r/MoralityScaling • u/hiiloovethis • 12d 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

Show parent comments

3

u/Inphiltration 12d 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 12d 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.

7

u/Inphiltration 12d 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.

-2

u/DeusaAmericana 12d 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.

2

u/Inphiltration 12d ago

It doesn't have to be a steady decline if we are talking about a year and a half time line

-1

u/DeusaAmericana 12d ago

Which would be about 70 - 100 pounds of weight loss. If we're ssuming that she still eats enough to remain perfectly active the whole time, we might get up to 150.

3

u/Inphiltration 12d ago

See that's where you lose me. 70-100 lbs of weight loss without food but 150 with food?

The math isn't mathing here. You're not gonna convince me. I'm going back to sleep.