some may not admitted can develop to a very dangerous thing,it allows for the utterance of prejudice.And prejudice can very easily develop into hate,hate then can develop into retaliation as your cited article explains,the violence experienced by Marsha Coupe because she is overweight "I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train" and she adds ""They say 'Move out of the way fatty! Well person coming down the aisle!'".Certainly,everyone reading this article is against violence,especially if you're the one experiencing this violence.
Legislation is brought up when there is a need for it,and again sourcing your article Dr.Ian Campbell agrees with the need to protect overweight people " People who are very overweight do experience a lot of prejudice both in their social life and working life and do need some protection."But,I must add that he does not think legislation will have an immediate effect on the situation.However,he does go on to elaborate more on the cause of people being overweight "We know that genetic and social reasons can lead to this very complex problem'
"For instance, people in inner cities are much more likely to be overweight because of poorer education, poorer housing and poorer job opportunities. He continues with "Not everyone has a free choice about controlling their weight."And this in point repudiates your claim of people having control of their eating and exercising habits.
And like F.A. Hayek explained in the Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two "I want plans by the many not by the few" and with Obesity in the United States projected to continue its rise over the next 18 years, extending to 42% of Americans by 2030,we better comply with the soon to be almost half of the United States population.
In my opening argument I accepted that certain people need special legal protection: I cited people from ethnic backgrounds and people with disabilities; these groups have people have long suffered prejudice, discrimination and abuse through no fault of their own and it is correct that we, as a society, must recognise their right to prosper without undue molestation fromracists and bigots.
The obese and the seriously fat, however, are not destined by nature to become overweight. As the National Health Service states: "Obesity does not just happen overnight, it develops gradually from poor diet and lifestyle choices..." (1)
Let's see how that happens in reality, shall we? Georgia Davis is 19 years old. She should be at college or out at work but she isn't, she's in hospital. "Aw, what a shame" I hear you say, but wait - it took 40 medics, policemen, firemen and builders and numerous specialised vehicles to remove her from her bedroom and get her to the hospital. Why? Because instead of eating sensibly and getting plenty of exercise she spent her days in bed gorging on fish and chips and other junk food. She was consuming 12,000 calories a day and burning off practically none. The net result of this was that she now weighs 63st (882lb / 400kg). (2)
That, I think you will agree, demonstrates how gluttony and sloth has led to a young person being totally unfit for the world of work. So, rather than gaining employment and making a financial contribution to society the bill to the British taxpayer for Ms Davis' health care and unemployment benefits will run into many hundreds of thousands over the course of her life. Indeed, in total, fat people like Georgia cost the British taxpayer �4.2 billion / $6 billion a year in health care costs alone.
But employers may soon be expected to hire indolent slobberchops like Ms Davis or face prosecution. This is ridiculous: what employers want are hard-working, self-motivated, reliable staff - not people that would rather stay in bed and stuff their faces with junk food than go to work.
Yes, of course, the fat will be subject to abuse, as my opponent pointed out, quoting the case in my source whereby the heavy-treading Marsha Coupe shrieked "I have been punched, I have had beer thrown in my face, I have had people attack me on the train" and who went on to whine: ""They say 'Move out of the way fatty! Well person coming down the aisle".
If Ms Coupe had actually been physically attacked, the perpetrator of the crime would be duly liable for punishment under existing laws. On the other hand, if she is using the verb 'attack' in the verbal sense, which I suspect she is, she is really calling for people who are impolite to be prosecuted for hate crimes. As a matter of fact, it is likely that the ill-mannered person who insulted her may well have called a ginger-haired person "carrot-top"; a person wearing spectacles "four-eyes" and a short person "half-pint" on the same train, we don't know, we don't even know if her story is true or just made up. In any case, people who are ginger, short or have poor eye-sight have a better case for protection from the law than Ms Coupe because they can't help having the physical characteristics they do, whereas she can - she can go on a diet and join a gym in order to lose weight.
Speaking of gyms, there was one case my opponent chose to ignore, by the way - that was that of Kathryn Szrodecki, who campaigns on behalf of overweight people, and who whinged: "I have been discriminated against - I am a YMCA qualified fitness instructor, but I have gone for jobs and been laughed off the premises." This seems entirely reasonable to me, it would ridiculous to take lessons on how to get fit from some great big sweating pile of blubber, wouldn't it?
If not, similar claims of discrimination could be widened further, but that would be wrong. For example, Richard Dawkins is well-versed in religious matters but I don't think it would be unfair if the Catholic Church turned down his application to become a priest. Similarly, Roman Polanski is well-read and very familiar with teenage girls but it wouldn't be unreasonable for a junior high school to reject his application to be an English teacher. Just like Tiger Woods should not complain if he were not shortlisted for the job as a marriage guidance counsellor, or Mel Gibson to moan about not getting the post of curator in a Holocaust museum, and so on.
In conclusion, laws already exist to protect those who need it from hate crimes, there is no reason why the fat should be singled out for special treatment.
TheMrkanyewest01 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were more convincing, and Con forfeited the last round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.