# Size Discrimination v.s. Race, Class and Sex Discrimination



## ScaredToBreathe (Jun 23, 2012)

So I was watching a documentary trailer and someone said the following quote:

"Size discrimination is every bit as much of an oppression as class discrimination, color discrimination and sexism."

What do you folks think of a statement like this? Is size discrimination (basically hating on fat people) *as bad as* discrimination based on class, race or sex?

If you want to watch the full video for some context, here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBAndCg9C4U&feature=g-vrec


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 23, 2012)

It is. It's not a matter of playing the "Opression olympics"; all kinds of discrimination are harmful because they limit people's possibilities, deny them a place in society and make them feel uncomfortable with themselves instead potentializing their qualities as individuals. I think what you might be asking is, "is it more commonly seen"? I wouldn't know, but the fact stands it does exist.


----------



## ScaredToBreathe (Jun 23, 2012)

I would say it is more commonly seen, I was just trying to get some other opinions on it. 
To me, you can't really help your race or gender or often your class, but you can control your weight to a degree. 
And I know someone will say "Oh, but it's all genetic" and to some extent it is. 
But you really can't eat at McDonald's three times a week, never exercise and call it genetics.


----------



## Onnes (Jun 23, 2012)

I don't think anyone really wants to go down that road of trying to figure out whether one form of discrimination is more or less significant than others. It's pretty well established at this point that discrimination based on physical appearance is a highly common phenomenon, and "size" is really just one of many aspects that goes into it.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Unalike gender or race, being overweight can be changed. (some people cite thyroid issues but a reduction in body mass and the removal of some foods from a diet can reverse the issues in many cases) 

Obesity is something that /can/ be solved. It just takes willpower and a willingness to be physically active and to not eat pre-made foods.


----------



## Onnes (Jun 23, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> Unalike gender or race, being overweight can be changed. (some people cite thyroid issues but a reduction in body mass and the removal of some foods from a diet can reverse the issues in many cases)
> 
> Obesity is something that /can/ be solved. It just takes willpower and a willingness to be physically active and to not eat pre-made foods.



You are in effect arguing that people with issues, like the example of thyroid problems or perhaps decreased mobility, resulting in increased weight, should starve themselves in order to avoid somehow justified discrimination.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 23, 2012)

I only discriminate against fat people if they're buying food that will do nothing but make them fatter.

Why are you buying frozen meals.
Why are you buying icecream.
Why are you buying chocolate.
Why are you buying soda.
Why are you buying more meat than a carniceria.


----------



## Ikrit (Jun 23, 2012)

ONLY IN AMERICA IS BEING GAY A CHOICE
AND BEING FAT IS GENETIC


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 23, 2012)

discrimination against all people is wrong. thats a fact.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Onnes said:


> You are in effect arguing that people with issues, like the example of thyroid problems or perhaps decreased mobility, resulting in increased weight, should starve themselves in order to avoid somehow justified discrimination.


 I can understand discussing those cases, but at the same time those cases are the minority. (In Toronto it was found that only 4% of people suffering from obesity under the age of 65 have medical causes including loss of mobility) To be frank people are mostly fair on an administration level in regards to obesity cases. "Teasing" and such is a culture problem, and as such is not practical to expect change as people with disabilities are still ridiculed as well. 

Also "Starving" oneself is a foolish option as well, as "eat different" does not mean "don't eat". I may seem cold but really some people just can't be helped.


CaptainCool said:


> discrimination against all people is wrong. thats a fact.


It can't be a fact because the concept of discrimination is subjective, and its not always wrong if someone asks": "I can't walk or use ladders and I was born that way. Can I be a Fireman?" Saying no is technically discriminating.


----------



## Dokid (Jun 23, 2012)

Xenke said:


> I only discriminate against fat people if they're buying food that will do nothing but make them fatter.
> 
> Why are you buying frozen meals.
> Why are you buying icecream.
> ...



I know. Or better yet
Why are you drinking a full litre or more of mountain dew everyday by yourself?

Being fat isn't your fault in almost all cases.
Some cases its really bad parenting or mental disorders that the person can't do anything about or fix. Even though it can be helped its not the person's fault.


----------



## Onnes (Jun 23, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> I can understand discussing those cases, but at the same time those cases are the minority. (In Toronto it was found that only 4% of people suffering from obesity under the age of 65 have medical causes including loss of mobility) To be frank people are mostly fair on an administration level in regards to obesity cases. "Teasing" and such is a culture problem, and as such is not practical to expect change as people with disabilities are still ridiculed as well.



The actual genetics and development aspects of obesity are still poorly understood, so any study relying on positive identification is going to come up short. From a family perspective, though, weight is remarkably hereditary. You are also still arguing that discrimination is justified. There's no reason to go after overweight people other than wanting to inflict harm on them, which is never a good reason for anything.



> Also "Starving" oneself is a foolish option as well, as "eat different" does not mean "don't eat". I may seem cold but really some people just can't be helped.



Yet for many people that is what you are asking. I've seen so many examples of overweight people who eat less than 1500 calories a day and exercise regularly.


----------



## Elim Garak (Jun 23, 2012)

Food can be an addiction, the brains release a sort of pleasure chemical as a reward for eating, the worst foods tend to give more of that chemical and you can get addicted to that. Its also part of genetics perhaps, my boyfriend eats way more than me and moves even less but he's way less than me. I am working on my weight and it's pretty successful atm, but not everyone is that lucky. I also had to switch meds since it's known to cause weight increase. There's no discrimination, if someone calls you fat then just ignore it. I can understand fat people paying more for bigger seats and not being allowed on certain attractions at amusement parks due safety reasons.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 23, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> It can't be a fact because the concept of discrimination is subjective, and its not always wrong if someone asks": "I can't walk or use ladders and I was born that way. Can I be a Fireman?" Saying no is technically discriminating.



well, this depends. with morals it is hard to establish right and wrong on objective and subjective levels.
denying someone to be a fireman because of a disability isnt discrimination. a fireman's job is to help others. if you cant do that because you cant climb ladders then you shouldnt be a fireman.

and maybe "fact" just was the wrong word. if your personal moral code says that discrimination or (lets go one step further here) pedophlia are ok then i have to accept that. that is your opinion and there is nothing wrong with that.
but once you start actually hurting people because of an opinion that you cant support by evidence or facts you are doing something wrong and the law and those members of society who disagree with you will try to stop you.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Onnes said:


> The actual genetics and development aspects of obesity are still poorly understood, so any study relying on positive identification is going to come up short. From a family perspective, though, weight is remarkably hereditary. You are also still arguing that discrimination is justified. There's no reason to go after overweight people other than wanting to inflict harm on them, which is never a good reason for anything.
> Yet for many people that is what you are asking. I've seen so many examples of overweight people who eat less than 1500 calories a day and exercise regularly.



How regularly? The human body is set up in the way that we should be at least walking/moving 6 hours a day.
Did they seek medical advice or persist in those changed patterns for a period of over 5 years?

They have may of reached the "threshold point" Which is when enough of a physical change due to eating issues or else-wise has made a return almost impossible. In that vase too its self inflicted. I view clinical obesity as a medical condition, something to be fixed that is in the majority of cases self inflicted. Like lung cancer in a way, usually acquired out of neglect or poor choices and significantly damages your life.  Also the genetics of obesity are actually partially understood... the genetic "flags" found but not the flags full function, and enough has been learned about it to see the issue is often very "Nurture based", which creates the family effect. 

Regardless that is /besides/ my point: So long as a majority of obese persons are those who persist on publicly over-eating or purchasing gross quantities of processed foods or are not seen being active... the stigma will stay. If anything blame them as much as those taunting the people who can't moderate body mass themselves due to medical reasons.


I am not talking about people who have a bit more body mass on them though. To be clear, being Slightly "overweight" especially in women can be perfectly healthy.



CaptainCool said:


> well, this depends. with morals it is hard to establish right and wrong on objective and subjective levels.
> denying someone to be a fireman because of a disability isnt discrimination. a fireman's job is to help others. if you cant do that because you cant climb ladders then you shouldnt be a fireman.
> 
> and maybe "fact" just was the wrong word. if your personal moral code says that discrimination or (lets go one step further here) pedophlia are ok then i have to accept that. that is your opinion and there is nothing wrong with that.
> but once you start actually hurting people because of an opinion that you cant support by evidence or facts you are doing something wrong and the law and those members of society who disagree with you will try to stop you.



Discrimination is the act of choosing or denying people/items/concepts based on a set of criteria really. Now "wrongful discrimination" is what you are referring too. 

Also anti-discrimination laws cause discrimination, because it gives someone more protection then someone else by law. You can't really use law to help change people's opinions, its a culture issue. Otherwise racial discrimination and such would be gone already.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 23, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> Also anti-discrimination laws cause discrimination, because it gives someone more protection then someone else by law. You can't really use law to help change people's opinions, its a culture issue. Otherwise racial discrimination and such would be gone already.



that is not what these laws are doing. anti-discrimination laws dont interfere with your right to have your own opinion. as i said, it is perfectly fine for you to hate a certain group of people as long as you dont try to actively harm them.
that is the only thing these laws are supposed to do. protect them from being harmed.

not to mention that these laws are usually written in such a broad manner that they protext everyone. it never says "christians" or "moslems". it says religious freedom. or it simply limits the freedom of speech in such a way that you arent allowed to voice your opinion in a really hurtful way.


----------



## Brazen (Jun 23, 2012)

I thought this was about physical height and discrimination against people with dwarfism.

No, fat discrimination is not discrimination for the simple fact that in the US (which is what you're probably thinking of) the majority of people are clinically overweight already, as much as 70%, and you can't discriminate against the majority.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> that is not what these laws are doing. anti-discrimination laws dont interfere with your right to have your own opinion. as i said, it is perfectly fine for you to hate a certain group of people as long as you dont try to actively harm them.
> that is the only thing these laws are supposed to do. protect them from being harmed.


If a law states that "you must hire X number of visible minorities" in a government agency what if someone who is not a vis minority happens to be more qualified? What if that white guy punching that black guy was not out of "racial hate" but only because they are both dicks? 

The law protects ANYONE from being harmed... so why if it's against the law to assault someone... should it be more against the law if the person who is assaulted looks different?  If wrongful dismissal is a crime already ... why should it be a worse crime if you fire someone because of religion? 

All that does is reinforce the idea that there is a race barrier, or gender barrier, or religious barriers instead of enforcing that all humans are equal not all "groups of humans" are equal.


Brazen said:


> I thought this was about physical height and discrimination against people with dwarfism.
> 
> No, fat discrimination is not discrimination for the simple fact that in the US (which is what you're probably thinking of) the majority of people are clinically overweight already, as much as 70%,* and you can't discriminate against the majority*.


