South African chef 'too fat' to live in New Zealand

reply to post by HanzHenry

I guess if its OK to ridicule fat people..

Telling someone they are unhealthily overweight ("morbidly obese" is a medical term. "Morbidly" means "deadly")
is NOT RIDICULE. It's a medical issue - no different from being TOO THIN.

Likewise, refusal to grant immigration is addressing the "unhealthy" aspect of the person's weight. Same as if one has TB, or (in the past), HIV - they were not allowed to come to the USA.

It is my opinion that a person in a medical profession IN PARTICULAR should be fit, healthy, and of normal weight.

reply to post by wildtimes


I choose to have strategic fat for security purposes.

I think that overly fit people are dummies.

imagine a true lack of food SHTF scenario.. that fat guy will have the energy to pound a fit guy into the ground after a month of limited calories.

Or picture an pandemic. you do realize that having fat HELPS your body win those battles ..why?



FAT is STORED energy.

reply to post by wildtimes


There is no hostility displayed towards thin people. The fat are constantly villainized.

There's a huge bias against anyone who is perceived as overweight.

reply to post by suz62


And bulemia and anorexia are ALSO morbidly dangerous. I've been told at the doctor's office to DON'T LOSE WEIGHT - I've been told that I looked TOO THIN when I was in a state of clinical depression and COULDn't eat - my family and friends told me I was going to "disappear" if I didn't put on some weight - that they were worried about me.

What is so wrong about being "worried" about the health of extremely fat people? And food intake, refusal, or purging by using laxatives or vomiting are all UNHEALTHY.

You're missing the points of the OP - I said that I disagree with the manner in which the sites reporting ALL used the phrase "too fat" - when clearly the issue is about "pre-existing medical conditions" that NZ has a right to decide they don't want to "take on." Most countries also have requirements about how much MONEY a person has, or whether they have a SKILL or TRADE that the country needs.

And I asked what everyone thought about that word choice. I see the choice worked on YOU, at least, to make an immigration application's health-related issues into "discrimination."

What's wrong with telling someone else how to live their life? That's what you're asking. Think about it.

I don't tell you you can only do the missionary position. I don't tell you to use birth control.

Stop telling others how to live free. You don't own other people. Fat people aren't property. You can't dictate lifestyle.

I don't tell you what to eat and when.

So NZ wants to deport a person for being over-weight because of the potential of state funded health care cost. NZ let this person into the country via an immigration visa when the person weighed more than now. Why was he allowed to enter the country in the first place? Does not make sense.

If NZ is going to use the excuse of potential health care costs then why is tobacco legal? Are there any fast food places in NZ? Is booze legal in NZ? Is exercise mandatory and enforced country wide in NZ? This is the problem with state funded health care, when the state provides the care the state can dictate ANYTHING.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by suz62

 

And bulemia and anorexia are ALSO morbidly dangerous. I've been told at the doctor's office to DON'T LOSE WEIGHT - I've been told that I looked TOO THIN when I was in a state of clinical depression and COULDn't eat - my family and friends told me I was going to "disappear" if I didn't put on some weight - that they were worried about me.

What is so wrong about being "worried" about the health of extremely fat people? And food intake, refusal, or purging by using laxatives or vomiting are all UNHEALTHY.

You're missing the points of the OP - I said that I disagree with the manner in which the sites reporting ALL used the phrase "too fat" - when clearly the issue is about "pre-existing medical conditions" that NZ has a right to decide they don't want to "take on." Most countries also have requirements about how much MONEY a person has, or whether they have a SKILL or TRADE that the country needs.

And I asked what everyone thought about that word choice. I see the choice worked on YOU, at least, to make an immigration application's health-related issues into "discrimination."

But it is discrimination based upon being overweight. The denial is based upon the argument that he COULD BE a medical cost. Many of overweight people NEVER develop Diabetes for example. It's like Angelina Jolie having a mastectomy based upon the possibility of getting cancer, not having it. Yet in her case, she's deemed a HERO for taking action. It's sheer nonsense. It is conditioning people to accept drastic actions and choices based upon possible future events. It's utter lunacy to live life like this. Society has been thoroughly brainwashed to exalt youth and beauty in our cultures - so much so that everyone outside of that media defined ideal is tossed aside as worthless. Older than the ideal? You are marginalised. Heavier than the ideal? You are marginalised. Less attractive than the ideal? You are marginalised. And here's the thing - the people accept the programming and march on command. This is discrimination based upon nothing more than WHAT IFS, POSSIBILITIES AND PERHAPS. This is starting to happen in many different scenarios. Wait until you are told that your child may be a future murderer and a lobotomy is necessary. What will you do when society stands up shouting "it is best if we lobotomise him now? This is no different than what NZ is doing and people actually support it.