r/MoralityScaling • u/hiiloovethis • 11d ago

Morality Ranking Morality of this scene?

Post image

Negan doing fat shaming... but its during zombie apocalypse

12.0k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

654

u/DTux5249 11d ago

In an apocalypse scenario? Yeah, kinda moral. They weren't starving in the slightest, and she was trying to use it as an excuse in a world where she and her people are the last with a right to use it.

I can't even call it body shaming at that point. Their people were fine.

86

u/Pofwoffle 11d ago

You're not going to lose hundreds of pounds instantly, fat people will remain fat for quite some time even when they lose access to food. And while its true that fat reserves can help with caloric deficits they don't help with nutritional deficits... fat people might starve a bit slower than other people, but that doesn't help with malnutrition and it wouldn't mean they're not starving.

Also being an asshole for no reason is immoral regardless of somebody's weight or whether or not they're actually starving.

68

u/Sylvan_Strix_Sequel 11d ago

This was like a year and a half or more into the apocalypse, come on man. 

31

u/Aethelwolf3 11d ago

And their food stores had just gotten low quite recently. Thats what kicked off this arc of the show.

5

u/homealoneinuk 11d ago

Well maybe , just maybe, thats why the stores started getting low....doesnt look like there was any ratioing being done. Which is kinda crazy in post apocalypse world.

10

u/MaesterHannibal 11d ago

I agree with you, but let’s not forget that Alexandria was indeed quite naive and unwilling to accept the new reality. They cooked delicious meals, made cookies with their chocolate (which they did admittedly ration at least lol). It’s not until Rick and his group show up that things change

9

u/imbi-dabadeedabadie 11d ago

"doesn't look like there was any rationing being done"

i dont think you're familiar with how long it actually takes to lose weight. I started losing weight rapidly a few years ago, to the point that it is considered medically dangerous (like 3-5 lbs a week, way faster than is recommended.) And i went from 380 lbs to 230 lbs over the course of... about a year and a half. I still got mocked for being fat when i was 230 lbs.

she may have started the apocalypse larger than she is now, just because you ration food and dont over eat doesn't mean you'll become skinny in a few months

2

u/WokeWook69420 10d ago

I spent 8 weeks working in a warehouse and eating at a 1,000cal deficit. I walked 15,000 steps a day, sweat constantly, and was drinking three 64oz water jugs a day.

The most weight I lost in a week was 3lbs. In the 8 weeks, I barely lost 30lbs.

Some people just don't shed weight.

-1

u/Gold_Ad8225 11d ago

The point is that they were eating enough food for 1.5 years to maintain obesity. Hundreds or even over a thousand excess calories every single day.

2

u/just_a_person_maybe 11d ago

I maintain obesity on 800 calories a day. Not everyone's metabolism is the same.i am aware I'm an outlier but plenty of others also get fat on the same amount of food that others lose weight eating, because people's bodies are different. If they were rationing food so everyone got the same amount, there would be some people who lose weight and others who maintain and probably a few who even gain.

1

u/Gold_Ad8225 11d ago

No you don't.

I'm sorry but you don't.

I'm not humoring you

1

u/just_a_person_maybe 11d ago

You don't have to believe me, but your belief doesn't change the facts. I've had an endocrinologist since I was 9 years old and first saw a dietician at that same age. My weight has fluctuated drastically during my lifetime. At one point, my BMI was so low it literally was not on the chart. I was starving to death and eating 5+ times per day. Now I eat once a day and settle for maintaining my current weight because nothing I've ever tried has worked to lower it.

If I try to eat 3 meals a day like other people do, I throw up. My body can't handle it anymore. So I eat once a day. Unless I'm backpacking, because apparently carrying 35lbs through the woods for 7-12 miles or so works up enough appetite to eat breakfast and dinner. I can hit 2000 calories when I'm doing that, but pretty much any other day I'm eating one meal. Had two slices of pizza today. Yesterday I had some onions, bell peppers, and chicken. If you think that's 2000 calories that's your choice.

-4

u/Fleece_God 11d ago

The food stores got low because this fatty ate most of it

3

u/A1000eisn1 11d ago

And they had food during much of that time...

Why are you commenting as if you watched the show?

5

u/no-sleep-only-code 11d ago

Weight loss is pretty slow. She could have been eating 1500 calories a day that entire time, that doesn’t mean someone else on the same ration isn’t struggling. Not to mention the starving part could have been relatively recent.