  History disagrees. Say hi to Sparta.


----------



## Onnes (Jun 23, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> snip



It sounds like you are making stuff up to support your argument that discrimination is somehow justified. An argument whose implications you wholly ignore. 



> Regardless that is /besides/ my point: So long as a majority of obese persons are those who persist on publicly over-eating or purchasing gross quantities of processed foods or are not seen being active... the stigma will stay. If anything blame them as much as those taunting the people who can't moderate body mass themselves due to medical reasons.



You aren't explaining why this discrimination should be tolerated. Why does it even matter how it came to pass? It's still pointlessly harmful discrimination.



> I am not talking about people who have a bit more body mass on them though. To be clear, being Slightly "overweight" especially in women can be perfectly healthy.



Yet anyone who appears even somewhat overweight will still be the subject of discrimination. Healthy is irrelevant when looks directly translate into better outcomes and skinny is the favored form.


----------



## PapayaShark (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, Im all for discrimination when it comes to planes. I dont want do die because som fat flight attendant is blocking the way.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Onnes said:


> You aren't explaining why this discrimination should be tolerated. Why does it even matter how it came to pass? It's still pointlessly harmful discrimination.


 I am just stating that regardless of the "toleration of discrimination" or not its not going to stop, and will get worse unless the group as a whole stops going to KFC and buying a family meal and eating it alone or anything close to that.   


> Yet anyone who appears even somewhat overweight will still be the subject of discrimination. Healthy is irrelevant when looks directly translate into better outcomes and skinny is the favored form.


 Note I never said people must be "Skinny". I am targeting morbid obesity.


----------



## Onnes (Jun 23, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> I am just stating that regardless of the "toleration of discrimination" or not its not going to stop, and will get worse unless the group as a whole stops going to KFC and buying a family meal and eating it alone or anything close to that.



So you're still saying that this discrimination is justified. Got it.



> Note I never said people must be "Skinny". I am targeting morbid obesity.



You're missing my point. You don't have to be morbidly obese to face discrimination based on your appearance.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jun 23, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> If a law states that "you must hire X number of visible minorities" in a government agency what if someone who is not a vis minority happens to be more qualified? What if that white guy punching that black guy was not out of "racial hate" but only because they are both dicks?
> 
> The law protects ANYONE from being harmed... so why if it's against the law to assault someone... should it be more against the law if the person who is assaulted looks different?  If wrongful dismissal is a crime already ... why should it be a worse crime if you fire someone because of religion?
> 
> All that does is reinforce the idea that there is a race barrier, or gender barrier, or religious barriers instead of enforcing that all humans are equal not all "groups of humans" are equal.



it isnt "more against the law". it only is if you really do harm him/her because of their appearance/race/whatever.
these lays exist to remove the barriers. people who are open minded about others follow them anyway and someone who IS a discriminating dick has to fall in line.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Onnes said:


> So you're still saying that this discrimination is justified. Got it.


 
I am not saying it is or is not justified. I am just saying it won't change. People don't want to stop, and will refuse to change unless they see something different. Its like minorities continuing to be stereotyped... while acting the stereotypes out in front of people legitimately, it prevents progression and it seems no one is willing to change. 



> You're missing my point. You don't have to be morbidly obese to face discrimination based on your appearance.


 
That is not what I see locally at least. Really its hardly an issue at all unless you are at the point where you are becoming more "Fatty-mass then man" so to speak. Perhaps my opinion is based on an environment which is more generous when defining "Ideal".



CaptainCool said:


> it isnt "more against the law". it only is if you really do harm him/her because of their appearance/race/whatever.
> these lays exist to remove the barriers. people who are open minded about others follow them anyway and someone who IS a discriminating dick has to fall in line.


 I don't think that is right.  Assault is assault, Murder is Murder. If you did it because he is another religion or you did it because you think he is a tool its still the same thing.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 23, 2012)

Size discrimination does not even come* close* to discrimination based on race, sex , etc..   The latter are completely out of the target's control.


----------



## Zenia (Jun 23, 2012)

All discrimination is wrong, regardless if the person can change the thing they are being discriminated against or not.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Jun 23, 2012)

If someone is obese, and takes up more than one seat, or causes an airplane to need more fuel to lift off, or what have you, I think it's perfectly justified to charge them more or disallow them to enter said transportation.

I don't know if that counts as "discrimination," but some might take it that way. Class, race, and gender don't exactly cause these kinds of problems, so they're not really the same thing. Nor are they within the person's control. 

I think having such measures in place is simply expecting people to be accountable for themselves, which I believe people should be held to more often.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 23, 2012)

If it's deemed acceptable to dislike or hate a person simply because they are overweight, I see no logical reason to assume that such biases never translate into more tangible forms of economic, judicial, medical, etc., discrimination. I can't pretend to know the prevalence of such things, but it certainly would be very significant to the individual who experiences it. 



Lead Jester said:


> It can't be a fact because the concept of  discrimination is subjective, and its not always wrong if someone asks":  "I can't walk or use ladders and I was born that way. Can I be a  Fireman?" Saying no is technically discriminating.


They would not be rejected on the basis of being fat but rather being  unable to perform necessary job functions. Some skinny/average-weight people would also  be incapable of effectively climbing the ladder (due to disability or  non-athleticism), while some overweight people actually would be capable  of it. It is possible to be "overweight" and athletic. 



Lead Jester said:


> If a law states that "you must hire X number of visible minorities"


Cite the law that mandates this. Anti-discrimination laws almost never work like that--to the extent that I don't think you'll actually be able to locate such a law to cite, because they likely don't exist.



Lead Jester said:


> What if that white guy punching that black  guy was not out of "racial hate" but only because they are both dicks?
> 
> The law protects ANYONE from being harmed... so why if it's against the  law to assault someone... should it be more against the law if the  person who is assaulted looks different?  If wrongful dismissal is a  crime already ... why should it be a worse crime if you fire someone  because of religion?


Members of majority groups are protected by hate-crime/discrimination laws as well. Here's the FBI's 2009 hate crime report--notice how it includes hate crimes against whites, heterosexuals, Christians, etc.,?

It is identified/punished much the same way different degrees of murder are  identified/punished. (What I mean by "identified": Cross-racial crimes,  for example, are not immediately considered hate crimes. The  perpetrator's motivation does have to be investigated.) In murder cases,  it doesn't matter the degree of murder, the victim is no less dead.  However, the perpetrator's motivations give them away as less or more  dangerous in the eyes of society, and their punishment is decreased or  increased to reflect that.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 23, 2012)

Zenia said:


> All discrimination is wrong, regardless if the person can change the thing they are being discriminated against or not.


They brought their obesity upon themselves, therefore they brought the stigma that comes with it upon themselves. But no, the rest of us are 'bad' for having a completely natural reaction.


----------



## Zenia (Jun 23, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> They brought their obesity on themselves, therefore they brought the stigma that comes with it upon themselves.


That doesn't justify things like denying people like me from jobs.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 23, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> They brought their obesity upon themselves, therefore they brought the stigma that comes with it upon themselves.


Because obesity can never come from upbringing or medical problems or other factors. :V


----------



## Onnes (Jun 23, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> They brought their obesity upon themselves, therefore they brought the stigma that comes with it upon themselves. But no, the rest of us are 'bad' for having a completely natural reaction.



How is this reaction natural? There are, of course, cultures where weight, often to extremes, is seen as positive. Not that being "natural" is a valid defense for any sort of behavior. 

Face it, you want to inflict harm on certain people through this stigma without any real justification for it.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Jun 23, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Because obesity can never come from upbringing or medical problems or other factors. :V


I was never raised to do chores, so I should be allowed to live like a slob.
I am bipolar, so I should be able to break shit whenever it pisses me off, and have a violent mental breakdown right in the middle of a store.

Anyone who reacts negatively towards me is henceforth an asshole and discriminating against my unique needs.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 23, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Face it, *you want to inflict harm on certain people through this stigma *without any real justification for it.


I'm not sure I take your meaning here.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> They would not be rejected on the basis of being fat but rather being  unable to perform necessary job functions. Some skinny/average-weight people would also  be incapable of effectively climbing the ladder (due to disability or  non-athleticism), while some overweight people actually would be capable  of it. It is possible to be "overweight" and athletic.


 I said OBESE. that is not "overweight" 

EDIT 
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/image...57/067/120223897_display_image.jpg?1337965942
does not equate 
http://www.noghtenazar2.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Morbid-Obesity-Pictures.jpg




> Cite the law that mandates this. Anti-discrimination laws almost never work like that.


 Its a bit of a specific problem for the Canadian government's hiring laws for the civil service. 




> Members of majority groups are protected by hate-crime/discrimination laws as well. Here's the FBI's 2009 hate crime report--notice how it includes hate crimes against whites, heterosexuals, Christians, etc.,?


 Then its being handled differently in the states then here.



> It is identified/punished much the same way different degrees of murder are  identified/punished. (What I mean by "identified": Cross-racial crimes,  for example, are not immediately considered hate crimes. The  perpetrator's motivation does have to be investigated.) In murder cases,  it doesn't matter the degree of murder, the victim is no less dead.  However, the perpetrator's motivations give them away as less or more  dangerous in the eyes of society, and their punishment is decreased or  increased to reflect that.


I don't see that as any different then any other premeditated crime. "Hate crime" labels just add scandal and buzz and in my opinion bring more attention to the point those boundaries exist to begin with.


----------



## Vekke (Jun 23, 2012)

shit how is this topic everywhere today



Xenke said:


> I only discriminate against fat people if they're buying food that will do nothing but make them fatter.
> 
> Why are you buying frozen meals.
> Why are you buying icecream.
> ...



Meat doesn't make you fat, js. It has some of the most readily-absorbed nutrients out there and it keeps you full longer. Most bang for its caloric buck.

Size discrimination is a Thing that Happens. It's shitty, just like race and class discrimination are shitty. Do we really have to quantify How Bad each one is? It's dehumanizing *people*, period.

And no, weight is not necessarily 100% within everyone's control. Calories in calories out is overly simplistic kindergarten BS and isn't the root cause of the problem for the majority of cases. People don't know what the One True Cause is (if there is one. Could be a combination of factors), but it's pretty much been established that eat less, move more, if it ever works in the first place, ends up ultimately failing.

I don't get it-- underweight is acknowledged as a health problem. People are dicks to skinny people too, but I've never heard anyone tell someone with failure to thrive that they need to move less, eat more, with no attention given to hormones, metabolism, malabsorption problems etc, under the guise of medicine/nutritional advice. Telling fat people they're lazy isn't science, it's stigma.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Zenia said:


> That doesn't justify things like denying people like me from jobs.


