Fat guy dies because he didn't want to go to the zoo...

[VenomVsSpidey]

You should respect him because he was human being, which is infinitely more important than what he looked like. Yes, getting to that weight was certainly not a good idea but many,many people don't understand the consequences of their choices until it's too late.

yet, you constantly bash topher grace.

 

[SuperFerret]

Topher Grace isn't human.

 

[bgates87]

Over 100,000 people die every day, this guy just happened to be a fatass. So what?

Edit: BTW I just made that stat up but it's probably an underestimate. Suffice it to say a lot of people die every day.

 

[chaseter]

Someone that gets killed by a lone gunmen deserves sympathy. Someone that refuses medical treatment because it is unorthodox and they die as a result does not deserve sympathy imo. I feel bad for his family and friends, but not for that man.

 

[SuperFerret]

Someone that gets killed by a lone gunmen deserves sympathy. Someone that refuses medical treatment because it is unorthodox and they die as a result does not deserve sympathy imo. I feel bad for his family and friends, but not for that man.

What he said.

 

[Speedball]

Some of these responses are just revolting. A person has died here. Show some respect.

He was morbidly obese, therefore he wasn't human.
Well... that's the view of the world we live in... except we're fatter than ever... so like 1/4 of the world isn't human, and most of the US and UK aren't either...
Anyway... it's his own fault he died... he didn't HAVE to be fat...
Being fat is a choice, unless you have a gland problem. Show me he had a gland problem, then I could be a little more sympathetic.

 

[Lantern Venom]

He was morbidly obese, therefore he wasn't human.
Well... that's the view of the world we live in... except we're fatter than ever... so like 1/4 of the world isn't human, and most of the US and UK aren't either...
Anyway... it's his own fault he died... he didn't HAVE to be fat...
Being fat is a choice, unless you have a gland problem. Show me he had a gland problem, then I could be a little more sympathetic.

No one is arguing that. I've know quite a few people who have ended their lives prematurely by an array of bad habits. The question is whether or not that gives us a license to make fun of that person. I say absolutely not. I can understand people mocking a monster like Osama Bin Laden if he died but saying that someone doesn't deserve respect because he/she ate/drank/smoked/drugged themselves to death? Wow. That is a substantial amont of people who "aren't human". I don't even want to know what some of you think about people who commit suicide.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

You can't compare suicide to obesity, lung cancer, or an alcohol related death.

 

[BillyZaned]

You should respect him because he was human being,

human being? What was he being beside a fatass?

the correct term for him, is he was a human eating....

 

[Aesop Rocks]

The guy ate himself to death, in a sense, he was killing himself.

in a sense, he committed suicide.

 

[Mr.Green]

I think fatass isn't even a strong enough word for weighing 500 pounds

LOL true

 

[StorminNorman]

I think his wife should be happy her husband lived to be 50 being that fat.

she ain't gonna be happy when she has to pay double for his burial plot in the ground

They can bury him at the zoo.

Good show guys.

Some of these responses are just revolting. A person has died here. Show some respect.

This thread pales is comparison to one a few weeks ago about the world's heaviest man who needed life-saving surgery. There were quite a few people that said he should be left to die. Talk about heartless.

I guess we'll have to disagree. There are many habits & lifestyles in which people indulge that I don't understand or I think are flat-out stupid. But those habits don't override their worth as unique individuals.

ALL people are flawed. Some people's choices are simply more evident than others but we should respect their humanity over their bad choices in the event of their deaths.

When you start talking about a man who weighs 500 pounds, or the worlds largest man, you move past people that simply make mistakes or live a flawed lifestyle.

These people deserve no sympathy.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

You should respect him because he was human being, which is infinitely more important than what he looked like. Yes, getting to that weight was certainly not a good idea but many,many people don't understand the consequences of their choices until it's too late.

Would you feel the same way about a meth or heroin addict?

 

[Lantern Venom]

Would you feel the same way about a meth or heroin addict?

Of course I would. Yes, I hate drugs and alcohol with a passion but I would never, ever be heartless enough to say someone doesn't deserve treatment or simple human decency after they die. There is more to each person than just the mistakes they make.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Yet he was married. And how many of you can't get a girlfriend, are lonely and complain about people not respecting you due to your appearance or jobs or hobbies or interests or awkwardness? If it's okay to mock a person's death because they were obese, you surely think it's fine to mock people's inability to talk to girls or have sex, mock them feeling awkward and lonely, and so on, right?