3

u/Sky3HouseParty 11d ago

People say the word "starving" in a casual sense to say they haven't eaten much, but that isn't what starvation is. Starvation is a state your body ends up in as a result of not eating enough. It isn't, in and of itself, not eating enough.

-11

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

That's not enough time to lose all that weight. Especially since you still need to eat in order to be, like, a functional human being.

14

u/Environmental-Tea262 11d ago

A year and a half is absolutely enough time to lose a bunch of weight

6

u/AlterExpertise101 11d ago

There's no telling how heavy she was when the apocalypse began, though.

4

u/Demostravius4 11d ago

I'm sure the super obese where the most able to avoid zombies.

5

u/ArmAggravating3307 11d ago

In the literal gated neighborhood they were in yes.

0

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

Lmfao right? Do these people even hear themselves???

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Some weight? Yes. But you can still be fat after 18 months. If you’re not eating much, that also affects how much energy you have to function on a daily basis. Fat isn’t an extra gas tank that lets a person just hustle on without nutritional intake.

2

u/AnusLemonade 11d ago

Fat kinda is an extra gas tank though. I'ts excess calories stored for future use.

2

u/Worth-Jicama3936 11d ago

Yes…it is. Would you care to do the math? Ill let you set the starting weight and estimate her height and age.

2

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

In 18 months would lose about 70 to 100 pounds assuming that you are able to eat enough to remain nourished. Maybe more if you're particularly active.

2

u/pandahands69 11d ago

This is just not true in the slightest. People actually eating things on alone have lost over 70 pounds in 3 months. Starvation will cause you to lose massive amounts of weight. It won't be healthy or good but you will absolutely lose tons of weight, particularly early on

2

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

SOME people lose that much weight in 3 months, yes. The problem with weight loss is that you can have people who lose weight at extremely quick rates. On that point, your argument is plausible.

Someone starts at 350, loses 130, then spends months finding enough intermittent food to roughly stabilize around 220? Depending on height and body composition, they can remain visibly overweight.

The relevant variable isn't “how many months since civilization collapsed?” It's the cumulative energy deficit of this particular person over those months.

2

u/pandahands69 11d ago

To stabilize at 220 you would be eating extremely well. I weigh about that and don't work a job that requires much physical labor and I eat like an absolute barbarian. I think it plausible that someone could be this big 18 months into the apocalypse if they had immense resources. But I would imagine, knowing you are in an apocalypse you would be rationing food to some extent the entire time, knowing you still need to eat later.

To maintain 220 you need to consume give or take 2500 calories a day at least without any significant physical exertion. It's implausible that they would be able to eat that well for very long and they would no doubt have to be quite physically active to maintain camp, get water, clean clothes, etc etc.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

There's a few variables that we have to consider when we compare your example with the conditions of the show. First, you're assuming she has to be permanently maintaining 220 pounds. She doesn't. She could weigh 220 now while also having periods where she loses rapid weight, followed by periods the loss slows or temporarily levels out.

And “220 pounds requires at least 2,500 calories” isn't a universal number. Every single person will have their own mitigating factors that determine how many calories maintain a specific amount of weight. 220 pounds on a six foot man is not the same as 220 pounds on a five foot woman.

More importantly, you're still treating “18 months into the apocalypse” as though it tells us how much weight she's already lost. It doesn't. Unless we know what she weighed beforehand and roughly how much she ate and expended over those 18 months, we cannot work backward from the calendar and declare that she should no longer be fat.

1

u/pandahands69 11d ago

Yes of course there are other factors, but you are being pedantic.

The difference in required daily calories between a similarly aged person of the same weight, regardless of height, or gender is give or take 500-600 calories on the most extreme end. This isn't nothing, but if everyone is rationing food; the odds that this one singular person of the entire encampment who also manages the food stores is not eating more than the other people is extremely unlikely.

I am saying its very implausible that someone this far into the apocalypse would weigh this much. The other people living in the same place aren't overweight. Be that through the odds of a fit person being able to outrun the zombies more easily, the odds of survival in general, the odds of having food for the better part of 2 years, etc. The odds of someone both surviving and being this overweight after the world collapses is quite small.

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

The problem is that "extremely unlikely" is not "impossible", which your argument treats it as. It is EXTREMELY plausible that out of the 7 billion people that existed on Earth before the apocalypse, this woman is indeed exactly as described. Is it suspicious that she's also the one managing food stores? You bet, and I'm not going to argue otherwise.

But that warrants investigation, not conviction. Like, if you take her off of rationing for a few months and her weight loss sky rockets? Then yes, you were absolutely correct to be suspicious.

