I want to show you guys this vid from the /B/ Cringe thread vol. Do fat people repulse you?

[jchambers]

I thought this thread had faded. I don't even know where to jump back in yet. I agree with both sides of this arguments on certains parts of the view.

Me too. I don't think that we can compare obese people to smokers though. Smoking can be detrimental to the people around the smoker. I can't imagine hating someone just because they are fat, but this whole fat acceptance culture is definitely not healthy or conducive to positive change for obese people. The first step to solving a self inflicted problem is to accept responsibility for it.

 

[moderndarwin]

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Hamburgers aren't fat, people that eat hamburgers are fat.

That almost makes no sense, but I'll stick with it. It's quite simple. It's the food that Americans eat that makes them fat. What Americans consider normal everyday food is in reality fat food. For MOST other nations, what people consider normal food is reasonably healthy food. As such, the price is reasonable for this 'healthy food'.

People aren't going to make these massive changes and we are not Sparta, not everyone is going to be in amazing shape. The more ethnic America gets, hopefully the more ethnic food it incorporates into mainstream diet. The top 10 healthiest countries:

1. Japan
2. Singapore
3. Switzerland
4. Spain
5. Italy
6. Australia
7. Canada
8. Andorra
9. Israel
10. South Korea

 

[the hater boxden]

Are we gonna have a National Association for (W)hore Acceptance too?

Or National Association for Drug Acceptance?

It's a lifestyle CHOICE. Whether or not being gay is a choice is debatable but the overweight/obese lifestyle is not.

This lifestyle doesn't HAVE to be accepted. I don't accept it and I'm going to tell my future kids that being fat is a bad thing just like smoking is.

I think it's a sensitivity issue but it still holds true that fat people are lazy and/or have no willpower

Cold hard facts

 

[the hater boxden]

nice stoneface, repped

thank you

 

[dmbrhs]

Just now reading this thread. The collective circle jerk around everything Meth says still amazes me.

 

[a55a5in11]

I wouldn't say obese people repulse me. But they do frustrate me from time to time. I know damn well that cancer and disease's are not the reason America has such a problem now a days. It's because America has gotten lazy.
Blame it on technology

 

[tony montana]

I couldnt care less.. it just makes it easier for me to succeed in life because there's less competition

 

[timbo109]

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Hamburgers aren't fat, people that eat hamburgers are fat.

That almost makes no sense, but I'll stick with it. It's quite simple. It's the food that Americans eat that makes them fat. What Americans consider normal everyday food is in reality fat food. For MOST other nations, what people consider normal food is reasonably healthy food. As such, the price is reasonable for this 'healthy food'.

People aren't going to make these massive changes and we are not Sparta, not everyone is going to be in amazing shape. The more ethnic America gets, hopefully the more ethnic food it incorporates into mainstream diet. The top 10 healthiest countries:

1. Japan
2. Singapore
3. Switzerland
4. Spain
5. Italy
6. Australia
7. Canada
8. Andorra
9. Israel
10. South Korea

I agree that food choices generally lead to obesity and America's food production system is not oriented towards producing affordable healthy food. However, I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the ethnic food statement. So you're saying that, the more immigration that occurs in America, the more healthy the diet will become? First of all, off the top of my head, I don't think any of the countries you list in the top 10 healthiest countries list are currently or are expected to be significant sources of immigrants to the US. I'd venture a guess that environmental and economic changes experienced by immigrants make nutrition especially challenging for these groups. In short, I'm really not seeing your point there.

I think the real issue and challenge with fighting obesity is the fact that improved nutrition doesn't appear to be in line with corporate economic goals. There's a lot less profit available in people cooking their own meat and veggies, whereas selling people processed, caloric dense, nutritionally-void food products that people want to buy and consume more and more of is where the profit lies.

 

[tony montana]

wow meth just annihilated that guy in the previous page

 

[kingkoopa]

I just don't understand how someone else's health affects people so much. I'm 6'2 210, I could lose a few pounds but that's just my personale view of myself. An obese person doesn't upset me not one bit unless they have nasty eating habits. Hell, I've seen skinny folk wit disgusting eating habits. To each its own.

 

[frostythepoptart]

Everyone loves slurping meth jesus.

Its so funny how anorexic chicks can get clowned and people can comment on but never fat. You can balance junk with exercise and still be healthy but no one ever does.

Nfl linemen as an extreme example. Very healthy and they can run a mile without collapsing.

Edit great comparison with "***** acceptance, smoking acceptance, unprotected sex acceptance, std acceptance, drug acceptance,"

 

[superantigen]

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Hamburgers aren't fat, people that eat hamburgers are fat.

That almost makes no sense, but I'll stick with it. It's quite simple. It's the food that Americans eat that makes them fat. What Americans consider normal everyday food is in reality fat food. For MOST other nations, what people consider normal food is reasonably healthy food. As such, the price is reasonable for this 'healthy food'.

People aren't going to make these massive changes and we are not Sparta, not everyone is going to be in amazing shape. The more ethnic America gets, hopefully the more ethnic food it incorporates into mainstream diet. The top 10 healthiest countries:

1. Japan
2. Singapore
3. Switzerland
4. Spain
5. Italy
6. Australia
7. Canada
8. Andorra
9. Israel
10. South Korea

I agree that food choices generally lead to obesity and America's food production system is not oriented towards producing affordable healthy food. However, I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the ethnic food statement. So you're saying that, the more immigration that occurs in America, the more healthy the diet will become? First of all, off the top of my head, I don't think any of the countries you list in the top 10 healthiest countries list are currently or are expected to be significant sources of immigrants to the US. I'd venture a guess that environmental and economic changes experienced by immigrants make nutrition especially challenging for these groups. In short, I'm really not seeing your point there.

