VM567 – Condemnation of Fat Activism Motion. Watch

Poll: Do you agree with this Motion?
As many as are of the opinion, aye. (19)
48.72%
Of the contrary, no (14)
35.9%
Abstain. (6)
15.38%
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
M567 – Condemnation of Fat Activism Motion: LiberofLondon MP This House condemns the regrettable belief that obese people are inherently as healthy as people with a healthy weight (known as Healthy at Every Size), acknowledges that being overweight can cause health problems and recognises that organisations do not have to provide special provisions for obese people, and that doing so is not ”fatphobic” or discriminatory.
0
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
Voted no as I don’t believe this is important enough to warrant a motion
Last edited by AngryRedhead; 2 weeks ago
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
It's a nay from me. If health is your primary concern, there are better ways to approach this.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
No, because I was initially concerned about the intentions of this motion and the state of the initial debate thread has turned my thoroughly against this.

I agree with shadowdweller on the matter.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
No, because I was initially concerned about the intentions of this motion and the state of the initial debate thread has turned my thoroughly against this.

I agree with shadowdweller on the matter.
Why so?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Why so?
Well go have a look at it.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Voted no as I don’t believe this is important enough to warrant a bill
That’s probably why if you read it, it’s a motion and not a Bill?
0
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Connor27)
That’s probably why if you read it, it’s a motion and not a Bill?
Same principle
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Same principle
Not at all - motions are widely regarded as being less significant and designed for less important issues than Bills, the distinction is incredibly important.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Connor27)
That’s probably why if you read it, it’s a motion and not a Bill?
A motion on this passing would provide a mandate for someone to produce a bill on the subject and expect it to pass.

A motion failing would not provide that .

If someone believes a subject does not warrant a bill, they aren't in the wrong for opposing a motion on the same subject for this reason.
2
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
Mr Speaker, as this is only a motion i voted Aye however next time i hope the Hon. Member will expand his motions a little and include links to relevant information and articles.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
if this were a government issue, then perhaps government could have an opinion on it - but it's not. it's not government's job to condemn anyone or anything simply because it's a bad idea or because they disagree with it. if citizens are acting privately and within their legal rights, quite frankly it's none of government business.

only way the second half of this motion would've made sense is if it tried to address section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, but then we couldn't talk about 'fat-shaming' and actually have to make arguments outside of Tess Holiday and Demi Lovato.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by Joleee)
if this were a government issue, then perhaps government could have an opinion on it - but it's not. it's not government's job to condemn anyone or anything simply because it's a bad idea or because they disagree with it. if citizens are acting privately and within their legal rights, quite frankly it's none of government business.

only way the second half of this motion would've made sense is if it tried to address section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, but then we couldn't talk about 'fat-shaming' and actually have to make arguments outside of Tess Holiday and Demi Lovato.
We have had motions condemning fascism and communism before, which are perfectly legal ideologies although very morally objectionable. I see no reason not to condemn another one.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by Joleee)
if this were a government issue, then perhaps government could have an opinion on it - but it's not. it's not government's job to condemn anyone or anything simply because it's a bad idea or because they disagree with it. if citizens are acting privately and within their legal rights, quite frankly it's none of government business.

only way the second half of this motion would've made sense is if it tried to address section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, but then we couldn't talk about 'fat-shaming' and actually have to make arguments outside of Tess Holiday and Demi Lovato.
This kind of liberalism is why the nation is obese.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
We have had motions condemning fascism and communism before, which are perfectly legal ideologies although very morally objectionable. I see no reason not to condemn another one.
fascism and communism in what context? said by whom and to what significance on the state?

i don't know what motions you speak of (i'm sure they exists; i just don't follow that closely) but criticising government is what governments do. mostly because we work internationally and as a global economy as well.

'condemnation' of private individuals who do nothing but express a personal opinion, even a bad one, is not government business. if it were said by the public school system or the NHS i would be party-way in agreement on this motion, but this is not the case.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
This kind of liberalism is why the nation is obese.
i believe it's classical liberalism in the vein of JS Mill's theory on freedom of expression and harm principle.

the nation is obese because citizens have private law rights?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by Rakas21)
This kind of liberalism is why the nation is obese.
The alternative is a widespread sugar tax, but that would have a lot of people up in arms I'm sure!
1
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
The alternative is a widespread sugar tax, but that would have a lot of people up in arms I'm sure!
There is a difference between condemning people who believe that being obese is not only natural but healthy, and controlling what people eat.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
There is a difference between condemning people who believe that being obese is not only natural but healthy, and controlling what people eat.
But of course.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#20
The following votes have been removed.

Aye:
Agentsnace
Miss Maddie
Technik23
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (412)
43.78%
No (98)
10.41%
I'm not old enough (431)
45.8%

Watched Threads

View All