Donna Simpson already weighs 43st, but she is determined to nearly double her size to become the world's fattest woman.Look, I support the right to make informed decisions. I even support the right to make uninformed decisions, so long as it doesn't affect me. This woman is an American, and as an American it is her right and solemn privilege to eat herself into an early grave. If she wants to bloat up to a thousand pounds - without hurting anyone other than herself - power to her. She's free to do just that.
The 42-year-old from New Jersey, U.S, is set on reaching the 1,000lb mark (71st) in just two years. Remarkably she insists she is healthy, despite now needing a mobility scooter when she goes shopping.
And, equally, I am free to mock as I see fit.
Look, I'm probably the wrong person to comment on this story. I'm prejudiced, in that I spent the vast majority of my life struggling with my weight, and continue to struggle even today. I hate being the "fitter than thou" smug jerkoff who looks down his nose at someone struggling with their weight, because I've been the overweight slob who made poor life choices.
Now, granted, my life choices never involved me getting so fat I was incapable of walking under my own power before I hit 45, but...
What saddens me is the example this woman is setting for her daughter. She's growing up with a role model for body and size image that's way beyond the six-sigma from normal. She's going to have a long road ahead of her in deciding what's normal for her vs. what's normal for everyone else. The single biggest motivating factor for me losing weight, working out, and generally taking better care of myself was to set a better example for my kids; this poor child isn't going to have that example.
Let's face it: You are not - cannot be - healthy if you cannot move more than 20 feet under your own power without stopping. She's lying to her health care providers, her family, and herself if she honestly thinks that she's "healthy" in any way, shape, or form. She's heading towards an early grave, a path lined with ridicule, derision, and contempt from those around her. And her daughter is going to suffer for it - she's going to bury her mother at far too young an age, and she's going to have to listen to jackasses (your humble host included) opine on the many ways her mom brought this on herself.
I don't think the government has any business inserting itself here. There's been recent news about attempts to limit salt intake, or to ban trans fatty acids, or any other number of stupid, bullshit intrusions on our personal liberties from the government in the name of saving us from ourselves. We should have every right in the world to eat, drink, or inhale any number of potentially life-shortening substances, provided the only person being hurt is the person making the bad decision.
Being stupid should hurt, but it shouldn't be illegal.
That is all.
Another interesting story sent to me by commenter PISSED.
5 comments:
Being stupid should hurt, but it shouldn't be illegal.
I agree. If you think about it for a while, you'll come to the conclusion that at the bottom of every form of freedom lies the freedom to be stupid. Most nanny-staters are motivated by the urge to protect you from your own stupidity.
Or, as I've also been heard to put it: "every man has the inalienable right to make a fool of himself in whatever way he chooses." Take that right away, and ... well, the results aren't pretty.
You definitely have a different perspective of this woman. First thought in my mind is that if Obamacare passes, your tax dollars are going to be used to take care of all her medical issues.
What a great use of your hard-earned cash. It's for the greater good, you know. Helping people that can't help themselves. Government run healthcare turns her "Freedom to Be Stupid" into, "Freedom to Use Your Money To Be Stupid."
David hit on my first thought. I have absolutely no problem if she wants to do this to herself, as long as my money isn't going to be spent because of her.
You can't fix stupid.
But what if she refuses medical care?
What if everybody that thinks Obamacare sucks refuses it?
Thoughts?
Answer -- if everyone who thinks Obamacare sucks doesn't use it, they will fine you.
If you do not pay the fine, they will put you in jail.
If you resist being put in jail, they will shoot you.
As with ANY law, coersion is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.
So, when looking at any law that is going to change how a citizen may act, you must ask yourself:
1. Are you willing to order the police - ultimately - to shoot people for absolutely refusing to cooperate with this law? In the case of laws against violent crimes or treason, for instance, my answer is, "Yes". In the case of laws about what junk food you can eat, my answer is, "HELL NO!"
2. Is this any different from the previous laws? I.e., the same amount of coersion is involved, but we're just insisting you fill out the blue form rather than the green form. (If the answer is "no", then this law doesn't CHANGE the coersion, so you're off the hook in that -- it isn't making it WORSE. Maybe you should just repeal the earlier law?)
Post a Comment