[COLOR=#red]I think the real issue and challenge with fighting obesity is the fact that improved nutrition doesn't appear to be in line with corporate economic goals. There's a lot less profit available in people cooking their own meat and veggies, whereas selling people processed, caloric dense, nutritionally-void food products that people want to buy and consume more and more of is where the profit lies.[/COLOR]

+1...Well said.

Obviously we all choose what we put in our bodies, but in an era where much of our foodstuffs comes already prepared, or tampered with, you've got to wonder just how much of "choice" you really have on the matter of the food you consume.

Right now, a real war is being waged in our courtrooms over this very issue of "choice." On one side of the trench, we have multinational food corporations who want to "modify" your foods and pass them off as organic, unmodified, foods. In effect, they want to strip you of your right to choose, clearly, the food products you will feed yourself and your family. Twenty years from now, when you find yourself in a hospital bed, tossing and turning in a body that has been ravaged by cancer, reading newly published reports detailing the new found links between GMF and increased rates of cancer, will you just shrug it off and say to yourself, "well it was my choice to eat that stuff"?

Point is, there is enough blame to go around when it comes to addressing why there are increasing rates of obesity in this country. To blame large people, only, is both facile and scapegoatish. Why? Because they too are victims of the food industry, much in the same way we will all be when the multinationals succeed in their goal of erasing the distinction between modified foodstuffs and organic foodstuffs.

"Choice" is no longer a simple concept when it comes to food. These days, to truly have a "choice" on the matter, you need education, substantial economy, time, etc. Having access to all of this is easier said than done.





...

 

[il prescelto]

There are organizations that welcome, rather than shame and exile, smokers and alcoholics.  They're called support groups.  Let's be real: you knew nothing about that organization when you made this thread.  You just judged it based on the name and whatever your preconceptions are.

An actual quote from that organization's PR director: 

“We believe that fat people can eat healthy food and add movement to their lives and be healthy. And healthy should be the goal, not thin.”  They've been lobbying to prevent job discrimination and improve access to affordable healthcare.  What's so terrible about that?

Bottom line, we're talking about human beings who deserve to be treated with dignity.  


Health is about more than just cellulite.  Unless you're supremely superficial, you know that.  We can all call to mind dozens of examples of thin people who are also unhealthy.  


The difference is, you can see right away if someone is dealing with obesity.  You can't easily tell if someone is struggling with a mental health issue, for example.  If someone's on the heavy side, why is that your business any more than if they suffered from depression?  Anorexia and bulimia are not healthy.  We don't need "thin shaming" campaigns to make that point.  We don't need to call skinny people gross and repulsive.  There are healthy people thin enough to be mistaken for a sufferer of an eating disorder.  They don't deserve your scorn, do they?


And even though obesity is more prevalent today than it was a few decades ago, the "ideal body" today is arguably thinner than ever.  Take this article for example:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...-body-shape-warmly-curved-roundly-turned.html
  What do you think would be said in the media today about a 5'4" actress who weighs 120 pounds?  Go back even further and look at the subjects of renaissance paintings.  What did the "ideal woman" look like in those societies?  

Obesity isn't widespread because it we've failed to stigmatize it harshly enough.  



I understand that you want people to be healthy, but it's not healthy for someone who's obese to hate themselves.  What YOU think about another person's body shouldn't even matter.


Ultimately, the best argument for health IS health.  It's being able to live a long, productive life.  It's being there for your loved ones.  It's being active and enjoying your favorite activities.  It's avoiding chronic pain and disease.  

People should want to enhance their quality of life for its own sake.  They don't need to be harassed, insulted, or discriminated against simply because they're "imperfect."  

You've got problems of your own, you know.  Be thankful that yours aren't being pecked at as viciously or relentlessly as you seem to think we should attack obesity.  


As Jesse Jackson once said, "Never look down on anybody unless you're helping them up." 

I'm sorry but I just looked at the NAAFA website and a lot of it just seems to imply that being overweight is acceptable and we shouldn't strive to become healthier, which is (I think) the point Club is making; this is different from being a "support group".

You may have found a quote from the group's PR director that claims otherwise, but phrases like:
"People participate in size discrimination because they believe people fail to lose weight because of poor self-discipline and willpower" (which seems to imply that that's never the case), "Our culture places blame on the victim, ignoring contributing environmental factors" (I'm not denying the importance of environmental factors, but with such vague wording it's easy to interpret this as obesity is purely a result of environmental factors, or at least is largely a result of environmental factors), "says thinness is desirable" (thinness is obviously desirable, i can't think of any situation where someone would rather be fat as opposed to "thin"), and even their motto "we come in all sizes" absolutely DO NOT promote any kind of positive change. These phrases all promote an attitude of acceptance and passiveness.

"We Come in All Sizes…
Understand it.
Support it.
Accept it."
This, taken from their website, is what I think Club has a problem with. And this definitely does not support the argument you're making that this group only seeks to get overweight people the "respect" they deserve (whatever that means) and give them resources and support to better their condition. These sentences just comes off as patronizing.

"This discrimination occurs despite evidence that 95 to 98 percent of diets fail over five years and that 65 million Americans are labeled “obese.” Come on, this is complete crap. This pretty much says "Obviously, given the number of obese people in the nation, diets don't work, so all these obese people clearly don't have the necessary tools to lose weight. Therefore, we shouldn't judge them for something which they have no control over".

One of the main points of the website is that employers and companies shouldn't discriminate against fat people. But employers have several good reasons to discriminate against fat people (overweight employees take more days off compared to thinner ones, they cost more money in terms of healthcare, they may not be able to perform certain functions with ease, etc.).