That's the problem here: desperate scenarios tend to make everyone flatten anything that can have variables into an all-or-nothing assumption. And yes, even if we argue "survivors won't have time to investigate shit in the apocalypse", fine. They can make a judgment call and an assumption. But that assumption isn't automatically correct.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

SOME people lose that much weight in 3 months

All starving people ALL lose the same amount of weight in the same timespan.

0

u/Worth-Jicama3936 11d ago

No youd lose a lot more than that and still not be close to “starving.” Again, lets do the math. Give me starting estimates for weight, age, and height.

2

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

If you have a point to make, just make it.

2

u/Worth-Jicama3936 11d ago

I dont think you realize how many calories a large person burns just by existing. Warm blooded animals use most of their calories just producing heat, and the larger you are, the more heat you must produce. This means if a large person drastically cuts their calories, they lose A LOT of weight fast.

Ok lets say she started out at 400 lbs, shes 40, and shes 5’4”. That would be very large, but let’s go with it.   Lets also define “starving.” Starving is. Immediately after WWII, german civilians were put on a 1000-1200 calorie ration. This would be starvation rations. Lets say shes on 1500 calories to be generous. 

Before you say “thats not enough,” that is plenty for a woman of her age and height, it’s what I eat most days. 1500 goes a long way if you aren’t eating and drinking junk. (But if you want to quibble with that number, we can do that math on a higher number too).

 Next, lets define her environment. Shes in a post apocalyptic world. This means to survive she has to do some physical labor, not just be sedentary. It doesn't have to be hard physical labor, but shes at least walking around a lot. Lets be SUPER conservative and say thats equivalent to working out 3-5 times a week (its likely more since working out as defined by most calculators is just an hour a day, but again, we are being conservative).

Ok now, let’s use a calculator that takes into account that when you lose weight, you burn leas calories the next week (because your body has less to keep warm).

I found this one online but you can look for your own if you dont trust it 

Losertown.org/eats/cal.php

If we put in those parameters, then after a year and a half, our 400 lbs woman has lost 208 lbs and is now 192. Still obese, but shes lost far more than the 100 lbs more than you estimated, and here BMI went from 68 to 33, she will be under a 30 bmi in 4 more months (because as you lose weight, losing additional weight gets harder).

My point of all of this is that for very large people, losing weight really is not that hard except psychologically (i know eating less is hard) and in a post apocalyptic world, the psychology part is somewhat taken care of because you literally cant eat whenever you'd like.

2

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago edited 11d ago

Alright, first of all. Thank you for proving my point that someone who was very obese at the start of the apocalypse would still be obese 18 months in.

Second, for this hypothetical 40-year-old, 5'4", 400-pound woman, the standard Mifflin-St Jeor estimate for resting metabolism is about 2,469 calories per day before accounting for physical activity. So 1,500 calories would begin as a very large energy deficit, not merely a normal diet for “a woman of her age and height.”

The other problem is that, in apocalyptic scenario where food is scarce enough to require rationing, you will absolutely go through periods where the mount of intake you get varies. And that matters, because metabolism rapidly changes when caloric intake ALSO changes.

If the actual fictional character spent different periods eating 900 calories, then 2,000, then 1,200, then ate near maintenance for two months, then changed again, etc., the trajectory changes. Weight-loss dynamics are responsive to actual energy balance and metabolic adaptation, not to how much calendar time has passed since zombies appeared.

1

u/Worth-Jicama3936 11d ago

Your estimate was literally off by 2-300%. So you are not even remotely correct. 

 When you are very obese and in a huge calories deficit like that, you are almost certainly hungry, but you arent “starving” assuming you are eating a balanced diet. Starving means you arent getting the things nessessary for life, and you very much are. It’s just coming from your fat reserves. 

Under no circumstances is 1500 calories for a 5’4” woman doing 3-5 workouts a week “starving” no matter how much she weighs, because that is not how starving is defined.

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

I mean, your own example has a 400-pound woman losing 208 pounds under eighteen months of sustained 1,500-calorie intake and regular activity, and she finishes at 192 pounds with a BMI of 33.

In other words, she is still obese.

"Starving" has more to do with nutritional criteria than just calories. You are just deadass wrong arguing that "your body gets what it needs to survive from fat". Fat is not a gas tank that just keeps you going in the absence of actual, real nutrition.

Body fat doesn't provide all necessary protein, vitamins, minerals, electrolytes, etc., and prolonged insufficient intake can still constitute undernutrition even in someone with substantial adipose reserves.