How many of you are not very athletic or in strong physical shape? Can the folks here who are in shape and strong make fun of you? Can we pick on you? Or is this a case of picking on this guy because it's easy and makes everyone feel better since it lets them vent and pass on the teasing or mocking they face in their own daily lives or in their past or at school etc?

Do you know any overweight people? Do you have any overweight relatives? When one of them dies, will you post a thread here so everybody can make fun of their deaths and their weight and say they didn't respect themselves enough to stay in shape and eat healthy, so everybody can disrespect them when they die? How would you feel about all of us laughing about your mom or dad or grandparents or friends dying, because they were fat?

You don't know why this guy was overweight. There are a lot of cases of people who are that obese due to physical problems. Getting to 500+ lbs very often is due to a genetic disorder of some sort. Even if he did overeat, there are a helluva lot worse things people do in life. Some of you have admitted to abusing animals, or have pretty awful attitudes toward women or other people. Some of you say you mostly hate other people -- who exactly has less self-respect and is more deserving of derision and disrespect, a guy who eats too much or someone who goes around saying "I hate other people" like it's a badge of honor or earns them coolness points?

Next time you want to complain about the unfairness in your lives, someone giving you hell or mocking you or bullying you, a woman/man not being willing to date you, hating the whole world, etc, remember that maybe the unfairness or catching hell or not getting dates or feeling apart from the rest of the world is a little bit due to some character flaw that makes you mock a man's death and repeatedly insult him and claim it's okay to disrespect him in death. Maybe all those other people see something in you, and that's what turns them away.

Or is it insensitive and insulting to say that about the problems and mistakes in your lives? Bullying is bullying, it sucks and it's stupid and small-minded. Whether it's happening to you, or you're doing it to someone else.

 

[The Spawn]

Wow, Hype sure has changed....someone would have came in earlier and talked about how heartless the jokes in this thread were years ago.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

VenomXXXXL has actually been saying that since about page one, I believe. I just came to back him up!

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Oh, and this story raises an obvious question: if larger machines are available and in use at the vet clinic, why don't hospitals make sure to have one of the larger ones on-site? The equipment exists, there are obviously plenty of folks who are larger and would need a larger machine, there are probably folks who fit into the smaller machine but would fit far better into the larger one, etc. Why not have the most usable equipment at the hospital, then? If a zoo can afford one, surely it's not cost-prohibitive for a hospital to have one.

It's a far better option than sending a person to the zoo, and maybe folks should also consider that a machine used on animals might expose the person to infections or bacteria etc that could be unhealthy or make their condition worse -- people get such exposure at hospitals for humans, so I'm sure it's a valid concern at a zoo. The guy should've gone anyway, his life depended on it, but now in the aftermath it's worth considering how to improve the situation for the future, IMO.

 

[SuperFerret]

Zoonotic diseases are likely one of a zoo's top priorities, what with all the visitors that they get, and nosocomial infections are rare in an all human environment. Hell, I'd bet that you'd be less likely to get any diseases from staying at a vet hospital than you would at a human hospital. He would've been perfectly fine had he gone through with this, but I guess his pride was worth more than his life.

 

[Mace Dolex]

I thought he died at the zoo because a gorilla there saw him big and chunky therefore wanted to mate with him.

 

[chaseter]

Oh, and this story raises an obvious question: if larger machines are available and in use at the vet clinic, why don't hospitals make sure to have one of the larger ones on-site? The equipment exists, there are obviously plenty of folks who are larger and would need a larger machine, there are probably folks who fit into the smaller machine but would fit far better into the larger one, etc. Why not have the most usable equipment at the hospital, then? If a zoo can afford one, surely it's not cost-prohibitive for a hospital to have one.

It's a far better option than sending a person to the zoo, and maybe folks should also consider that a machine used on animals might expose the person to infections or bacteria etc that could be unhealthy or make their condition worse -- people get such exposure at hospitals for humans, so I'm sure it's a valid concern at a zoo. The guy should've gone anyway, his life depended on it, but now in the aftermath it's worth considering how to improve the situation for the future, IMO.

Why go through all the trouble to pay, assemble, and house such a huge machine if they are rarely ever going to use it? That is stupid. Not every town with a hospital should have a machine rated for a 1/2 ton animal. He should have went to the zoo, it was his fault, not anybody else's. For that, he died.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

and nosocomial infections are rare in an all human environment.

Uh, not so sure about that. Most hospitals are an all-human environment, but that's precisely where nosocomial infections originate (it's what the term actually means). And they aren't really rare, depending I guess on your definition of rare. The estimate is that about 10% of hospital patients develop nosocomial infections, and it kills about 90,000 people every year.