It seems to me that your questionable adoption of "moral standards" (not the point of the discussion, I'm aware, but the arguments for the existence of some kind of morality are extremely shaky), which hold that "[all] human beings deserve to be treated with dignity", is preventing you from seeing the reasonable point Club is making (as a nation, why do we accept obesity, when don't accept smoking and other similar behaviors?).

 

[club]

wow meth just annihilated that guy in the previous page

oh please, Meth couldve called me a poopyhead and you'd still have all the NTers that ive pissed off in the past (or now, with this thread) screaming "ETHER! ETHER! GET 'EM METH!" like the cheerleaders they are 

 

[sn00pee]

oh please, Meth couldve called me a poopyhead and you'd still have all the NTers that ive pissed off in the past (or now, with this thread) screaming "ETHER! ETHER! GET 'EM METH!" like the cheerleaders they are 

learn to take an L. your mind was kinda in the right place but the words didnt come out quite as right. i mean you did ask if fat people disgust you in title...

move on and keep on the with subject: healthiness should be valued more than just being content with being fat.

 

[Mark Antony]

I couldnt care less.. it just makes it easier for me to succeed in life because there's less competition

You've got to be 12, your posts today make no sense.

 

[timbo109]

I'm sorry but I just looked at the NAAFA website and a lot of it just seems to imply that being overweight is acceptable and we shouldn't strive to become healthier, which is (I think) the point Club is making; this is different from being a "support group".

You may have found a quote from the group's PR director that claims otherwise, but phrases like:
"People participate in size discrimination because they believe people fail to lose weight because of poor self-discipline and willpower" (which seems to imply that that's never the case), "Our culture places blame on the victim, ignoring contributing environmental factors" (I'm not denying the importance of environmental factors, but with such vague wording it's easy to interpret this as obesity is purely a result of environmental factors, or at least is largely a result of environmental factors), "says thinness is desirable" (so thinness isn't desirable now? This is as blatant as you can get in my opinion; thinness is obviously desirable, i can't think of any situation where someone would rather be fat as opposed to "thin"), and even their motto "we come in all sizes" absolutely DO NOT promote any kind of positive change. These phrases all promote an attitude of acceptance and passiveness.

"We Come in All Sizes…
Understand it.
Support it.
Accept it."
This, taken from their website, is what I think Club has a problem with. And this definitely does not support the argument you're making.

"This discrimination occurs despite evidence that 95 to 98 percent of diets fail over five years and that 65 million Americans are labeled “obese.” Come on, this is complete crap. This pretty much says "Obviously, diets don't work, so all these obese people clearly don't have the necessary tools to lose weight. Therefore, they can't control their weight, and so we shouldn't judge them for something which they have no control over. Additionally, there's too many obese people for it to be okay to judge them...if there were less, then it would be okay, but 65 million is just too many".

One of the main points of the website is that employers and companies shouldn't discriminate against fat people. But employers have several good reasons to discriminate against fat people (overweight employees take more days off compared to thinner ones, they cost more money in terms of healthcare, they may not be able to perform certain functions with ease, etc.).

It seems to me that your questionable adoption of "moral standards" (the arguments for the existence of some kind of morality are extremely shaky), which hold that "[all] human beings deserve to be treated with dignity" is preventing you from seeing the reasonable point Club is making (as a nation, why do we accept obesity, when don't accept smoking or other similar behaviors?).

These are both good points to make. I think it's important that people in this thread recognize that obesity is bad for both obese individuals and society. I don't agree with the messages of groups like the fat acceptance movement; however, I do think that it's important to recognize that shaming and hatred of fat people isn't a good approach either. If we as a society want to combat obesity, we need a better solution than either of the two extremes. We need to do away with both the Fat Acceptance groups side of the spectrum and the all fat people are disgusting end of the spectrum.

+1...Well said.

Obviously we all choose what we put in our bodies, but in an era where much of our foodstuffs comes already prepared, or tampered with, you've got to wonder just how much of "choice" you really have on the matter of the food you consume.

Right now, a real war is being waged in our courtrooms over this very issue of "choice." On one side of the trench, we have multinational food corporations who want to "modify" your foods and pass them off as organic, unmodified, foods. In effect, they want to strip you of your right to choose, clearly, the food products you will feed yourself and your family. Twenty years from now, when you find yourself in a hospital bed, tossing and turning in a body that has been ravaged by cancer, reading newly published reports detailing the new found links between GMF and increased rates of cancer, will you just shrug it off and say to yourself, "well it was my choice to eat that stuff"?

Point is, there is enough blame to go around when it comes to addressing why there are increasing rates of obesity in this country. To blame large people, only, is both facile and scapegoatish. Why? Because they too are victims of the food industry, much in the same way we will all be when the multinationals succeed in their goal of erasing the distinction between modified foodstuffs and organic foodstuffs.

"Choice" is no longer a simple concept when it comes to food. These days, to truly have a "choice" on the matter, you need education, substantial economy, time, etc. Having access to all of this is easier said than done.





...

