Hey Vanity!

Of course it's "ok". I didn't need approval, jeez and people claim I have an ego. You're missing the point again.

Regardless of how upset I'd be, I wouldn't hold the person responsible just coz they didn't wanna be obese. If they don't wanna be forever obese for someone they don't know, then that's their choice. As I said, I don't look at random strangers and think "I hope he'd be obese forever", asking THEM to do so is selfishness.

The fact that you don't understand my rationale upon me first explaining it (which as we now discovered, could have been solved by you reading my posts) doesn't warrent you telling me what I think.

-AC

Without mixing the topic shouldn't we also include the factor of how a person would react in the spark of the moment? I mean there are people that are willing to help another person in an emergency, but there is also the shock or impact. That does tend to be a factor on the choices a person might make. Confusion does get in the way of a person's choice.

If anything the shock of impact is more likely, for me, to work toward my point.

People react different. I respect Milla's choice, although I don't see the point.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If anything the shock of impact is more likely, for me, to work toward my point.

People react different. I respect Milla's choice, although I don't see the point.

-AC

It works towards both points. The choice of the person can go either way. In this case we're discussing the result of that choice. You gain weight by helping another person and will never lose it. So the result of the choice shouldn't interfere with your decision. Unless you have vanity.

Yes but I'm speaking from my point of view.

How it would effect ME. Which is what I thought the purpose of the thread was.

-AC

There are two types of pound in the Mass and Weight system:

Troy, Apothecaries pound
Avoirdupois (U.S.) pound

75 pounds in Troy Apothecaries conversion = Metric 27.99 kg
75 pounds in Avoirdupois (U.S.) pound = Metric 34.02 kg

there is also the Old Russian pound = Metric 30.71 kg
and Ancient Roman pondus (Libra) = Metric 24.45

Choose 😖mart:

Originally posted by WindDancer
Without mixing the topic shouldn't we also include the factor of how a person would react in the spark of the moment? I mean there are people that are willing to help another person in an emergency, but there is also the shock or impact. That does tend to be a factor on the choices a person might make. Confusion does get in the way of a person's choice.

And what i mean is - its not like someone drowning for example and in spur of a moment you jump in to save their life regardless of the consiquences for yourself.

This is different, you get to think about it.

If it is for a friend or a family member(not counting my stepfather)then yes I would do it.JM

Yes, i would. BUT it depends on the person, and what their response to my sacrifice would be..

no

Why is everyone yelling at AC? He is looking at the situation from the completely logical point-of-view, no emotions added for spice. Of course, this may not be the socially-accepted view, but still...

Nobody is yelling at me anymore.

I'm AC remember? I can handle myself.

Thanks though Fecemeister.

-AC

I will consider first... If there is any other side effect after I become fat.. (my wife would leave me? - If I am married)
(I won't find a girlfriend in the future? - If I am single)

Then I will only do it... 😛

This question is so removed from reality as to be almost useless.

I think, however, it is the height of social thought police autocracy to brand someone vain for saying no.

The implications behind it are far too vast. Why only one life? Why do you only save one guy? Is there a limit it would stop being ok? 75lbs is ok, but 150 not?

Is the only stopping point meant to be the point at which it would kill you? In which case, the implication is that everyone should sacrifice everything they have to save other people's lives until you can sacrifice no more.

When people who ask this question give away all their money and possessions to people that need it more in the Third World, THEN I will believe there is a possibly superior morality behind this question. But you don't, do you, even though that money will save lives, whereas you live in a comfy western world abode free of cholera and hunger. This situatioin is real, not weirdly hypothetical like the given question, but it deals with the same concept- yet people feel they have a right to their money, even though they are living in relative luxury whilst others starve. Fact is, that IS ok. It is an uncomfortable fact that people like to ignore, but it IS ok, because people DO have a right to that money and it is unfair to criticise people for not giving it away. Likewise, people have a right to not want to be overweight all their lives and not have that turned into some weird moral accusation at them.

It's not "I value my looks more than other's lives." It is "I value the right of being the person I want to be, and no-one can take that right away from me."

So the question is useless, because you have no right to make others feel guilty for not sacrificing what they have for the lives of others; modern civilisation simply isn't about that, and would not function if it was. People have a right to what they have, and no social obligation to give it up for others.

In case you have not guessed, my answer is- no, I wouldn't do it, and damn any of you who think that is vain, and I have serious issues with the morality of anyone who thinks that. I might consider it, but to make out I am morally OBLIGED to do it is very wrong, and I would almost certainly reject the deal on that principle alone (that I am damned if I am going to be judged on such an absurd basis)

I think the issue this question raises opens and shuts almost at once- in the Modern World, some suffer whilst others do not- and a certain willfull ignoring of that is needed to survive. If you don't like it, tough, that's how we live; feel free to try and create something better- you never will.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
So the question is useless, because you have no right to make others feel guilty for not sacrificing what they have for the lives of others; modern civilisation simply isn't about that, and would not function if it was. People have a right to what they have, and no social obligation to give it up for others.

Clear this up for me please....?

No social obligation? This has NOTHING to do with social obligation, for one, its moral obligation. Thats not a must.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
So the question is useless, because you have no right to make others feel guilty for not sacrificing what they have for the lives of others

No, I disagree, I think my point is perfectly sensible, and that yours is morally wrong. Though if you ARE giving away all you own to people who need it more, or to save lives, then you may have a better point. But you buy into western hypocricy as much as anyone else, and so you have no right to lecture anyone else about it.

"No social obligation? This has NOTHING to do with social obligation, for one, its moral obligation. Thats not a must."

If they don't have a social obligation, you have no moral grounds to criticise them for it. You cerrtainly aren't displaying any superior morality yourself whilst you continue to benefit from capitalist society.

Hmm time for my contribution I think. It'll probably ramble and not make much sense...

I dont think I'm too vain and personally I would make the said sacrifice because that's the sort of person I am. It's what makes me get out of bed everyday to work long sh!t shifts as a paramedic sometimes putting myself as risk tending people who are often for the most part dont know how to look after themselves, are generally quite ungratefull and often abusive! 🙁

I also believe in cause and effect theory, that what one person does can change how another person lives.
For example I make the sacrifice for say AC (this is purely hypothetical!) or a close member of AC's family. That might then cause a change to his perspective on life and the value he places on things. Then when a similar situation arises he might make a sacrifice that helps make a diffence to somebody elses life in an important way...

Ush speaks the truth, he saw fit to explain it though. I don't.

I agree with him. I have no moral obligation to do anything for anyone I don't know. I personally see absolutely NO rational reason for doing such things for someone you're never ever gonna see again or interract with, more to the point - don't even care about.

Family? Likely. Random person? Hahaha and additional ha's.

-AC

I would never do that for someone i didnt know, or didnt like, i wouldnt ruin my life just to save someone to whom i have no respondsibilty. However if it were a friend or family member I would have to as otherwise i would spend the rest of lmy life regretting it and feeling depressed so either way i would have a rubbish life, but at least if i'm just overwieght i still have that friend or family member to talk to

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Here's a question worth thinking about -

Would you save someone's life if that meant you would have to be 75 pounds overweight for the rest of your life?

Those are the conditions - if you save the person, you WILL be 75 pounds overweight, and there's no compromise or possibility of losing that weight.

So, in all honesty, would you save someone's life if that meant you being obese for the rest of your life?

Discuss.

Like others have said, it would have to be someone that I cared about...and I'm not talking about a family member per se. I'm talking a family member I give a shit about.