If the body mass will directly or indirectly affect the job? Of course it does. 
Even if its a waitresses position it is justifiable, as body size can make that job harder in crowded areas, and may effect people's opinion of the eating location or make them uncomfortable.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Jun 23, 2012)

I thought this would be about height, too.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 23, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> I said OBESE. that is not "overweight"
> 
> EDIT
> http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/image...57/067/120223897_display_image.jpg?1337965942
> ...


Yet, a person could be discriminated against for being the former as well as the latter.




Lead Jester said:


> Its a bit of a specific problem for the Canadian government's hiring laws for the civil service.
> 
> Then its being handled differently in the states then here.


The second statement is explicitly wrong. Table includes whites under racial motivators and "other" in all other categories, which would mean that a person could make a case for hate crime based on being Christian/straight/whatever. Since it took me 15 seconds of googling to find that, I'm guessing that you've never actually investigated the basis for your first claim either, and again request that you cite the law.



Lead Jester said:


> If the body mass will directly or indirectly affect the job? Of course it does.
> Even if its a waitresses position it is justifiable, as body size can  make that job harder in crowded areas, and may effect people's opinion  of the eating location or make them uncomfortable.


Again, this would be rejection based on job performance rather than weight. There are plenty of jobs where weight would not be a factor, yet individuals may face undue discrimination.


----------



## Onnes (Jun 23, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> may effect people's opinion of the eating location or make them uncomfortable.



We must discriminate based on size because people discriminate based on size. The logic in this entire thread is making me facepalm.


----------



## Rilvor (Jun 23, 2012)

Well I don't know about you people, but speaking as a man who is 6'4" I for one am tired of being discriminated against because I am taller than everyone else. Just because I make you feel uncomfortable in your shorty shortness as I stare down at you does not mean you should deny me anything.

Discriminating against tall people because of natural reactions of intimidation is wrong, spread the word!


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Yet, a person could be discriminated against for being the former as well as the latter.


 I don't see that happening myself. Regardless my view may be skewed from having a job in which a lapse of physical fitness is grounds for dismissal immediately. 





> The second statement is explicitly wrong. Table includes whites under racial motivators and "other" in all other categories, which would mean that a person could make a case for hate crime based on being Christian/straight/whatever. Since it took me 15 seconds of googling to find that, I'm guessing that you've never actually investigated the basis for your first claim either, and again request that you cite the law.


 Last time I looked into it the Canadian hate crimes bill is a cluster-fuck which mandates that the target of the discrimination has to be a minority. Currently too lazy to get my books out.
EDIT: apparently the definition changed in 2002. My bad. Old book.




> Again, this would be rejection based on job performance rather than weight. There are plenty of jobs where weight would not be a factor, yet individuals may face undue discrimination.


 People claim its due to weight often when the issue is fitness.


----------



## Mullerornis (Jun 23, 2012)

I think people shouldn't be discriminated for trivial things.

However, like it or not, size discrimination is less omnipresent than racism or homophobia. And, in some cases, actually curable.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 23, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Discriminating against tall people because of natural reactions of intimidation is wrong, spread the word!


Go pull something off a high shelf, Fezzik. >:V



Lead Jester said:


> I don't see that happening myself. Regardless my view may be skewed from having a job in which a lapse of physical fitness is grounds for dismissal immediately.
> 
> . . .
> 
> People claim its due to weight often when the issue is fitness.


There are plenty of jobs where neither should be a factor.



Lead Jester said:


> Last time I looked into it the Canadian hate crimes bill is a cluster-fuck which mandates that the target of the discrimination has to be a minority. Currently too lazy to get my books out.


I have demonstrated that whites and other majority groups are protected by hate crimes laws as well as minority groups. Cite the sources for your assertions.


----------



## PapayaShark (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, I dont want to die because fat people want the right to be able to be firefighters or policemen, and run out of breath or get knee problems before they could save me. And I think obese people should pay for it if they are using more than their seat on a bus/plane/train/etc. Its not fun to sit on the edge of the seat because someone is using both their and your seats. Its not discriminaion, its fair.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Eh I will give a closing opinion on this really:

Discrimination happens due to the public perception of the group, and if said group of people want to be seen in a positive light it is also the responsibility of said group to attempt to behave in a more positive light in order for opinions to shift.

It boils down easy: so long as people who are overweight are seen over-eating people are going to generalize, after all its a simple human reflex to polarize, and it will be made /worse/ by the fact some of them could of chose not to take that path.

The "upbringing" situation is another problem, honestly I think instilling excessive eating habits into one's offspring is just as much abuse as beating them.


Ad Hoc said:


> There are plenty of jobs where neither should be a factor.


Did I site said jobs? No I said it was understandable when it DOES effect the job.





> I have demonstrated that whites and other majority groups are protected by hate crimes laws as well as minority groups. Cite the sources for your assertions.


 Check my edit. Old book is old.



PapayaShark said:


> Well, I dont want to die because fat people want the right to be able to be firefighters or policemen, and run out of breath or get knee problems before they could save me. And I think obese people should pay for it if they are using more than their seat on a bus/plane/train/etc. Its not fun to sit on the edge of the seat because someone is using both their and your seats. Its not discriminaion, its fair.


 Technically its still discrimination. Just not "Wrongful discrimination"


----------



## Onnes (Jun 23, 2012)

Yale actually has a center which studies this sort of thing in the context of public policy. (http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/what_we_do.aspx?id=10)
They actively recommend anti-discrimination laws be updated to include weight. Their brief policy document (http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/reports/Rudd_Policy_Brief_Weight_Bias.pdf) goes over the known distribution and effects of weight discrimination and is fully referenced.

There is a lot of reading there I have yet to do it seems.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jun 23, 2012)

Zenia said:


> That doesn't justify things like denying people like me from jobs.




the only problem i see here is they can- they can deny smokers work because insurance would cost significantly more. If you are obese because its something you can control I can see why companies would hesitate to hire. Its the bottom line. Now is it right? Maybe not but the problem is it does cost more to insure someone overweight due to heart related or other overweight related problems. If they cannot help their weight then a doctor should be able to convince an employer to bypass the weight issue because its not something they cause due to lifestyle.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> the only problem i see here is they can- they can deny smokers work because insurance would cost significantly more. If you are obese because its something you can control I can see why companies would hesitate to hire. Its the bottom line. Now is it right? Maybe not but the problem is it does cost more to insure someone overweight due to heart related or other overweight related problems. If they cannot help their weight then a doctor should be able to convince an employer to bypass the weight issue because its not something they cause due to lifestyle.


Obesity is an acceptable reason for denial of health insurance or life insurance. as its a "Pre existing risk factor". Just like having any "pre existing risk factor" like previously having heart attacks or long term illnesses.





Onnes said:


> Yale actually has a center which studies this sort of thing in the context of public policy. (http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/what_we_do.aspx?id=10)
> They actively recommend anti-discrimination laws be updated to include weight. Their brief policy document (http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/reports/Rudd_Policy_Brief_Weight_Bias.pdf) goes over the known distribution and effects of weight discrimination and is fully referenced.
> 
> There is a lot of reading there I have yet to do it seems.


 I can support this so long as legislation involving the classification and targeting of obesity as a chronic ailment is passed.


----------



## Spatel (Jun 23, 2012)

I think size discrimination certainly exists in the workplace. The more  attractive you are, the more likely to are to get the job. The more  likely you are to get let off the hook. The more likely juries are to  rule in your favor. You have the freedom to flirt without alienating  anyone if you're a supermodel. If you're overweight it might not go so  well. There are real systematic prejudices at work here and these are well known.

However, I have a bit of a problem. I cannot bring myself to date someone who is obese. I simply don't find them attractive. Is this discrimination on my part? I pose this question because I am curious to know whether I am a hypocrite or not.

 There are a large number of girls out there that wouldn't touch me with  a 10-foot-pole because I'm bisexual, and I see that as discriminatory  the same way refusing to date someone because of their race would be discriminatory. On  the other hand, there are selections I consider acceptable, like refusing to  date someone x years younger or older than you, or not dating someone because they have an incompatible personality.

I want to know where the cutoff is for something to be considered discrimination.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Question: 

If a company has criteria for a spokes person which describes them as "Attractive and young" and hires someone as such, primarily based on looks and speaking ability is that discrimination? If so is it justified?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jun 23, 2012)

Fun fact for those people talking about overweight and obese athletes. 

A good portion of the NBAs players are considered obese. Including Shaq back when he was still playing. 

How is this possible?  Because the BMI is a piece of shit.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Fun fact for those people talking about overweight and obese athletes.
> 
> A good portion of the NBAs players are considered obese. Including Shaq back when he was still playing.
> 
> How is this possible?  Because the BMI is a piece of shit.


My employer uses the "body fat percentile" system. That is what I am basing my angle on.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 23, 2012)

PapayaShark said:


> Well, I dont want to die because fat people want the right to be able to be firefighters or policemen, and run out of breath or get knee problems before they could save me.


No one is really arguing for this. An un-athletic, overweight person is barred from a job that requires athleticism the same way a blind person is barred from, say, being an art appraiser. What is more relevant is employment discrimination in non-athletic fields, or discrimination from financial, legal, etc., institutions where weight again really should not be a factor. Although I again cannot pretend to know the prevalence of this, it's reasonable to conclude that they could rise out of accepted biases against overweight people. That is certainly a very troubling thing for the person experiencing it.



Lead Jester said:


> Check my edit. Old book is old.


Thank you.



Lead Jester said:


> The "upbringing" situation is another problem, honestly I think instilling excessive eating habits into one's offspring is just as much abuse as beating them.


Well, this is agreeable.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 23, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> Obesity is an acceptable reason for denial of health insurance or life insurance. as its a "Pre existing risk factor". Just like having any "pre existing risk factor" like previously having heart attacks or long term illnesses. I can support this so long as legislation involving the classification and targeting of obesity as a chronic ailment is passed.



Says the Canadian with universal health care.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Says the Canadian with universal health care.


I am talking about the USA. In Canada cross out "health insurance" and its the same here. 

Insurance is an investment that they want to keep profitable.


----------



## Zenia (Jun 23, 2012)

Assuming you are applying for a job that would offer health care. I have never had a job where I got that perk.