I agree with a lot of your post. There are certainly changes that need to be made to how multinational corporations control the food industry; however, there are just as many changes that need to be made to how individuals approach food. A proliferation of caloric-dense, nutritiously-void, highly processed, unhealthy foods (call em Frankenfoods or whatever you like) is a huge contributing factor to the obesity epidemic, despite being extremely profitable for large corporations. This can be seen in fast food restaurants, processed foods available in supermarkets, genetically modified foods, soybean/corn subsidies, prepared foods, etc.. This problem needs to be approached from both directions though (both the supply and demand sides of the equation need to be combatted). Fighting against large corporations driven by economic profit is likely to be more difficult than fighting to change how individual consumers and decision makers operate. People these days have an unhealthy, improper relationship with food. People treat is a reward or source of pleasure rather than as fuel/nutrition. People feel like they're entitled to be able to eat pizza, bread, chips, etc--entitled to serve processed foods to their children etc.. That shouldn't be the case. Furthermore, people expect that 3 month long fad diets will solve all their problems with obesity and nutrition, when in fact lifestyle changes are required. I think too many people put in a half-hearted effort - i.e. follow a fad diet, or some ******** exercise scheme -- for a few months and then give up on it and take some defeatist attitude like "the deck is stacked against me", being healthy is impossible, when in fact they need a real lifestyle change. In short, we need to attack the issue from both ends - both in terms of how consumers live and how corporations operate.

 

[KMante]

Son will never catch a break

Let Club post.

 

[julesbeats]

Um I think only fat people  think fat people should play the victim role and just stay fat and be accepted in society

 

[Methodical Management]

One of the main points of the website is that employers and companies shouldn't discriminate against fat people. But employers have several good reasons to discriminate against fat people (overweight employees take more days off compared to thinner ones, they cost more money in terms of healthcare, they may not be able to perform certain functions with ease, etc.).

The point of this topic was to bash "fat people" based on the name of an organization (the NAAFA) - and nothing more.  I provided a single quote not to define the organization, but to challenge the assumption - and that's all it was, an assumption - that the only thing they did was to somehow PROMOTE obesity.  

So, if "one of the main points of the website", in your estimation, is that they oppose discrimination, you're only further demonstrating that it's less about "promoting obesity" than promoting compassion toward obese people.  And why shouldn't they be treated with compassion?  

Virtually all discrimination is considered "justified" by those who practice it.  People in favor of racial profiling will spew out "hit rates" and other statistics to try and demonstrate that actively targeting people of color is somehow nothing more than "efficient use of police resources."  

By your logic, it's perfectly acceptable to fire a woman as soon as she become pregnant - or perhaps even to discriminate against women in general due to the "risk" of pregnancy - because pregnant employees "take more days off, "cost more money in terms of healthcare", "may not be able to perform certain functions with ease, etc."  How does that sound to you?  Isn't pregnancy a "choice?"  

It seems to me that your questionable adoption of "moral standards" (not the point of the discussion, I'm aware, but the arguments for the existence of some kind of morality are extremely shaky), which hold that "[all] human beings deserve to be treated with dignity", is preventing you from seeing the reasonable point Club is making (as a nation, why do we accept obesity, when don't accept smoking and other similar behaviors?).

If you're going to break out the nihilism argument, then there's nothing to discuss.  I'm not going to get into a debate with you re: objectivism.  The argument for objective truth of any sort is "extremely shaky."  Moral standards are inherently subjective and they are continually negotiated.  That's sort of the point of having a discussion like this one.  

If you're going to take the nihilist tack, then by that logic it's fine to euthanize all children suffering from cancer because treating them is inefficient and doesn't provide the "greatest good for the greatest many" or whatever subjective criteria you choose to foist as rational utilitarianism.  

If that's your belief, so be it, but to say my argument is flawed because "morality is, like, an illusion, man" is just specious.  By that logic, there's nothing inherently "wrong" with obesity, either, because there's no objective reason why we should even care about the "optimal health" of our fellow citizens" when there's no logical point to our own existence.  My mind remains un-blown. 

If you want to play chess, play chess.  Don't play chess for five turns and then say, "this is just a stupid game."  If you care about society and other human beings, you're choosing to accept and inhabit a certain frame.  In this society at this time, most people believe in things like human rights.  There are certain commonalities across prevailing moral beliefs and human beings have been appealing to one another on that basis since time immemorial.  We're just talking about standards of fairness and propriety based on basic empathy.  If you don't find the "golden rule" compelling, fine.  Live in the forest.  

If 99% of thread participants care about living in a society, I'd rather discuss the issue on common ground than engage with you on whether or not it's even worthwhile to give a damn about human dignity.  That's what PHIL 101 is for. 

Right now, a real war is being waged in our courtrooms over this very issue of "choice." On one side of the trench, we have multinational food corporations who want to "modify" your foods and pass them off as organic, unmodified, foods. In effect, they want to strip you of your right to choose, clearly, the food products you will feed yourself and your family. Twenty years from now, when you find yourself in a hospital bed, tossing and turning in a body that has been ravaged by cancer, reading newly published reports detailing the new found links between GMF and increased rates of cancer, will you just shrug it off and say to yourself, "well it was my choice to eat that stuff"?

Exactly.  

I'm not interested in patting myself on the back for avoiding obesity or shaming those suffering from it.  I don't see how either action is productive (unless you're massively insecure and looking for a quick ego boost at someone else's expense.)  It's more productive, and by far, to address the root causes of obesity.  (And, no, I don't think it's simply a matter of "willpower.")  

How many of us chose all of the foods we ate as children?  If you were given cigarettes or alcohol when you were a child, would you be more or less likely to develop a dependency issue?  

You don't choose what you eat as a child.  You don't choose where you live as a child.  You don't choose what job(s) your parent(s) have or how much money they'll have available.  You don't choose how informed your parents are about nutrition.  It's incredibly glib to spit on someone heavier than you and then justify yourself by saying, "I didn't choose to put the donut in your hand."  That's just plain spiteful.  The bottom line is that you don't KNOW how hard it is for them.   Admittedly, I don't know how hard it is for them, either.  The difference is:  I choose not to ASSUME that it's easy simply because I had the luxury of growing up thin and further pressed that advantage in adulthood.  