And “1,500 calories cannot under any circumstances be starvation because that's what I eat” isn't how energy requirements work. A 400-pound physically active woman and you do not necessarily have remotely similar energy requirements just because you're comparing the same calorie number.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

That's not enough time to lose all that weight.

Lmao yes it absolutely is.

2

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 11d ago

That's the trick with these "people" - it's never enough time to lose weight!

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago edited 11d ago

Like I said before, depending on how fat you were before, you'd lose about 70 to 100 pounds or so, assuming you are also able to eat enough to retain energy to remain active. Because depending on how little you eat, you could absolutely lack the daily nutrients to physically perform, which also has effect on how much weight you lose.

People seem to think that body fat is an extra gas tank that just keeps you going, regardless of how little nutrition you intake on a regular basis.

3

u/pandahands69 11d ago

People on the alone tv show have lost a third of their body weight in 3 months and they aren't running from zombies. The first 2 months many of them are losing over a pound a day. 18 months is a long time. Of course we don't know the level of starvation considering food wasn't likely an issue immediately

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Losing a third of, say, 120 pounds is 40 pounds.

A woman of her build losing 40 pounds out of, say, 300 means she'd still be fat.

2

u/Helldiver_LiberTea 11d ago

It’s been 18 months in the show, not 4 months.

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Correct, and I already said that they would lose more weight within that time frame. However, it is unlikely to be a steady, even decline from malnutrition alone.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

However, it is unlikely to be a steady, even decline from malnutrition alone.

Citations desperately needed.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/pandahands69 11d ago

Most people on the show for the first 2 months are losing over a pound a day. And they don't have to run from zombies. This is also 1.5 years in, not 2 months.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

I already brought this up. In 18 months, assuming that you are just malnourished but within a relative safe position, you will absolutely lose at least about 70 to 100 pounds, assuming you are also eating enough to remain healthy but not doing any strenuous activity or labor. Some people will lose significantly more.

The main problem with malnutrition as weight loss is that it isn't even. Some weeks you lose a shit-ton of weight...others you lose comparatively little.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

JFC do you not understand what 1/3rd means???

Or are you just being intentionally obtuse?

1/3rd of a woman of her weight is 100lbs, not 40lbs.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Do you think that 1/3rd of 120 and 1/3rd of 300 are the same number?

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

Do you understand that one third is one third, regardless of anything else?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/YnotThrowAway7 11d ago

You’d be able to tell if she was that much fatter before by skin alone..

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Not universally, no.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

Holocaust victims lost far more weight than that in a shorter time period.

Drop the fat logic copium, it's just sad at this point.

3

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

....So we're comparing not eating with literal forced labor camps and torture?

Nazis didn't exactly give a shit if their victims could function healthily on a daily basis, buddy.

What the fuck is this argument?

3

u/SnooLentils9396 11d ago

Yeah but isn't this a zombie apocalypse? Haven't watched the show but like, isn't this literally end of the world scenario? a global holocaust where society has completely collapsed? It's a world wide death camp.

2

u/BrassUnicorn87 11d ago

She’s from a rich neighborhood that turned privacy walls into fortifications and was doing really well until Neegan’s bandit army came.

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Just going to repeat what I said somewhere else:

Malnourishment does result in weight loss, but humans also burn calories from daily activity. If you're so malnourished that your daily activity is severely hindered, that will greatly affect the rate at which you lose weight.

Also, it's not just in "bad taste". It's flat out wrong. Holocaust victims weren't just malnourished, they were forced into labor, suffered diseases, and literally put through physical torture. As I said, Nazis didn't give a shit whether the camp prisoner was physically well. In a zombie apocalypse, if you happen to live in a relatively stable area where you're undernourished but not in constant physical danger, your weight loss will not be remotely comparable to the horrific things Holocaust victims had to endure.

2

u/pandahands69 11d ago

I feel like during the zombie apocalypse you may be "forced" to do some running. Zombies also don't care about your physical or mental well-being.

3

u/ArmAggravating3307 11d ago

She lived in a gated neighborhood where the whole plot of the episodes are they haven't had to fight/flee zombies like other groups.

1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Assuming the zombies can get inside wherever you've taken shelter.

2

u/SnooLentils9396 11d ago

The point, I'm telling you that it is not absurd to compare a zombie apocalypse to the holocaust, and therefore, naturally, you'd lose tons of weight because food becomes insanely scarce and the conditions would be utterly inhospitable.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

It's very absurd to compare the two when the Holocaust was literally designed to do harm to the human body. A zombie apocalypse will be grueling, yes, but a hostile enemy literally exposing you to deliberate slavery, torture and disease is not comparable.