Zoonotic infections are probably one of a zoo's concerns, but definitely not a top priority in terms of the focus of their medical focus. The majority of on-site medical facilities and on-site treatments at zoos are of non-human animals, namely the animals at the zoo. That's why, for example in this case, the equipment they have is suited for animals as opposed to humans.

Not sure what the argument is in those points in your quote, though...? How does it relate to your claim about him being more likely to get an infection at a human hospital than a vet clinic, even if it had been true that humans don't usually get hospital infections from all-human hospitals and if zoos focused on zoonosis?

Anyway, the actual stats being what they are for hospital infections and for zoo/vet clinics, I do agree though that he's more likely to get an infection at a hospital than a vet -- the odds are higher for an infection at a human hospital than at the zoo, all things being equal. BUT, he'd already BEEN at the human hospital, first of all. Second, we don't know his exact condition so if his problem was due to respiratory infection for example then he might have faced a secondary exposure risk at the zoo clinic (remember he already was at a human hospital, so that part of the risk equation was visited, although of course a longer stay will increase the time of potential exposure).

I raise the possibility of fear of exposure at the vet clinic just as another point to consider, since there was already exposure to risk at the human hospital. Odds might be that he wouldn't contract anything at the zoo, but it's definitely not a certainty that he wouldn't.

Pride costs people all of the time -- costs us relationships, jobs, health, and life. People frequently fear going to a hospital when they are initially ill, only to discover that the delay caused the situation to get much worse. Most breast cancer in women is treatable and in fact theoretically should have the highest survival-rate of cancer in women. But instead it is the most deadly -- precisely because women don't do self-exams enough, don't get exams at the doctor enough, and don't take immediate action when they do suspect/discover something might be wrong. Should we just say they deserve no respect or sympathy because "it's their own fault, to hell with them"?

Rational or not, shame and embarrassment are strong motivators. This guy already likely faced a lot of ridicule and embarrassment in life -- especially if he was ever around people like the majority of people posting in this thread. It's tragic that his sense of shame led him to delay getting treatment that might have saved his life (although obviously we don't know if going to that zoo clinic would've actually kept him alive or not). I don't see that as a reason to disrespect, mock, and take some twisted sort of pleasure in the man's death, though.

 

[SuperFerret]

Uh, not so sure about that. Most hospitals are an all-human environment, but that's precisely where nosocomial infections originate (it's what the term actually means). And they aren't really rare, depending I guess on your definition of rare. The estimate is that about 10% of hospital patients develop nosocomial infections, and it kills about 90,000 people every year.

10% and 90,000 people dying a year is rare, considering the way our species is grossly overpopulated. Also, nosocomial is also used in veterinary medicine, although the root may have originated with reference to humans. Iatrogenic could've worked, but that's more along the lines of the treatment or physician causing the illness.

Zoonotic infections are probably one of a zoo's concerns, but definitely not a top priority in terms of the focus of their medical focus. The majority of on-site medical facilities and on-site treatments at zoos are of non-human animals, namely the animals at the zoo. That's why, for example in this case, the equipment they have is suited for animals as opposed to humans.

I'm sure it is a top priority, considering that zoos are open to the public and rely heavily on entrance fees and such to operate. Nevermind the fact that their staff is usually mostly human, and it's imperative to keep them healthy.

Not sure what the argument is in those points in your quote, though...? How does it relate to your claim about him being more likely to get an infection at a human hospital than a vet clinic, even if it had been true that humans don't usually get hospital infections from all-human hospitals and if zoos focused on zoonosis?

My point is that most diseases that we can catch are caught from humans, not animals, and most of the zoonotic diseases are from other primates, which would be the highest risk factor in a zoo (or anywhere people work in close proximity with non-human primates) and is recognized as such, therefore it is monitored and regulated much more thoroghly.

Anyway, the actual stats being what they are for hospital infections and for zoo/vet clinics, I do agree though that he's more likely to get an infection at a hospital than a vet -- the odds are higher for an infection at a human hospital than at the zoo, all things being equal. BUT, he'd already BEEN at the human hospital, first of all. Second, we don't know his exact condition so if his problem was due to respiratory infection for example then he might have faced a secondary exposure risk at the zoo clinic (remember he already was at a human hospital, so that part of the risk equation was visited, although of course a longer stay will increase the time of potential exposure).

I raise the possibility of fear of exposure at the vet clinic just as another point to consider, since there was already exposure to risk at the human hospital. Odds might be that he wouldn't contract anything at the zoo, but it's definitely not a certainty that he wouldn't.