As persuasion goes, "You're fat, you're kids are fat.  You're killing them and you're a bad parent." only enables more Sarah Palins.  Let's just pretend, for the sake of argument, that most parents actually want to raise happy, healthy children.  We're better served by HELPING them accomplish that goal - and, yes, that requires us to use OUR willpower to fight back against the big food and drug companies who place profits above the well-being of their customers.

Eating healthy should be easy and affordable for EVERYONE.  

Someone who rides a motorcycle is voluntarily engaging in a risky behavior.  There are public costs that may be associated with these types of personal decisions, especially if it causes children to lose a parent or employers to lose a productive member of their organizations.  I'm actually a bit puzzled about the appeal of "fat bashing" compared to other health problems, even addiction issues, or "risky lifestyle choices."  

There's something very base and juvenile about making fun of people simply for being different or having a problem.  

I don't see people promoting obesity so much as I see people advocating for simple compassion.  

I think it's fair to say that healthy bodies can come in many different sizes and that most of the people being harsh and critical have vices of their own. 

If you want to insult people heavier than you because it makes you feel superior, at least own up to it.  Stop pretending that you're teasing them for THEIR benefit.

 

[il prescelto]

The point of this topic was to bash "fat people" based on the name of an organization (the NAAFA) - and nothing more.  I provided a single quote not to define the organization, but to challenge the assumption - and that's all it was, an assumption - that the only thing they did was to somehow PROMOTE obesity.  

So, if "one of the main points of the website", in your estimation, is that they oppose discrimination, you're only further demonstrating that it's less about "promoting obesity" than promoting compassion toward obese people.  And why shouldn't they be treated with compassion?  


Virtually all discrimination is considered "justified" by those who practice it.  People in favor of racial profiling will spew out "hit rates" and other statistics to try and demonstrate that actively targeting people of color is somehow nothing more than "efficient use of police resources."  

By your logic, it's perfectly acceptable to fire a woman as soon as she become pregnant - or perhaps even to discriminate against women in general due to the "risk" of pregnancy - because pregnant employees "take more days off, "cost more money in terms of healthcare", "may not be able to perform certain functions with ease, etc."  How does that sound to you?  Isn't pregnancy a "choice?"  



If you're going to break out the nihilism argument, then there's nothing to discuss.  I'm not going to get into a debate with you re: objectivism.  The argument for objective truth of any sort is "extremely shaky."  Moral standards are inherently subjective and they are continually negotiated.  That's sort of the point of having a discussion like this one.  


If you're going to take the nihilist tack, then by that logic it's fine to euthanize all children suffering from cancer because treating them is inefficient and doesn't provide the "greatest good for the greatest many" or whatever subjective criteria you choose to foist as rational utilitarianism.  


If that's your belief, so be it, but to say my argument is flawed because "morality is, like, an illusion, man" is just specious.  By that logic, there's nothing inherently "wrong" with obesity, either, because there's no objective reason why we should even care about the "optimal health" of our fellow citizens" when there's no logical point to our own existence.  My mind remains un-blown. 


If you want to play chess, play chess.  Don't play chess for five turns and then say, "this is just a stupid game."  If you care about society and other human beings, you're choosing to accept and inhabit a certain frame.  In this society at this time, most people believe in things like human rights.  There are certain commonalities across prevailing moral beliefs and human beings have been appealing to one another on that basis since time immemorial.  We're just talking about standards of fairness and propriety based on basic empathy.  If you don't find the "golden rule" compelling, fine.  Live in the forest.  


If 99% of thread participants care about living in a society, I'd rather discuss the issue on common ground than engage with you on whether or not it's even worthwhile to give a damn about human dignity.  That's what PHIL 101 is for. 

I'm not sure that was the point of the post. Reading the OP, at least, I certainly don't get that impression.

First off, I never said the website promotes obesity, I said it implies that we should accept it. The website doesn't tell thin people to become fat, but it does send the message that being fat is acceptable. And that notion and opposing discrimination are not mutually exclusive; in fact, I would argue that one can accomplish both, as the website does.

People are born a certain color skin; I'm not sure how many people are born clinically obese.

Well, as far as I know, most women take time off once they enter the later stages of pregnancy, and if they can, take time off after giving birth. So there would be no need to fire a woman once she becomes pregnant. Before pregnancy, I see no good reason to fire women just because they might become pregnant in the future. But yes, if pregnancy were to somehow impact the performance of an employee, I see nothing wrong with firing them; that sounds just fine.
If you want to talk about right and wrong, wouldn't it be wrong for me to be denied a job where I can benefit the company more compared to the obese person who just got accepted for the position because the company hiring had to be "compassionate"?

No, by that logic it's not "fine" to do any of what you said, because if you follow that logic "fine" doesn't mean anything. If you meant something along the lines of utility maximizing instead of fine, I'm still not sure the answer is yes, but that depends on the specific circumstances of the situation you're proposing.

"There's not logical point to our own existence"? ...What? When did I ever say that? That's not even an accurate formulation of the philosophical doctrine you're discussing.

But you're right, my philosophy aside probably wasn't very useful and only served to sidetrack the discussion. I still stand by what I said, but as far as having a productive discussion I agree it might not have been the most helpful thing. That being said, by that logic there's nothing wrong with being obese and there's also nothing with discriminating against obese people (and anything else you can think of), so that's not a valid point.

The absence of morality would result in much the same society we live in today. We certainly wouldn't be living "in the forest", as you seem to think. We just wouldn't have discussions about why smoking is considered wrong but eating a Big Mac is totally okay. The stereotypical idea that you seem to hold that if we didn't have morality we'd go around killing each other is laughable, to say the least. "Human rights" would exist...they just wouldn't be full of contradictions.

Would you support a website that says:
"People come in non-smoker variety and smoker variety.
Understand it.
Accept it.
Support it" ?