When I was job hunting last time, I hit up places where I knew my weight would not be a factor. I looked for about 6 or 7 months and in that time, only had ONE interview. It was at one of those mall kiosks that refill ink cartridges. I didn't get it though, because even though I was "a perfect candidate" the other person apparently was too and the owner flipped a coin and I lost. I am not sure if I believe that though. All the other places I applied to, I could see the judgement in their eyes. People think that because I am overweight, that I am lazy and won't do the job. In fact, I go above and beyond for a job. I do so much, that when I leave a job, people there really understand just how much I was doing. As was the case when I worked for Dominos. I left (had a baby) and when I came in a month later to pick up my last cheque and say hi to everyone, they swarmed me and told me how much they missed me and couldn't believe just how much I was actually doing there until I wasn't there anymore. I was hired on to answer the phones to take orders only. I ended up also prepping ingredients, cleaning, sweeping up the cornmeal several times a day, making some of the food, boxing the food and sending the drivers on their runs.

I am really glad that when I FINALLY got called in for an interview at the tailor shop (I had applied over the phone), the owner didn't care one iota about what people look like. He gave me a trial a couple of days later and I have been there ever since. It will be 7 years in December. I have integrated myself into the shop so much, that the current owner would be screwed if I left. I was hired to sew only... now I do that, plus I prep things for sewing, and work the front of the shop on some days.


----------



## ScaredToBreathe (Jun 23, 2012)

Another thing to mull over:
I was on a plane about a year ago, and I was seated next to a very, _very _fat woman. Throughout the entire flight, she took up not only her seat, but both armrests, much of the floor space and a fair bit of my seat. I spent the next four hours crammed against the window, uncomfortable and angry.
As anyone who has ever flown anywhere knows, plane tickets are _not _cheap, and the way I see it, I paid full price (around $400) for a little over half a seat. 
If a person is too fat for one seat, shouldn't they have to pay for two?
I've seen a few articles on the internet where such a proposal is labeled as "discrimination".
But is it really discrimination?


----------



## Dokid (Jun 23, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> -insert other quote- Well, this is agreeable.



Its awful on how some people think fat kid= healthy kid...

There's one guy i know where the mother would feed him till he puked. Now he's so large that in any car or SUV they have to drive slower so the vehicle doesn't tip over. I'm not joking. This guy will now have to live his life like this. Doesn't help that he has some sort of mental problem.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 23, 2012)

Zenia said:


> Assuming you are applying for a job that would offer health care.


Or live in a nation which is not decades behind the trend of caring for its residents.


----------



## Zenia (Jun 23, 2012)

ScaredToBreathe said:


> If a person is too fat for one seat, shouldn't they have to pay for two?


I am on the fence. If said person is flying with someone that wouldn't mind (say, their small child or thin SO... it does happen) then they shouldn't. If this person is flying alone then they should. This is one reason I don't travel... nevermind that I can't even afford one plane ticket. lol


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 24, 2012)

Zenia said:


> I am on the fence. If said person is flying with someone that wouldn't mind (say, their small child or thin SO... it does happen) then they shouldn't. If this person is flying alone then they should. This is one reason I don't travel... nevermind that I can't even afford one plane ticket. lol


Think of it this way:

Parking your car in this lot costs $50 a month,
Ted has a small car, fits in one space.
Bill has a giant truck that takes up all his space plus some of Ted's spot.
 So much that Ted can't even open his door. 
Ted is upset and asks the owner of the lot to do something.
 The owner then decides he will charge per /space/ for now on and not per car. 
So now it costs $50 a SPACE,
Bill is upset as he now pays $100 but Ted can actually get in his car.
 Is this wrong? Or not?


----------



## Starlocke (Jun 24, 2012)

Sure, being overweight can be changed, but no one asked to be overweight, or in a position where they can't afford better food.
Most fat people I know are on diets, try to watch what they eat, it's that they often don't have the time or money to prepare better meals or afford better food. Also, being overworked, stressed, and other factors get into weight. It's not just food.
Fat people aren't greedy, lazy, or eat any more than others. It's usually the opposite.


----------



## Zenia (Jun 24, 2012)

Ah, but in your example, someone is UPSET. In mine, I said that if the person was with someone who didn't take up the space and was cool with it (thereby being a family member most likely) then it would be ok.

Someone who obviously takes up 1.75 to 2 seats should definitely pay for two seats. But, for example, say I was flying with my boyfriend who was very thin at 120lbs. Together we would take up two spots and we would both be cool being smushed up against each other. If I was flying alone, I would expect to have to keep my armrest in its lowered position or pay for two seats.



Starlocke said:


> Fat people aren't greedy, lazy, or eat any more than others. It's usually the opposite.


I fall into this category. When I was younger though, I ate a lot... but I didn't know about this kind of thing when I was in my preteen years. Nobody ever stopped me or told me of the consequences. Now though, I don't drink soda and I try to eat the best food I can afford... when I remember to eat. XD


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 24, 2012)

Starlocke said:


> Sure, being overweight can be changed, but no one asked to be overweight, or in a position where they can't afford better food.
> Most fat people I know are on diets, try to watch what they eat, it's that they often don't have the time or money to prepare better meals or afford better food. Also, being overworked, stressed, and other factors get into weight. It's not just food.
> Fat people aren't greedy, lazy, or eat any more than others. It's usually the opposite.


 I can eat healthy for much less money then if I ate junk. Its really about learning how. Lentils, rice, and veggies are actually pretty cheap. Throw some chicken in the mix and off you go. 

Its possible to as a person eat a balanced healthy diet for under $25 a week. Just gotta know how..


----------



## Zenia (Jun 24, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> Its possible to as a person eat a balanced healthy diet for under $25 a week. Just gotta know how..


Therin lies the problem. Too many people grow up and don't know this stuff. Some people don't even know how to make anything other than Kraft Dinner. It is pretty sad.

These days I mainly eat chicken and rice.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jun 24, 2012)

Starlocke said:


> Sure, being overweight can be changed, but no one asked to be overweight, or in a position where they can't afford better food.



Someone's never heard of Gainers.  :V


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jun 24, 2012)

Speaking as someone who was fat, (max. weight 240 lbs.) I can tell you part of the size-ism comes from the fact that we have become a very sedentary culture that does not exercise much but we still worship those who have the bodies of Greek gods and goddesses. But you can't HAVE that kind of physical beauty without really watching what you eat and working for hours at a gym and that's too much. Keep in mind, we have a pretty high ideal of what a man SHOULD look like and so when we see people who are overweight or morbidly overweight, we think they should not exist because they don't fit in with our view of perfection. It really was a rather eye-opening experience when I stepped on a scale a year and a half ago and realized that I was medically obese because I had spent my entire life being friends with visibly obese people and thinking myself better than them. But once I started watching what I was eating (no more fried food) and working out for at least a half hour a day, I noticed my weight go down and now I am 208 pounds.

Fat-shaming people doesn't make you any skinnier.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 24, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> I can eat healthy for much less money then if I ate junk. Its really about learning how. Lentils, rice, and veggies are actually pretty cheap. Throw some chicken in the mix and off you go.
> 
> Its possible to as a person eat a balanced healthy diet for under $25 a week. Just gotta know how..


Food deserts. Even in the developed world, many poor communities (particularly in the inner city) have reduced or no access to supermarkets which sell healthy foods at an affordable price. Citizens would have to leave their community to find this food--depending on the cost of transportation (cars are expensive if you're on minimum wage and PT sucks/doesn't exist in America), it may very well end up being cheaper to eat convenience store junk. Milwaukee, from my own state, has a ton of these food deserts. Canada's got them too.

And there's also the problem of education, as Zenia said.


I'd like to note that I'm making these arguments as someone who is a beanpole. So are my brother and my father, and all my immediate relatives on my father's side of the family, despite some here-and-there eating habits. (I, for one, have an unfortunate sweet tooth.) Ma's side not so much, but I seem to have gotten pa's genes as far as that goes.  I find it very interesting that the people who can accept that I am naturally thin usually scoff at the notion of someone else being naturally heavier.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 24, 2012)

Ariosto said:


> It is. It's not a matter of playing the "Opression olympics"; all kinds of discrimination are harmful because they limit people's possibilities, deny them a place in society and make them feel uncomfortable with themselves instead potentializing their qualities as individuals. I think what you might be asking is, "is it more commonly seen"? I wouldn't know, but the fact stands it does exist.



In the case of fat people, some are fat as a result of their own actions. Those who's own fault it is should have thought about it before stuffing their faces with doughnuts and Mcdonalds.

However that does not mean discrimination, of any sort is right.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 24, 2012)

The whole price of a pot of lentils argument also fails to account for the cost of the pot itself, some utensils to cook with, and a working stove.  Sure, those are durable goods that really only need to be paid for once, but for many in poverty that's one more than they can afford.  Meanwhile, old microwaves are a dime a dozen.

A lot of college students don't have access to a stove, either.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 24, 2012)

Zenia said:


> Therin lies the problem. Too many people grow up and don't know this stuff. Some people don't even know how to make anything other than Kraft Dinner. It is pretty sad.
> 
> These days I mainly eat chicken and rice.


 "Those who refuse to learn hold the blame for the misery they experiance" 



Ad Hoc said:


> Food deserts. Even in the developed world, many poor communities (particularly in the inner city) have reduced or no access to supermarkets which sell healthy foods at an affordable price. Citizens would have to leave their community to find this food--depending on the cost of transportation (cars are expensive if you're on minimum wage and PT sucks/doesn't exist in America), it may very well end up being cheaper to eat convenience store junk. Milwaukee, from my own state, has a ton of these food deserts. Canada's got them too.
> 
> And there's also the problem of education, as Zenia said.
> 
> ...


I have never had this issue, because I was (before I had a car etc) a willingness to even bus to get better food. Public transit does suck hard but its better then causing harm to one's self, and knowledge on how to cook and produce foods for low cost are easy to access if one looks. 

There /are/ options often, people just are not willing to work to get results often.


Lobar said:


> The whole price of a pot of lentils argument also fails to account for the cost of the pot itself, some utensils to cook with, and a working stove. Sure, those are durable goods that really only need to be paid for once, but for many in poverty that's one more than they can afford. Meanwhile, old microwaves are a dime a dozen.
> 
> A lot of college students don't have access to a stove, either.


A TON, of my cooking equipment I got when I was a student from thrift stores.


----------



## Zenia (Jun 24, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> A TON, of my cooking equipment I got when I was a student from thrift stores.


Same here. Typically I paid about $5 per item.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 24, 2012)

The question really lies here: Why are so many people not willing to change even though they /know/ it will make them healthier, happier and live longer instead of complaining about the impacts of the actions they take themselves? 

One of the largest problems we have as a society is people are not willing to recognize* they are* to blame for the issues they refuse to fix and no one else.
It effects obesity, parenting and more. People just want to blame everything else and everyone else for the issues_* they*_ create.


----------



## Onnes (Jun 24, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> I have never had this issue, because I was (before I had a car etc) a willingness to even bus to get better food. Public transit does suck hard but its better then causing harm to one's self, and knowledge on how to cook and produce foods for low cost are easy to access if one looks.
> 
> There /are/ options often, people just are not willing to work to get results often.