Yes, he was already at a human hospital, where we both seem to agree that he was at a higher risk of catching something, so he really did not have much to risk by going to the zoo. This is like saying that I've already went skydiving, but I don't want to cross the street because it's dangerous. Yeah, I might get hit by a car, but I also might choke on my burger. Life is full of risks, and it wasn't fear that prevented him from going to the zoo, it was pride.

Pride costs people all of the time -- costs us relationships, jobs, health, and life. People frequently fear going to a hospital when they are initially ill, only to discover that the delay caused the situation to get much worse. Most breast cancer in women is treatable and in fact theoretically should have the highest survival-rate of cancer in women. But instead it is the most deadly -- precisely because women don't do self-exams enough, don't get exams at the doctor enough, and don't take immediate action when they do suspect/discover something might be wrong. Should we just say they deserve no respect or sympathy because "it's their own fault, to hell with them"?

Rational or not, shame and embarrassment are strong motivators. This guy already likely faced a lot of ridicule and embarrassment in life -- especially if he was ever around people like the majority of people posting in this thread. It's tragic that his sense of shame led him to delay getting treatment that might have saved his life (although obviously we don't know if going to that zoo clinic would've actually kept him alive or not). I don't see that as a reason to disrespect, mock, and take some twisted sort of pleasure in the man's death, though.

People who die based on their own faulty decisions do deserve sympathy, and courtesy (which is often confused with respect), and it is unfortunate that this man died for his pride. However, it's only natural and is a fact of life that people will joke about the morbid and tragic, and it's perfectly fine to do, in certain company. Now, were we in the presence of the man's widow, or if someone on here knew the man, in all likelihood, we'd be polite. That's not the case, and this situation, as unfortunate as it is, is humorous, thus we should be allowed to joke about it.

Like I always say, if you can't joke about it, don't talk about it.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

Why go through all the trouble to pay, assemble, and house such a huge machine if they are rarely ever going to use it? That is stupid. Not every town with a hospital should have a machine rated for a 1/2 ton animal. He should have went to the zoo, it was his fault, not anybody else's. For that, he died.

The same reason hospitals go through all the trouble to pay, assemble, and house plenty of other things they rarely use. The point was that rather than getting smaller machines, get larger ones since they actually exist. The reason they "should" is that it expands the number of people they can help, and it increases medical access for that 4.5 million people.

31% of U.S. citizens are obese, and 63% are overweight. Almost 4 million of them weigh over 300 lbs, and almost half a million weigh over 400 lbs. Hospitals being capable of using their equipment on almost 4.5 million citizens is not "stupid", it's rational. The equipment capable of being used on those people can also be used on smaller people, but the reverse is far less likely to be true. It's simple logic.

Accidents are the person's fault most of the time, right? Bad eating habits include not just overeating but eating food that's not healthy. Plenty of skinny or average-weight people do that. But it leads to heart disease. Accidents and unhealthy eating (not just over-eating) cause a huge percentage of hospitalizations.

So why not make fun of them? Meaning why not mock and have no respect for YOU when you have an accident, make a bad decision, aren't healthy enough, etc? Would you prefer the relationship threads and threads asking for advice just mock you and insult you and point out that it's almost always pretty much your own faults? No sympathy, no compassion, just mockery?

Nobody's arguing that it's not "his own fault" -- but why act like that's some sort of legitimate defense of insulting and mocking his death? Lots of deaths are people's "own fault" for health reasons, accidents, job choices. You're acting like this is a reason to hold the man in contempt.

Yep, he shouldn't have let being embarrassed and humiliated control his decision-making. Yep, he should've tried to be healthier. Yep, his situation is likely the result of his own bad choices. And how often does that apply to you and all of us around here? Maybe we should just remember that, and decide that those mocking this guy's death for those reasons should be treated to the same level of respect when they voice their own problems and ask for advice here as well. Is that what everyone wants?

 

[chaseter]

Uhhh almost everyone on here will mock people with stupid problems. Do you not remember Ice Man? People with genuine problems get help here. "I am having a heart attack but I don't want to miss Heroes, what do I do!?" They deserve to be mocked.

I could care less about overweight statistics. Obesity is an epidemic and a personal problem due to lifestyle choices. Very few of those are due to glandular disorders. It is a sad day when humans are 500+ pounds and they need medical equipment comparable to those used on elephants and hippos. The tax payer should pay for it right? I should pay for a hospital to get a hippo x-ray machine installed because it is not feasible for them to use the one at the zoo? Right! We wouldn't want to embarass a man that can't walk, can't wash himself, can't drive a car, can't sit in an airline seat because he eats 10,000 calories a day by making him use an x-ray machine at the zoo. Pride!