And I'm really not sure why so many people seem to think that every single obese person in the nation is obese because they grew up in a poor household where both parents fed them fast food and didn't have money to buy healthier food, and are too busy/poor/stressed to lead a healthier lifestyle. That may be a significant portion of obese people, but that's not all of them, for sure.

 

[jchambers]

Obesity concerns ignorance more than income. You can definitely eat healthy on a low budget. Avoiding obesity isn't even about eating healthy, it is about restricting calories.

"But yes, if pregnancy were to somehow impact the performance of an employee, I see nothing wrong with firing them; that sounds just fine."


I agree with you, but I know that a lot of other posters definitely will not. I predict a few essays on the matter. I also believe that you should be able to avoid hiring someone because of their obesity.

 

[Methodical Management]

The absence of morality would result in much the same society we live in today. We certainly wouldn't be living "in the forest", as you seem to think. We just wouldn't have discussions about why smoking is considered wrong but eating a Big Mac is totally okay. The stereotypical idea that you seem to hold that if we didn't have morality we'd go around killing each other is laughable, to say the least. "Human rights" would exist...they just wouldn't be full of contradictions.

Any utilitarian philosophy you can concoct is still inherently subjective.  If you want to inhabit some sort of Randian society where old people are shot dead as a retirement plan because they're noncontributing leeches and we opt to euthanize rather than raise children born with birth defects or disabilities because they're resource-sinks and offer a poor cost/benefit proposition for society... that's on you.  I can't properly convey how little interest I have in rehashing that conversation.  

You could use that argument to derail pretty much any issue you wanted to and, again, that's a discussion for another place.  The whole world isn't an excuse to talk about Atlas Shrugged.  

Well, as far as I know, most women take time off once they enter the later stages of pregnancy, and if they can, take time off after giving birth. So there would be no need to fire a woman once she becomes pregnant. Before pregnancy, I see no good reason to fire women just because they might become pregnant in the future. But yes, if pregnancy were to somehow impact the performance of an employee, I see nothing wrong with firing them; that sounds just fine.

Parental leave is actually required by law in the US.  Problem is, it's usually unpaid and, as such, men don't make use of it as often as women.  I have a friend who plans to work literally two days before her due date because she can't afford to take her maternity leave.  You can choose not to sympathize with someone in that situation, but you have to acknowledge the incongruity it creates for men and women.  Had she taken more time off, she'd place herself at greater financial risk, but the impact on the employer would be lessened. 

However, since the "likelihood" of a woman using her maternity leave is FAR greater if she becomes pregnant, any employer so motivated (in your dream world) could indeed fire a woman due to the "threat" of maternity leave and, statistically, women between the ages of, say, 18 and 40, are far more likely to require parental leave than older women or men.  Couldn't that also be used to rationalize sex discrimination?  

Why not?  Women's health care expenditures are substantially higher than men's.  

You could use health care costs to rationalize racial discrimination, for that matter.  Racial disparities in mortality rates, incidence of various cancers/diseases, etc. are exceedingly well documented.  

At what point is it unfair?  Is it fair to fire a woman for becoming pregnant, but not to avoid hiring fertile women due to their elevated "risk" of pregnancy because women in the former category have "chosen" to have a child?  It's a ridiculous argument.  

You have "chosen" to live in a society that's ostensibly founded on the principle of guaranteeing individual rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Having children, for many people, signifies all three.  To suggest that, on top of everything else, a woman should have to accept losing her job if she has children, but a man should not, is just baffling.  If that's the society you want to live in, I'd expect it to be a very short-lived experiment.  You're going to wish you had NikeTalk's male:female ratio.  

That type of mentality is just so far afield that I have to consider it another hyperbolic distraction.  

What's at the heart of the issue here?  

"Obesity isn't optimal and creates unnecessary health risks."  Okay.   You could say the same about watching television, riding a motorcycle, or hunching at a desk, clacking away at a keyboard, and staring into a backlit display for 6 hours a day.  A LOT of things people CHOOSE to do aren't optimal and create unnecessary health risks.  

Many people make fun of fat people because they think it's fun to make fun of fat people.  It's not about "correcting suboptimal behavior."  It's making fun of someone else's plight because you find it funny. 

"Fat is gross", "fat is wrong", "fat is this", "fat is that."  

Really, what does it matter to you whether someone you don't even know is heavy or not?  What does it matter whether they hate themselves or love themselves?  Why do you NEED them to feel ashamed?  

For their sake, or for yours?  

Bashing people heavier than you has a profoundly negative effect on their lives.  Someone simply BEING heavier than you doesn't have a profoundly negative effect on your life.  

What's the worst that someone else's obesity does to you?  Higher taxes?  Yeah, I think there are bigger contributors (no pun intended) than that - like subsidies to the very companies that promote obesity in the first place.  What else?  "Sometimes I have to sit next to people on airplanes who don't fit properly in their seats and I have less space."  Does that justify it?  How dare they be larger than a seat they didn't design?  

As uncomfortable as you are in that situation, they're more uncomfortable.  To this, you'd probably say, "well, that's their choice."  My reply would be, "and it's your choice be a jerk about it."  You could CHOOSE to buck up and deal with it, like you deal with other inconvenient circumstances beyond your control (crying infants, coughing passengers, weather delays, etc.) 

I really don't see how someone else's weight has any meaningful impact on your existence, especially to the point where you feel it necessary impose your judgment on them.  

Would you support a website that says:

"People come in non-smoker variety and smoker variety.

Understand it.

Accept it.

Support it" ?

1.  Several states actually outlaw employment discrimination against smokers.  

2.  Smokers aren't often mocked/insulted/branded when they aren't actively smoking.  You identify them because of the action, not by their appearance.  

