/lit/ - Literature

>>23502452
>Obesity or fatness is a moral failing, as it demonstrates a lack of self-control and temperance. An obese person is thus unreliable, weak, and turpid, and therefore much likelier to be psychopathic and sociopathic, a backstabber.
>Thoughts on this?

This is proven untrue by every piece of evidence we have.
Unless you're capable of conceiving of second and third order effects.
For example, obesity is a moral failing not of the individual in most cases, but of city planners, food vendors, employers, parents, etc.

It's trivially easy to design communities that have lower obesity rates. With no changes on the public's end. The only reason we don't is because of corrupt special interests and ignorant planners and politicians failing to do so.

It's like speed limit signs vs narrowing the roadway. We know now that speed limit signs SUCK at reducing speeding and actually cause more accidents in many cases by giving people a different speed limit to follow other than the "natural speed limit". By designing narrower roads, installing bollards, planting curbside greenery, and converting outer lanes of roadways to parking, you can make drivers feel as if the road is more narrow and they will naturally slow down even if the posted speed limit is still faster.

We know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is far, far better to control traffic speeds using intelligent design choices like narrower lane widths. We know that we should probably replace all speed limits with this outside of a handful of cases like school zones. The only reason we don't do it is because the people with the power to make these decisions are corrupt and incompetent.

In that context, you might say that they are morally culpable for accidents caused by people driving at mismatched speeds in areas where the posted speed limits differ wildly from the natural speed limits.