You are obviously ignorant of what a food desert is. I recommend actually reading up on the subject.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 24, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> One of the largest problems we have as a society is people are not willing to recognize* they are* to blame for the issues they refuse to fix and no one else.
> It effects obesity, parenting and more. People just want to blame everything else and everyone else for the issues_* they*_ create.



thisiswhatconservativesactuallybelieve.txt


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 24, 2012)

Lobar said:


> thisiswhatconservativesactuallybelieve.txt



Conservatives are correct. People blame everyone and everything else for things that they are at fault for far to often and expect everyone else to fix what they are at fault for.


----------



## Onnes (Jun 24, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Conservatives are correct. People blame everyone and everything else for things that they are at fault for far to often and expect everyone else to fix what they are at fault for.



Because everyone who is overweight is at fault and should suffer the discrimination and stigma for it. Way to go, Randy.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 24, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Because everyone who is overweight is at fault and should suffer the discrimination and stigma for it. Way to go, Randy.



Onnes....Go back and read my fucking previous posts before saying shit like this. You're accusing me of saying shit I haven't said. Don't put words into my mouth.

I have posted in this thread previously stating that A: Not everyone who is overweight is their own fault and B: I also said they still don't deserve discrimination whether it's their fault or not. 

In my reply to Lobar I was referencing those who ARE at fault. Not those who were not at fault. I at no point said Everyone. 

I suggest you actually read posts before jumping on people and putting words in their mouths.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> In the case of fat people, some are fat  as a result of their own actions. Those who's own fault it is should  have thought about it before stuffing their faces with doughnuts and  Mcdonalds.
> 
> However that does not mean discrimination, of any sort is right.



I'll save you the trouble of looking back one page.


----------



## Onnes (Jun 24, 2012)

Randy, how do you know who is at fault and who isn't? You don't and you can't. The idea that blame must placed necessitates stigma and discrimination against anyone and everyone who looks the part. That is how the conservative position works here.

This is the last you'll see of me in this thread, however. It's not good for my blood pressure.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 24, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Randy, how do you know who is at fault and who isn't? You don't and you can't. The idea that blame must placed necessitates stigma and discrimination against anyone and everyone who looks the part. That is how the conservative position works here.
> 
> This is the last you'll see of me in this thread, however.



Perhaps I should reword my reply to Lobar and say "Conservatives are partially correct due to the fact that there are people out there who do put the blame on everyone and everything else when it's their own fault."


----------



## ScaredToBreathe (Jun 25, 2012)

I'd like to see some solid statistics regarding what percentage of people are overweight because of actual health problems (thyroid diseases, slow metabolism due to genetics, etc) versus how many are overweight because of poor diet/little to no physical activity. I haven't found any studies like this.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 25, 2012)

ScaredToBreathe said:


> I'd like to see some solid statistics regarding what percentage of people are overweight because of actual health problems (thyroid diseases, slow metabolism due to genetics, etc) versus how many are overweight because of poor diet/little to no physical activity. I haven't found any studies like this.


What's it matter? Both would theoretically be subject to economic/legal/etc., discrimination.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 25, 2012)

"Everybody should be treated exactly the same no matter what the circumstances" is an extremely dangerous idea to put into practice.
"Nobody gets any special treatment" would at least be no more unfair than life itself.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 25, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> "Everybody should be treated exactly the same no matter what the circumstances" is an extremely dangerous idea to put into practice.
> "Nobody gets any special treatment" would at least be no more unfair than life itself.


Those two statements can be interpreted identically; either way, you get a level playing field. That is, unless you're one of those very _silly_ people who feels that basic decency is "special treatment."


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 25, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Those two statements can be interpreted identically; either way, you get a level playing field. That is, unless you're one of those very _silly_ people who feels that basic decency is "special treatment."


The first implies 'forced' equality, in which everyone else has to be fucked with to make their experience more like the disadvantaged. There is a fable like that, but i don't feel like linking to it because I don't like fables.


----------



## ScaredToBreathe (Jun 25, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> What's it matter? Both would theoretically be subject to economic/legal/etc., discrimination.



Very true, but the way I see it, as soon as you say "fat people can control their own weight, they just choose not to", people jump on you with the ol' "it's genetic/they have a medical problem, they can't help it" argument. 
And while that is a valid statement for some, _every single_ fat person does not have a "medical problem". Some (I'd even venture to say most) are really just fat due to poor diet/no exercise.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 25, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The first implies 'forced' equality, in which everyone else has to be fucked with to make their experience more like the disadvantaged. There is a fable like that, but i don't feel like linking to it because I don't like fables.


. . . That's a ridiculous stretch. Treating others with basic decency and equality in no way means you have to lower yourself.



ScaredToBreathe said:


> Very true, but the way I see it, as soon  as you say "fat people can control their own weight, they just choose  not to", people jump on you with the ol' "it's genetic/they have a  medical problem, they can't help it" argument.
> And while that is a valid statement for some, _every single_ fat  person does not have a "medical problem". Some (I'd even venture to say  most) are really just fat due to poor diet/no exercise.


That doesn't actually negate what I said. If we accept systematic discrimination against people due to their weight, both those that can and cannot help it will be subjected to it. Bigotry works on first impressions, it doesn't get to the roots of problems.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 25, 2012)

Geez. I have not been saying they deserve to be discriminated, I am saying that its more important to address the roots of the obesity problem then the side effects.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 25, 2012)

ScaredToBreathe said:


> Very true, but the way I see it, as soon as you say "fat people can control their own weight, they just choose not to", people jump on you with the ol' "it's genetic/they have a medical problem, they can't help it" argument.
> And while that is a valid statement for some,_ *every single* _*fat person does not have a "medical problem"*. Some (I'd even venture to say most) are really just fat due to poor diet/no exercise.



That's fucking utter bullshit. There is in fact conditions that CAN cause obesity.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 25, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> That's fucking utter bullshit. Do some research, there is in fact conditions that CAN cause obesity.


Black meet white.

He says (basically)
"Not all people who are fat are fat from medical reasons)
You say:
"Some conditions cause obesity"


Your argument is moot unless you are proving ALL obese people are obese due to medical conditions.

What people do is polarize, which is a shame because really a minority of people so far from my understanding are overweight because of a pre-existing problem.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 25, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> Black meet white.
> 
> He says (basically)
> "Not all people who are fat are fat from medical reasons)
> ...



Feh.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 25, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Feh.


Feh? how erudite.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 25, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> Feh? how erudite.



I put that cause I dunno what else to put. I misread his post so yeah, I'm a dumbarse.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 25, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I put that cause I dunno what else to put. I misread his post so yeah, I'm a dumbarse.


Oh its all good then.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 25, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> Black meet white.
> 
> He says (basically)
> "Not all people who are fat are fat from medical reasons)
> ...



"...Therefore, it's okay to be assholes to them."


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 25, 2012)

Lobar said:


> "...Therefore, it's okay to be assholes to them."


That statement is not being said. 
He was attacking methods of denial, not stating its okay to be an asshole to them. 

But that raises a question: Is society being intolerant of obesity possibly a good thing? If it was tolerated or even worse trendy to have poor health perhaps things could be worse?

Or should we blame the people who DO have the ability to loose weight but are too lazy for the image they project that aids in the labeling of the whole group as well as those making the insults?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 25, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> Oh its all good then.



Yeah, I do a good job at making myself look like an idiot, but at least I'll admit it.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 25, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Yeah, I do a good job at making myself look like an idiot, but at least I'll admit it.


Hence why I am not giving you a hard time.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 25, 2012)

Lead Jester said:


> That statement is not being said.
> He was attacking methods of denial, not stating its okay to be an asshole to them.


It's pretty clearly a lead-up to the "they brought it on themselves" mentality, which _has_ been expressed multiple times in this thread.



Lead Jester said:


> But that raises a question: Is society being intolerant of obesity possibly a good thing? If it was tolerated or even worse trendy to have poor health perhaps things could be worse?


I think the risk is fairly mild, because that would mean that the inverse, fat-shaming, would result in a thinner population. We live in a society which almost absolutely embraces fat-shaming, yet obesity rates continue to climb. That climb is obviously not a result of fat acceptance.



Lead Jester said:


> Or should we blame the people who DO have the ability to loose weight but are too lazy for the image they project that aids in the labeling of the whole group as well as those making the insults?


No. How would anyone be able to tell? I know off the top of my head _four_ people who are overweight through no fault of their own. (One has an inborn condition, one has to take life-saving medication which causes weight gain as a side effect, the other two were "raised fat" and are working to lose it but that doesn't happen overnight.) Almost every other overweight person I've met, I actually don't know what caused it because they've never told me, it's not my business to ask, and I don't observe their daily life. If I decided it was okay to blame a particular _type_ of overweight person, which basically mandates treating them with more negativity, I wouldn't know which type 99% of the overweight people I meet fall into.


----------



## Zenia (Jun 25, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> that would mean that the inverse, fat-shaming, would result in a thinner population.


That is what my step-dad seems to believe. He would call me names to shame me and once he forced me to step on the scale to see what I weighed... I suppose thinking that it would make me strive to lose weight. Wrongo. It just made my self worth plummet into the ground. It didn't help that when I tried to lose weight, any time I thought my pants were a little looser, my mom would say things like "You didn't lose any weight, you just stretched it out." Yeah... that helped *eye roll*. So I figured that my current diet wasn't working, so I would quit.

The time he forced me on the scale... I only weighed 165. That is really only 20lbs heavier than my "ideal weight" according to what my doctor said about my height. My dad happened to be the same weight and he went on and on about how I was the same as him, but he was a man that was 6' tall. He made me feel so bad about myself... like being 20lbs overweight was the worst thing ever. I would kill to be there now. Heck, even 200lbs is ok. I will get there again eventually. I hope.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 25, 2012)

Zenia said:


> That is what my step-dad seems to believe. He would call me names to shame me and once he forced me to step on the scale to see what I weighed... I suppose thinking that it would make me strive to lose weight. Wrongo. It just made my self worth plummet into the ground. It didn't help that when I tried to lose weight, any time I thought my pants were a little looser, my mom would say things like "You didn't lose any weight, you just stretched it out." Yeah... that helped *eye roll*. So I figured that my current diet wasn't working, so I would quit.
> 
> The time he forced me on the scale... I only weighed 165. That is really only 20lbs heavier than my "ideal weight" according to what my doctor said about my height. My dad happened to be the same weight and he went on and on about how I was the same as him, but he was a man that was 6' tall. He made me feel so bad about myself... like being 20lbs overweight was the worst thing ever. I would kill to be there now. Heck, even 200lbs is ok. I will get there again eventually. I hope.



bullying fat people into loosing weight imo will not work but will probably have the opposite effect.  The best way would be to encourage them to loose weight in a non bullying way.