If somebody smokes 10 packs of cigarettes when they get home, but doesn't take a single drag at work, odds are they aren't going to be discriminated against.  Even though you could make the health care argument, you can't say, "well, they can't do their job as well because, uh, maybe their teeth are yellow and it would be unprofessional."  

They don't have to care whether you "support it" or not as long as they're not making it your problem and vice versa.  They'll still BE smokers; they'll just smoke outdoors.  They'll smoke at home. 

Meanwhile, some of you are acting like you don't want a heavy person to be anywhere within your field of vision because you find the very sight of them so repellent.  It's childish.  You don't want a smoker breathing noxious fumes into your lungs.  Fine, I can appreciate that.  It's not like working alongside someone who weighs more than you means that they're going to inject pastrami into your stomach.  They're not going to eat cake off of your keyboard.  They're not going to sit on you or ask you to carry them up a flight of stairs.  The stereotypes being thrown around are just so impossibly juvenile it's difficult to even approach your aversion with sincerity.  

If you fire someone for being an alcoholic, you do it AFTER their alcohol problem has impacted their work - not because they "look like" they drink a lot of beer.   If you fire someone for stealing, you fire someone because they've already stolen from you, or you avoid hiring them because they already have a criminal record - not because they "look like" criminals.  

Someone could do heroin every night in the privacy of their homes and it wouldn't haunt them the way obesity would.  Does that make any sense?  Follow a person with VISIBLE TRACKS on their arms from needle drugs around for a week and compare their experiences to someone who weighs 300 pounds.  Who do you think will be teased more - both in person and in the media?  Is that fair?  

If a guy smokes at home, I bet you don't care.  Let that same guy sit on the couch (like you don't) and eat junk food (like you don't) while mustering the effrontery to weigh more than you, however, and suddenly that's more than you can tolerate.  

Again, just be INCREDIBLY thankful that your flaws aren't so vilified.  

And I'm really not sure why so many people seem to think that every single obese person in the nation is obese because they grew up in a poor household where both parents fed them fast food and didn't have money to buy healthier food, and are too busy/poor/stressed to lead a healthier lifestyle. That may be a significant portion of obese people, but that's not all of them, for sure.

If you admit that "a significant portion of obese people" suffer from this condition due, in large part, to environmental factors - how on Earth can you justify discriminating against and mistreating them? 

They DESERVE to be mistreated until they're able to overcome a disadvantage they've effectively inherited through no fault of their own?  

How does that differ from discriminating against people on the basis of their SES?  

If you wanted to rationalize it after the fact (and, yes, that's what we're really talking about here - people discriminating/ridiculing FIRST and then trying to cobble together some presentable excuse for it), I'm sure you could locate a few statistics to show that people raised in lower-income households have a shorter life expectancy, incur greater health care costs, are more likely to be convicted of a crime, etc. etc. etc.  

This is weak stuff, guys.  For all you know, that heavy person you "despise" is working harder than you to become healthy.  They shouldn't have to live as pariahs until they meet your personal standards of fitness. 

 

[ksteezy]

 

[il prescelto]

Any utilitarian philosophy you can concoct is still inherently subjective.  If you want to inhabit some sort of Randian society where old people are shot dead as a retirement plan because they're noncontributing leeches and we opt to euthanize rather than raise children born with birth defects or disabilities because they're resource-sinks and offer a poor cost/benefit proposition for society... that's on you.  I can't properly convey how little interest I have in rehashing that conversation.  

You could use that argument to derail pretty much any issue you wanted to and, again, that's a discussion for another place.  The whole world isn't an excuse to talk about Atlas Shrugged.  


Parental leave is actually required by law in the US.  Problem is, it's usually unpaid and, as such, men don't make use of it as often as women.  I have a friend who plans to work literally two days before her due date because she can't afford to take her maternity leave.  You can choose not to sympathize with someone in that situation, but you have to acknowledge the incongruity it creates for men and women.  Had she taken more time off, she'd place herself at greater financial risk, but the impact on the employer would be lessened. 

However, since the "likelihood" of a woman using her maternity leave is FAR greater if she becomes pregnant, any employer so motivated (in your dream world) could indeed fire a woman due to the "threat" of maternity leave and, statistically, women between the ages of, say, 18 and 40, are far more likely to require parental leave than older women or men.  Couldn't that also be used to rationalize sex discrimination?  

Why not?  Women's health care expenditures are substantially higher than men's.  

You could use health care costs to rationalize racial discrimination, for that matter.  Racial disparities in mortality rates, incidence of various cancers/diseases, etc. are exceedingly well documented.  

At what point is it unfair?  Is it fair to fire a woman for becoming pregnant, but not to avoid hiring fertile women due to their elevated "risk" of pregnancy because women in the former category have "chosen" to have a child?  It's a ridiculous argument.  

You have "chosen" to live in a society that's ostensibly founded on the principle of guaranteeing individual rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Having children, for many people, signifies all three.  To suggest that, on top of everything else, a woman should have to accept losing her job if she has children, but a man should not, is just baffling.  If that's the society you want to live in, I'd expect it to be a very short-lived experiment.  You're going to wish you had NikeTalk's male:female ratio.  

That type of mentality is just so far afield that I have to consider it another hyperbolic distraction.  





What's at the heart of the issue here?  

"Obesity isn't optimal and creates unnecessary health risks."  Okay.   You could say the same about watching television, riding a motorcycle, or hunching at a desk, clacking away at a keyboard, and staring into a backlit display for 6 hours a day.  A LOT of things people CHOOSE to do aren't optimal and create unnecessary health risks.  