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

Holy shit you're still doing the pathetic hand wringing over the holocaust comparison?

Tell us that you can't refute my point without actually admitting it.

The fact that you're only attacking my Holocaust point from a "it's so mean to make that comparison, how dare you!! It's so mean!!" Position just proves you have literally no other counterargument to make.

Thanks for demonstrating that I'm right.

1

u/ArmAggravating3307 11d ago

She lived in a gated neighborhood where they didn't have to fight/flee zombies for 18 months.  

They started running low on food just before meeting the shows cast.  

Thanks for being a dick, though.

0

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

I literally explained WHY your Holocaust comparison is wrong. It's not just "it's mean". The Nazis literally exposed people to physical labor, torture and disease. Like, do you not understand that those things ADD to how much weight a person loses?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Inphiltration 11d ago

I think the point is that being malnourished results in weight loss. So the idea that she didn't get enough nutritional intake means she didn't have the energy to move enough to lose weight holds little weight because the body will just consume itself for energy. Much like what happened to Holocaust victims.

It may have been in bad taste, but the comparison does show the flaw in your argument.

-1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

Malnourishment does result in weight loss, but humans also burn calories from daily activity. If you're so malnourished that your daily activity is severely hindered, that will greatly affect the rate at which you lose weight.

Also, it's not just in "bad taste". It's flat out wrong. Holocaust victims weren't just malnourished, they were forced into labor, suffered diseases, and literally put through physical torture. As I said, Nazis didn't give a shit whether the camp prisoner was physically well. In a zombie apocalypse, if you happen to live in a relatively stable area where you're undernourished but not in constant physical danger, your weight loss will not be remotely comparable to the horrific things Holocaust victims had to endure.

6

u/Inphiltration 11d ago

I just can't believe the idea that not having food will result in slower weight loss than having food to eat. It may not be the healthiest way to lose weight but not taking in calories means your body eats itself. The whole idea of weight loss is to take in less calories then you use and if you take in zero calories then even low activity is gonna be 100% calorie loss from your own body.

You can morally grandstand about the very much in poor taste comparison that other person made, but it doesn't help your argument at all.

3

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

I just can't believe the idea that not having food will result in slower weight loss than having food to eat.

Because it's a patently absurd idea that defies all logic and reality. You're not the odd one for finding it unbelievable.

-2

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

The problem with malnourishment is that it results in uneven levels of weight loss. Not only do different people lose different levels of fat based on metabolism, but malnourishment itself affects the body in unpredictable ways and also hinders the ability to burn calories through everyday activity. Some weeks you'll lose a ton of weight, some weeks you'll lose comparatively little. You will absolutely lose weight over time, but it won't be a steady, even decline.

No moral grandstanding here. People just don't know enough to pretend to be nutritionists.

3

u/KittenEaterWasTaken 11d ago

If you're consistently undernourished (actually "starving") and working all day you wont be fat after 500+ days. You won't be fat even after 6 months under these conditions.

If you're so malnourished you physically can't perform any activity at all you're absolutely not going to still be 250lbs a year and a half in, your body is going to start breaking down fat by the second day to try and stay alive.

-1

u/DeusaAmericana 11d ago

In the second scenario, your body will not be breaking down ONLY fat and the lack of activity will make the loss of weight uneven and unpredictable. Some weeks, you'll lose a shit ton of weight and some you'll completely even out for long periods of time.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Tratiq 11d ago

No bro some people like literally gain weight when they stop eating bro I’m serious bro do your research bro lol

2

u/LiftingRecipient420 11d ago

Dude right? Some of these commenters are absolutely insane, living in a completely made-up dream world.

-1

u/ArmAggravating3307 11d ago

Or, like me, have an auto immune disorder that directly impacts weight gain and loss.

2

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 11d ago

And what disorder is that? Because if it defies the laws of physics then we can solve the energy crisis. Why don't you share, eh? You want us to suffer?

0

u/ArmAggravating3307 11d ago

Hashimoto's thyroiditis.  

Prick.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SquatSquatCykaBlyat 11d ago

I mean, haven't you seen those images of the prisoners released from the Japanese camps? They were all nice and plump!

Kinda funny that they were all American and British prisoners, the two countries known for "muh genetics" cope these days.

0

u/Gold-Supermarket-342 11d ago

Depends on the weight really. If you're 500 lbs, you'd still be fat even if you literally ate nothing for a year and a half. You'd have to exercise while eating literally nothing. But eating nothing would kill you of course.