----------



## ScaredToBreathe (Jun 25, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> bullying fat people into loosing weight imo will not work but will probably have the opposite effect.  The best way would be to encourage them to loose weight in a non bullying way.



There really isn't a way to gently encourage people to lose weight. They won't be motivated if you don't wake them up a bit.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 25, 2012)

ScaredToBreathe said:


> There really isn't a way to gently encourage people to lose weight. They won't be motivated if you don't wake them up a bit.



Umm, yes there is dude, yes there is. Calmly telling someone "Ya know, you should consider loosing some weight, I'll help if you like" is far better than "You fucking fat lump of shit, you need to loose some fucking weight lardo"

So yes, there is a gentler way to put it.


----------



## ScaredToBreathe (Jun 25, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Umm, yes there is dude, yes there is. Calmly telling someone "Ya know, you should consider loosing some weight, I'll help if you like" is far better than "You fucking fat lump of shit, you need to loose some fucking weight lardo"
> 
> So yes, there is a gentler way to put it.



Have you ever done that and had the person actually listen?
I mean, just look at Jillian Michaels. She's one of the best personal trainers and she can be a total bitch.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 25, 2012)

ScaredToBreathe said:


> Have you ever done that and had the person actually listen?
> I mean, just look at Jillian Michaels. She's one of the best personal trainers and she can be a total bitch.



If people are going to be a bitch to me, I wont listen. I wont be spoken to like dirt on someones shoe. 

And in answer to your question, yes.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jun 25, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> It's pretty clearly a lead-up to the "they brought it on themselves" mentality, which _has_ been expressed multiple times in this thread.


 Although some have brought it on themselves I also recognize not all have.



> I think the risk is fairly mild, because that would mean that the inverse, fat-shaming, would result in a thinner population. We live in a society which almost absolutely embraces fat-shaming, yet obesity rates continue to climb. That climb is obviously not a result of fat acceptance.


True but that does not dismiss the possibility of the effects of acceptance, because it would be one less reason to "try not too" become "heavy". I am just expressing a possibility.




> No. How would anyone be able to tell? I know off the top of my head _four_ people who are overweight through no fault of their own. (One has an inborn condition, one has to take life-saving medication which causes weight gain as a side effect, the other two were "raised fat" and are working to lose it but that doesn't happen overnight.) Almost every other overweight person I've met, I actually don't know what caused it because they've never told me, it's not my business to ask, and I don't observe their daily life. If I decided it was okay to blame a particular _type_ of overweight person, which basically mandates treating them with more negativity, I wouldn't know which type 99% of the overweight people I meet fall into.


 Its merely something to think about, but regardless, if rates of obesity are rising there is likely a non-genetic issue associated with it, likely (although not defiantly) tied with a neglect actions. 

A whole society does not simply become significantly more overweight in a few generations due to genetic reasons alone, that would take /many/ more generations. The big issue is from my understanding is becoming obese causes health issues that make it harder to loose that mass, this is part of the reason I think generational obesity through Being "raised fat" is just as if not more abusive then beating the kids, intentional or not.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jun 25, 2012)

ScaredToBreathe said:


> I mean, just look at Jillian Michaels. She's one of the best personal trainers and she can be a total bitch.


. . . She's a reality TV host who's supposed to create dramatic and entertaining TV. Contestants of her shows have admitted to using dangerous practices like intentionally dehydrating themselves to get a lower number for weigh-ins, and many contestants gain weight back.

I mean, we have a person on this very thread whose weight was negatively impacted by shaming, who didn't start to lose weight again until she'd gotten out of that environment and started building her confidence back up. Do you feel she is lying?



Lead Jester said:


> Although some have brought it on themselves I also recognize not all have.


I meant "they brought [the discrimination] upon themselves," perhaps I should have been clearer.



Lead Jester said:


> True but that does not dismiss the  possibility of the effects of acceptance, because it would be one less  reason to "try not too" become "heavy". I am just expressing a  possibility.


A fairly distant possibility. Aside from a few odd fetishists, hardly anyone actually _wants_  to be fat. Considering that fat-shaming has again and again be shown be  ineffective or plain counteractive, it's unlikely that shaming would  cause worse problems. Acceptance isn't celebration, it's just  neutrality. It may even help things--shaming causes stress, which causes  a release of cortisol, which is well known to cause weight gain.  Hypothyroidism is also heavily associated with stress.



Lead Jester said:


> Its merely something to think about, but  regardless, if rates of obesity are rising there is likely a non-genetic  issue associated with it, likely (although not defiantly) tied with a  neglect actions.
> 
> A whole society does not simply become significantly more overweight in a  few generations due to genetic reasons alone, that would take /many/  more generations. The big issue is from my understanding is becoming  obese causes health issues that make it harder to loose that mass, this  is part of the reason I think generational obesity through Being "raised  fat" is just as if not more abusive then beating the kids, intentional  or not.


Genes can't account for it, no, but no one is saying that they do.  Hypothyroidism, for example, is only sporadically congenital and in the developed world is  actually heavily associated with--you guessed it--stress. There are also  causes like physical disability, medication side effects, living in a  food desert, upbringing, etc.,

But yes, the primary underlying  cause likely is cultural. We do live in a culture which, although it  despises the overweight, celebrates a number of things that would cause a  person to become overweight. Our junk food is subsidized and our  physical education programs are underfunded.  We encourage high-stress  lifestyles and value the person who works overtime and grabs some  McDonalds on the way home over the person who clocks out on time and  spends an hour on a home-cooked meal. We let junk food advertisers sink  their hooks into people practically in infancy. Now, these things  theoretically could be overcome with sufficient self-control, but it's  really not a wonder that people fall through the cracks on them, and the  obesity epidemic is likely to continue for as long as these policies do,  quite regardless of any stigma or lack thereof concerning the  overweight.


EDIT: And, I actually do believe that it's possible for a person to be naturally heavier that average, even without a health problem of some sort. I naturally bounce between underweight to low-end average; I don't really see why someone else couldn't do the opposite, although I doubt it accounts for medical obesity.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 3, 2012)

i love how much this argument gets defended with "well i just don't want them to be FAT! "...just sayin'.

i don't know that anyone should approach the situation with "is it as bad as [x]?" but rather "discrimination is awful in every way". i mean, this isn't a war. it's people being mistreated for who they are. there shouldn't be a "WELL AT LEAST YOU'RE NOT BEING MISTREATED BECAUSE YOU'RE [x]!"

weight and body discrimination definitely does exist, and i feel like a lot of it is pseudosympathetic "I'M JUST LOOKING OUT FOR YOU" when in reality people don't want to just outright say "you need to stop being fat/thin because i don't like it" (which is also fucked up and shouldn't be said either). there is definitely a lot of mistreatment based on size on both sides of the field. people think that weight shaming only happens to overweight people, but it happens a lot to naturally skinny people, and can be just as destructive.

so yes, size discrimination happens. no, it shouldn't be approached with a "but is it as bad as...?" topic. that only promotes ignoring mistreatment with "at least you're not being mistreated for...!" defenses.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 3, 2012)

Spits said:


> weight and body discrimination definitely does exist, and i feel like a lot of it is pseudosympathetic "I'M JUST LOOKING OUT FOR YOU" when in reality people don't want to just outright say "you need to stop being fat/thin because i don't like it" (which is also fucked up and shouldn't be said either). there is definitely a lot of mistreatment based on size on both sides of the field. people think that weight shaming only happens to overweight people, but it happens a lot to naturally skinny people, and can be just as destructive.
> 
> so yes, size discrimination happens. no, it shouldn't be approached with a "but is it as bad as...?" topic. that only promotes ignoring mistreatment with "at least you're not being mistreated for...!" defenses.




I hope to god you are not seriously trying tell us that people don't give a fuck about other peoples health because in "reality" people can't say they don't like it because I will so smack you right now for talking utter bullshit.

Because I like many others know that when one is over weight (like myself) it causes health problems. Depending on your weight the health problems can be minor or major. Are you seriously trying to tell me that people just say nice things about loosing weight/gaining weight purely because they can't say they don't like it? 

I mean are you suggesting that we don;t encourage these people to loose/gain weight (which ever they need to do) to benefit their OWN health?


----------



## Rilvor (Jul 3, 2012)

Spits said:


> i love how much this argument gets defended with "well i just don't want them to be FAT! "...just sayin'.
> 
> i don't know that anyone should approach the situation with "is it as bad as [x]?" but rather "discrimination is awful in every way". i mean, this isn't a war. it's people being mistreated for who they are. there shouldn't be a "WELL AT LEAST YOU'RE NOT BEING MISTREATED BECAUSE YOU'RE [x]!"
> 
> ...



To assume sincerity does not exist is a height of folly and ignorance. Please think about such things before you speak, you cannot defend against ignorance with ignorance.


----------



## Bambi (Jul 3, 2012)

Uhm, I'd like to call bullshit on somethings real quick, and it's Spits who reminded me. First of all, a random stranger making an absurd comment about your weight is not really that concerned with what they perceive to be your actual, physical health; let's get specific here, as "concerned" as in "maternally worried that you're eating yourself to death" is more like, "Ew, gross, now let me be a dick and say something retarded." 

Here's what's really going on behind the facade of every "nice" bully, man, woman, or child: they a. see something that reminds themselves of their own battles with weight and image, and b. respond with appeals to ridicule in order to resolve their internal dissonance about such struggles.

Putting it into simpler terms: a random stranger whose got to say SOMETHING about what you're doing when it is absolutely not fucking with anybody elses shit is really just doing so to call attention to themselves. And what's really bad is when these people use the whole, "But I'm so concerned about you!" act, what they're really saying is, "I am going to be horrible and cruel right to your face, and than blame you for being insensitive or nonobjective when you call me on it." It's like I've wanted to say to these people (though have thankfully never had the opportunity): "Hey, asshole, leave the concerning to me, alright?" Another, more oh-so-subtle thing behind ridiculing someone for their weight and pretending it's care, is the fact that the people who are insulting you are really just trying to say, "Lose weight so you can be a more attractive person to fuck."

Don't take my argument out of context; it simply is meant to apply to the "nice" bully. Nice=/=kind. "Morality" of physical appearance=beauty pageant for shallow fuck-tards.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 3, 2012)

Bambi said:


> Uhm, I'd like to call bullshit on somethings real quick, and it's Spits who reminded me. First of all, a random stranger making an absurd comment about your weight is not really that concerned with what they perceive to be your actual, physical health; let's get specific here, as "concerned" as in "maternally worried that you're eating yourself to death" is more like, "Ew, gross, now let me be a dick and say something retarded."
> 
> Here's what's really going on behind the facade of every "nice" bully, man, woman, or child: they a. see something that reminds themselves of their own battles with weight and image, and b. respond with appeals to ridicule in order to resolve their internal dissonance about such struggles.
> 
> ...