Many people make fun of fat people because they think it's fun to make fun of fat people.  It's not about "correcting suboptimal behavior."  It's making fun of someone else's plight because you find it funny. 
"Fat is gross", "fat is wrong", "fat is this", "fat is that."  

Really, what does it matter to you whether someone you don't even know is heavy or not?  What does it matter whether they hate themselves or love themselves?  Why do you NEED them to feel ashamed?  

For their sake, or for yours?  


Bashing people heavier than you has a profoundly negative effect on their lives.  Someone simply BEING heavier than you doesn't have a profoundly negative effect on your life.  

What's the worst that someone else's obesity does to you?  Higher taxes?  Yeah, I think there are bigger contributors (no pun intended) than that - like subsidies to the very companies that promote obesity in the first place.  What else?  "Sometimes I have to sit next to people on airplanes who don't fit properly in their seats and I have less space."  Does that justify it?  How dare they be larger than a seat they didn't design?  

As uncomfortable as you are in that situation, they're more uncomfortable.  To this, you'd probably say, "well, that's their choice."  My reply would be, "and it's your choice be a jerk about it."  You could CHOOSE to buck up and deal with it, like you deal with other inconvenient circumstances beyond your control (crying infants, coughing passengers, weather delays, etc.) 

I really don't see how someone else's weight has any meaningful impact on your existence, especially to the point where you feel it necessary impose your judgment on them.  


1.  Several states actually outlaw employment discrimination against smokers.  


2.  Smokers aren't often mocked/insulted/branded when they aren't actively smoking.  You identify them because of the action, not by their appearance.  


If somebody smokes 10 packs of cigarettes when they get home, but doesn't take a single drag at work, odds are they aren't going to be discriminated against.  Even though you could make the health care argument, you can't say, "well, they can't do their job as well because, uh, maybe their teeth are yellow and it would be unprofessional."  



They don't have to care whether you "support it" or not as long as they're not making it your problem and vice versa.  They'll still BE smokers; they'll just smoke outdoors.  They'll smoke at home. 

Meanwhile, some of you are acting like you don't want a heavy person to be anywhere within your field of vision because you find the very sight of them so repellent.  It's childish.  You don't want a smoker breathing noxious fumes into your lungs.  Fine, I can appreciate that.  It's not like working alongside someone who weighs more than you means that they're going to inject pastrami into your stomach.  They're not going to eat cake off of your keyboard.  They're not going to sit on you or ask you to carry them up a flight of stairs.  The stereotypes being thrown around are just so impossibly juvenile it's difficult to even approach your aversion with sincerity.  


If you fire someone for being an alcoholic, you do it AFTER their alcohol problem has impacted their work - not because they "look like" they drink a lot of beer.   If you fire someone for stealing, you fire someone because they've already stolen from you, or you avoid hiring them because they already have a criminal record - not because they "look like" criminals.  



Someone could do heroin every night in the privacy of their homes and it wouldn't haunt them the way obesity would.  Does that make any sense?  Follow a person with VISIBLE TRACKS on their arms from needle drugs around for a week and compare their experiences to someone who weighs 300 pounds.  Who do you think will be teased more - both in person and in the media?  Is that fair?  


If a guy smokes at home, I bet you don't care.  Let that same guy sit on the couch (like you don't) and eat junk food (like you don't) while mustering the effrontery to weigh more than you, however, and suddenly that's more than you can tolerate.  

Again, just be INCREDIBLY thankful that your flaws aren't so vilified.  




If you admit that "a significant portion of obese people" suffer from this condition due, in large part, to environmental factors - how on Earth can you justify discriminating against and mistreating them? 

They DESERVE to be mistreated until they're able to overcome a disadvantage they've effectively inherited through no fault of their own?  

How does that differ from discriminating against people on the basis of their SES?  

If you wanted to rationalize it after the fact (and, yes, that's what we're really talking about here - people discriminating/ridiculing FIRST and then trying to cobble together some presentable excuse for it), I'm sure you could locate a few statistics to show that people raised in lower-income households have a shorter life expectancy, incur greater health care costs, are more likely to be convicted of a crime, etc. etc. etc.  


This is weak stuff, guys.  For all you know, that heavy person you "despise" is working harder than you to become healthy.  They shouldn't have to live as pariahs until they meet your personal standards of fitness. 

You seem to think this entire discussion is about making fun of and ridiculing fat people. It's not. But since you're so adamant on taking it there, I'll address it.

I make fun of smokers, too. And if you're a smoker and being judged really bothers you that much, maybe you should stop smoking. I also stare at crying babies on planes, their parents, and people who cough excessively. If someone was responsible for bad weather, I'd probably get mad at them too.

Why do you care so much if fat people are made fun of and ridiculed?

Look, I get that you want people to be treated fairly and with respect. But if I walk out of my house wearing a pink zebra costume I will get judged and made fun of. Should we have associations protecting people who wear such costumes? No, if I get made fun of that's on me for wearing that outfit.

I live in an environment where if anyone is fat, it is most likely their choice. I don't come into contact with people who are fat because they were raised like that, because they're poor, stressed, uninformed, or too busy. So, for these people, if they're fat, it's their choice. If they didn't think about the fact that they'd be made fun of before making the choice, that's their problem.

Basically, I think that what you're trying to do, namely legislating morality, is unrealistic. Where do you stop? Do we need associations for people who get tattoos or sag their pants or have dreads?
Of course, all of this only applies to people who are fat by choice.

And dude... stop it with this nonsense about a society where old people get shot. I never said that, it doesn't follow from anything I said or any philosophical view I may hold, and if you had the slightest clue as to what you're talking about you'd realize that such a society would never exist under the conditions you assume I'm imposing.