Oh of course, complete strangers shouldn't comment, it's not their place too. I was more referring to friends and family saying something.


----------



## Rilvor (Jul 4, 2012)

Bambi said:


> Uhm, I'd like to call bullshit on somethings real quick, and it's Spits who reminded me. First of all, a random stranger making an absurd comment about your weight is not really that concerned with what they perceive to be your actual, physical health; let's get specific here, as "concerned" as in "maternally worried that you're eating yourself to death" is more like, "Ew, gross, now let me be a dick and say something retarded."
> 
> Here's what's really going on behind the facade of every "nice" bully, man, woman, or child: they a. see something that reminds themselves of their own battles with weight and image, and b. respond with appeals to ridicule in order to resolve their internal dissonance about such struggles.
> 
> ...


I think it is generally easy to tell the difference between sincerity and passive aggressiveness. I am not trying to say that what you are saying is invalid, but there are also people who take kindness and twist it into something horrible to harm you with. This is perhaps why sincerity is less common?


Randy-Darkshade said:


> Oh of course, complete strangers shouldn't comment, it's not their place too. I was more referring to friends and family saying something.


Indeed. This is mostly what I am talking about as well; People that know you.

However I do find it bothersome how often people are quick to discount sincerity [Or perhaps genuine, in the case of someone asking why] to place malice in its place. The cruelty of man is unending, but I have caught myself many a time discounting others for malice when I found it was not such much to my later guilt.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 4, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I hope to god you are not seriously trying tell us that people don't give a fuck about other peoples health because in "reality" people can't say they don't like it because I will so smack you right now for talking utter bullshit.
> 
> Because I like many others know that when one is over weight (like myself) it causes health problems. Depending on your weight the health problems can be minor or major. Are you seriously trying to tell me that people just say nice things about loosing weight/gaining weight purely because they can't say they don't like it?
> 
> I mean are you suggesting that we don;t encourage these people to loose/gain weight (which ever they need to do) to benefit their OWN health?



hfbbfbfhh where did you get that?
i don't even know where i said anything of that nature...

anyway...
no, i'm not saying anything related to  that? i said it's shitty for people to shame people's bodies for who they are, especially if they're just overweight or underweight and are still doing fine. i'm saying we should promote being HEALTHY, regardless of size. if you're healthy and overweight, rock on. if you're healthy and underweight, more power. that's what matters.

jfc.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 5, 2012)

Spits said:


> hfbbfbfhh where did you get that?
> i don't even know where i said anything of that nature...
> 
> anyway...
> ...



Dude, you can't be HEALTHY and OVERWEIGHT at the same time, it doesn't work.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 5, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Dude, you can't be HEALTHY and OVERWEIGHT at the same time, it doesn't work.



oh my jesus YES YOU CAN. there's a big difference between being overweight and being obese. just like you can be underweight and still be healthy. it's just how people's bodies work. 
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/phys-ed-can-you-be-overweight-and-still-be-healthy/ first search result. it's pretty simple, really. some bodies are just built to handle what they are. look at how many people are incredibly scrawny and have awesome metabolism. THEY'RE healthy. look at overweight people who can dance, and run, and do all this olympic shit. THEY'RE healthy.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Jul 5, 2012)

I'm a Furry, a Homosexual, Agnostic, a bit of an Emo, a Conscientiousness Objector and a tad bit overweight. So, I'll admit that I've been victim to metric shit-tons of discrimination, and have had my self-esteem shot more than Max Payne. But that hasn't stopped me and it never will. No way, no how.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Umm, yes there is dude, yes there is. Calmly telling someone "Ya know, you should consider loosing some weight, I'll help if you like" is far better than "You fucking fat lump of shit, you need to loose some fucking weight lardo"
> 
> So yes, there is a gentler way to put it.



I think the absolute key to losing weight is to remove any and all temptation and build up willpower against it. Hell, I haven't a single slice of cake or pizza in over a month! All because of one word: No. It's done wonders for me. =)


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jul 5, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Dude, you can't be HEALTHY and OVERWEIGHT at the same time, it doesn't work.


Untrue. "Overweight" is a nebulous concept. For example, the American female weightlifting champ, Sarah Robles, at 5'10'' and 275 lb is "severely obese" by conventional medical standards. That's _not_ just extra muscle goofing up the BMI system either. According to her own blog, her body fat percentage is 35%, which is also considered obese. Yet she has no outstanding medical problems* and is an Olympic athlete who could wipe the goddamn floor with every fat-shamer on this thread.

As far as I recall, Zenia has no heart, cholesterol, or mobility problems in spite of her weight. My ma's the same way--she does have some joint/organ problems but they come from a genetic condition, and I suffer from the same despite being variably under- or average weight. Health has more to do with genes, environment, and the quality (rather than quantity) of one's diet than it does with weight alone. Being overweight can come from an unhealthy lifestyle, but poor health does not necessarily come from being overweight. It is very possible to be overweight and quite healthy. 


*She did used to have high cholesterol but adjusted her diet and now it's actually lower than average. Her weight did not change.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 5, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Untrue. "Overweight" is a nebulous concept. For example, the American female weightlifting champ, Sarah Robles, at 5'10'' and 275 lb is "severely obese" by conventional medical standards. That's _not_ just extra muscle goofing up the BMI system either. According to her own blog, her body fat percentage is 35%, which is also considered obese. Yet she has no outstanding medical problems* and is an Olympic athlete who could wipe the goddamn floor with every fat-shamer on this thread.
> 
> As far as I recall, Zenia has no heart, cholesterol, or mobility problems in spite of her weight. My ma's the same way--she does have some joint/organ problems but they come from a genetic condition, and I suffer from the same despite being variably under- or average weight. Health has more to do with genes, environment, and the quality (rather than quantity) of one's diet than it does with weight alone. Being overweight can come from an unhealthy lifestyle, but poor health does not necessarily come from being overweight. It is very possible to be overweight and quite healthy.
> 
> ...





Spits said:


> oh my jesus YES YOU CAN. there's a big difference between being overweight and being obese. just like you can be underweight and still be healthy. it's just how people's bodies work.
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/phys-ed-can-you-be-overweight-and-still-be-healthy/ first search result. it's pretty simple, really. some bodies are just built to handle what they are. look at how many people are incredibly scrawny and have awesome metabolism. THEY'RE healthy. look at overweight people who can dance, and run, and do all this olympic shit. THEY'RE healthy.



I hate to burst ya bubble guys but even people who are mildly overweight (like myself) can be unhealthy. I can do everything you listed, I can run, skip, jump, ride a bicycle the six miles to my mums house and back again without stopping, ride 9 miles to the next town without a break (Yeah, I have high stamina I guess) My weight doesn't prevent me doing what people of an average weight can do, but I still have health problems, I'm now type two diabetic, I have high blood pressure and high lipids in my blood. It may or may not be directly caused by my weight (I am roughly 210lbs at 5'4") 

Perhaps what I should have said is, even being mildly over weight can cause some health issues. 

Maybe my diabetes was bought on because I adored energy drinks and had a very big sweet tooth, I loved candy bars, snack cakes, cookies, biscuits etc. I used to be able to gorge half a pack of cookies at a time, maybe all that sugar intake caused my pancreas to malfunction, I don't know I'm not an expert. I actually didn't think anything would go wrong with my body because I am always active and never gained any weight or lost any, and if I did go either way it was just a tiny bit. 

I am now trying to shake some weight off, hence why I snapped up that forman grill I mentioned in the fat furry pride thread. I'm even trying to spend my money each fortnight before I get tempted to go get a take out. I've pretty much had enough of my old lifestyle. All I see when I look down is a beer gut and I want to at least reduce it.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jul 5, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I hate to burst ya bubble guys but even people who are mildly overweight (like myself) can be unhealthy.


Absolutely at no point did anyone claim that it's impossible to be unhealthy whilst overweight. What's being argued against is the assumption that "you can't be HEALTHY and OVERWEIGHT at the same time, it doesn't work," which is blatantly untrue, as people like Sarah Robles demonstrate. It is completely possible to be overweight and healthy, just as it is possible to be average weight and unhealthy.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I can do everything you listed, I can run, skip, jump, ride a bicycle the six miles to my mums house and back again without stopping, ride 9 miles to the next town without a break (Yeah, I have high stamina I guess) My weight doesn't prevent me doing what people of an average weight can do, but I still have health problems, I'm now type two diabetic, I have high blood pressure and high lipids in my blood. It may or may not be directly caused by my weight (I am roughly 210lbs at 5'4")
> 
> Perhaps what I should have said is, even being mildly over weight can cause some health issues.
> 
> Maybe my diabetes was bought on because I adored energy drinks and had a very big sweet tooth, I loved candy bars, snack cakes, cookies, biscuits etc. I used to be able to gorge half a pack of cookies at a time, maybe all that sugar intake caused my pancreas to malfunction, I don't know I'm not an expert. I actually didn't think anything would go wrong with my body because I am always active and never gained any weight or lost any, and if I did go either way it was just a tiny bit.


It's more like that your weight is correlated with your health problems rather than the actual cause of them. I think your third paragraph here is spot on--your health problems were caused by your former diet. That may or may not have also caused your weight, but either way it wasn't the weight that cause the problems, it was your old diet. That kind of diet would also cause problems for someone like me who is naturally thin. (I can eat and eat and not gain a pound, runs in my father's side of the family.) The weight is (potentially) an additional side effect rather than a primary cause. 

Meanwhile, much as it is possible to have a low weight in spite of a poor diet, it's possible to have a high weight in spite of a good one. Individuals in the second situation will not necessarily have the health problems correlated with a heavy weight, as people like Sarah Robles, Zenia, and my mother demonstrate. (Again, my mother does have some health problems, but they aren't problems generally associated with weight issues, and I suffer from them too despite being quite thin.)



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I am now trying to shake some weight off, hence why I snapped up that forman grill I mentioned in the fat furry pride thread. I'm even trying to spend my money each fortnight before I get tempted to go get a take out. I've pretty much had enough of my old lifestyle. All I see when I look down is a beer gut and I want to at least reduce it.


I wish you luck in obtaining your goals.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 5, 2012)

ScaredToBreathe said:


> So I was watching a documentary trailer and someone said the following quote:
> 
> "Size discrimination is every bit as much of an oppression as class discrimination, color discrimination and sexism."
> 
> What do you folks think of a statement like this? Is size discrimination (basically hating on fat people) *as bad as* discrimination based on class, race or sex?



Absolutely not.

Well, by "discrimination" I don't usually think "hating on fat people" but I would think denying medical benefits or the like.  That WOULD be wrong.

But I think hating on fat people is OK for several reasons.

First off, although people can predisposed to gaining weight, it is of their own accord they become morbidly obese.

With proper diet and exercise this shouldn't happen to _anyone_.

Secondly (and most important) obesity was found to be socially contagious.  The study I'm thinking of found you are (statistically) 57% more likely to become obese if you have obese friends.  The reason is it is *socially contagious* and since people judge themselves in terms of the others around them, they often won't see anything wrong with it if they too get overweight and turn into a blimp.

So I think there needs to be MORE hating on fat people, because it's NOT okay to let yourself become morbidly obese.

Our society is such a hugbox though, it's seen as WRONG to say anything about it.

No, it is not OK.  Of course I'm talking about people who are obese and not someone who is just kind of out of shape.

Everyone is different and has different body types, yadda, yadda.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 5, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Absolutely not.



How is it not? Discrimination is discrimination no matter what. If you don;t want to say, employ black people because they are black, that's discrimination against their color (Also probably considered racism too) Same as if you don't think women should do a "mans job" that is considered sexism and is discriminating against a specific gender. How do you see fat people treated in the same way as being different? If an employer wont employ someone because they are fat it's still discrimination, just against that persons size.



> Well, by "discrimination" I don't usually think "hating on fat people" but I would think denying medical benefits or the like.  That WOULD be wrong.
> 
> But I think hating on fat people is OK for several reasons.



No, it's not okay. It's not okay to hate on someone because of their skin color, gender, size or looks.



> First off, although people can predisposed to gaining weight, it is of their own accord they become morbidly obese.



Wrong. There are cases out there where being obese is a result of a medical condition. To assume everyone who is morbidly obese is that way as a result of their own doing is rather naive. Same as people who are skinny. They could be beleimic(sp) or anorexic, recognized medical conditions aka eating disorders. Same as comfort eating as a result of depression is also an eating disorder, or being addicted to food. Don;t assume it is the fault of that person that they are over weight/skinny, that is very naive.



> With proper diet and exercise this shouldn't happen to _anyone_.



Again this is wrong for people suffering from medical conditions. 



> Secondly (and most important) obesity was found to be socially contagious.  The study I'm thinking of found you are (statistically) 57% more likely to become obese if you have obese friends.  The reason is it is *socially contagious* and since people judge themselves in terms of the others around them, they often won't see anything wrong with it if they too get overweight and turn into a blimp.




Lol I call bollocks on that. Obesity isn't a contagious disease.



> So I think there needs to be MORE hating on fat people, because it's NOT okay to let yourself become morbidly obese.



So you're saying we should hate on fat people even if their weight is a result of a medical condition and of no fault of their own. All I have to say to that is, fuck you.



> Our society is such a hugbox though, it's seen as WRONG to say anything about it.



There is a right way and a wrong way to handle it and to be honest with you, a random persons weight is non of my fucking business so what right do I have to go hating on a person I don't know?


----------



## Ricky (Jul 5, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> How is it not? Discrimination is discrimination no matter what. If you don;t want to say, employ black people because they are black, that's discrimination against their color (Also probably considered racism too)



I made it pretty clear I wasn't using discrimination in that context.

Although it's the correct definition of the word, the OP states it refers to "hating on fat people."

Actually denying the people rights (and taking specific action to do so) is wrong and probably illegal.



> No, it's not okay. It's not okay to hate on someone because of their skin color, gender, size or looks.



I can hate anyone I want for whatever reason I want.



> Wrong. There are cases out there where being obese is a result of a medical condition.



If you consider the inability to stop putting food in one's mouth a "medical condition" then maybe.  Otherwise, no.



> Lol I call bollocks on that. Obesity isn't a contagious disease.



It's socially contagious.  I also cited a study that was all over the news a few years back.

That's not an opinion; it's a statistically proven fact.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 5, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I can hate anyone I want for whatever reason I want.



That just makes you an asshole. It also doesn't make it right to hate on people for stupid reasons.



> If you consider the inability to stop putting food in one's mouth a "medical condition" then maybe.  Otherwise, no.



I suggest you go look up medical conditions relating to weight gain before you continue spouting this shit.





> It's socially contagious.  I also cited a study that was all over the news a few years back.
> 
> That's not an opinion; it's a statistically proven fact.



And it's my opinion that the study is bollocks.


----------



## Onnes (Jul 5, 2012)

Ricky said:


> It's socially contagious.  I also cited a study that was all over the news a few years back.
> 
> That's not an opinion; it's a statistically proven fact.



Your conclusions do not follow from this study. Stop pretending that scientific research is supportive of your thoughts when it clearly isn't.

Let me just drop this in here. Shared Risk and Protective Factors for Overweight and Disordered Eating in Adolescents. This study found that adolescents teased about their weight were more likely to still be overweight over five year than their peers. Such fat shaming also also led to increased incidence binge eating and extreme weight-control methods. I think it's safe to assume these effects are not confined to adolescents.

So yeah, fat shaming makes people more fat. Yay science!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 5, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Your conclusions do not follow from this study. Stop pretending that scientific research is supportive of your thoughts when it clearly isn't.
> 
> Let me just drop this in here. Shared Risk and Protective Factors for Overweight and Disordered Eating in Adolescents. This study found that adolescents teased about their weight were more likely to still be overweight over five year than their peers. Such fat shaming also also led to increased incidence binge eating and extreme weight-control methods. I think it's safe to assume these effects are not confined to adolescents.
> 
> So yeah, fat shaming makes people more fat. Yay science!



Exactly why I have said more than once that their is a right way and a wrong way to deal with it. bullying people over their weight wont have the desired affect people want. Bullying also makes the bully out to be a complete prick who can't be arsed to understand the reasons behind why they are like they are.

I can see bullying an overweight person going in one of two directions, they might A: become depressed and binge/comfort eat making their weight worse or B: starve themselves, loose the weight but become anorexic in the process.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 5, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I suggest you go look up medical  conditions relating to weight gain before you continue spouting this  shit.



Don't reply to my post and tell me "go read."  That's stupid.

You made the assertion.  Back it up.



Onnes said:


> Your conclusions do not follow from this study. Stop pretending that scientific research is supportive of your thoughts when it clearly isn't.



Yeah they do.  People are too friendly with fat/obese people and this leads to more obesity.



> Let me just drop this in here. Shared Risk and Protective Factors for Overweight and Disordered Eating in Adolescents. This study found that adolescents teased about their weight were more likely to still be overweight over five year than their peers.



As opposed to _more likely_?  (which might actually have some significance if that were the case)

I'm not going to read through the entire PDF and since you failed to cite any relevant portions I skimmed through it.

A few things I noticed -- they aren't talking about obesity; they are talking about people who are overweight.  They also never concluded "adolescents teased about their weight were more likely to still be overweight over five year than their peers" that I can see.

Can you cite the relevant part of the article you're referring to?

Don't throw an entire PDF at me and make shit up.

That's also stupid.

edit:  I think I found where you're referring to and it's specific for girls.

It's also not talking about obesity so even for girls it's completely irrelevant to what I'm saying.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 5, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Don't reply to my post and tell me "go read."  That's stupid.
> 
> You made the assertion.  Back it up.



http://www.webmd.com/diet/medical-reasons-obesity

It's not hard to type into google, though you seem to find it hard for some reason.



> *Hypothyroidism.* This is a condition where the thyroid gland, located in the neck, produces too little thyroid hormone. Thyroid hormone regulates our metabolism. So too little hormone slows the metabolism and often causes weight gain. If your doctor suspects thyroid disease as a cause of your obesity, he or she may perform blood tests to check your hormone levels.



One condition that causes weight gain. 



> *Cushing's syndrome.* This condition results when the adrenal glands (located on top of each kidney) produce an excess amount of a steroid hormone called cortisol. This leads to a build-up of fat in characteristic sites such as the face, upper back, and abdomen.



Second medical condition.

Also, you seem to think (or give the impression) that being obese only applies to those that are like 400+lbs. This, is wrong. If you are overweight for someone your height/build, you are obese.



> Yeah they do.  People are too friendly with fat/obese people and this leads to more obesity.



Please provide you evidence to back this claim up, otherwise stop spouting complete BS.


----------



## Onnes (Jul 5, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Yeah they do.  People are too friendly with fat/obese people and this leads to more obesity.



This is not the conclusion of that study. Read it again. Perhaps I'm being too subtle here. The study says nothing about people being "too friendly" or that somehow shaming those who are obese will lead to any sort of reduction. You're claiming that said study concludes that, despite culture already heavily attacking anyone seen to be overweight or obese, obese people have too many friends and if they lost them obesity would decrease. I don't know how I can make the stupidity of this any clearer.



> snip



I stated part of the conclusion of that study.



			
				Study Results said:
			
		

> Weight-related problems were identified in 44% of the female subjects and 29% of the
> male subjects. About 40% of overweight girls and 20% of overweight boys engaged in
> at least one of the disordered eating behaviors (binge eating and/or extreme weight
> control). Weight-teasing by family, personal weight concerns, and dieting/unhealthy
> ...




 The correlations of Time 2 overweight status with Time 1 teasing by both peers and family held after adjustments for Time 1 status and demographics for both boys and girls. I'm not going to hold your hand and go through methodology and individual statistics. If you want to challenge the conclusion then that is your problem. If you want I'll drag out the three similar cited studies which reached the same conclusion.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 5, 2012)

Onnes said:


> This is not the conclusion of that study. Read it again. Perhaps I'm being too subtle here. The study says nothing about people being "too friendly" or that somehow shaming those who are obese will lead to any sort of reduction. You're claiming that said study concludes that, despite culture already heavily attacking anyone seen to be overweight or obese, obese people have too many friends and if they lost them obesity would decrease.



It doesn't state people are too friendly.  I was hoping you could use common sense to make an inference.

If they lost friends then those friends would be less likely to be obese (depending how many other obese people they are friends with).




> The correlations of Time 2 overweight status with Time 1 teasing by both peers and family held after adjustments for Time 1 status and demographics for both boys and girls. I'm not going to hold your hand and go through methodology and individual statistics. If you want to challenge the conclusion then that is your problem. If you want I'll drag out the three similar cited studies which reached the same conclusion.



I already said they are talking about people who are overweight and not obese.

Hence it is irrelevant to anything I said.

They are also talking about adolescents, it seems.  Adults shouldn't have such fragile egos.


----------



## Onnes (Jul 5, 2012)

I give up. You've gone into the realm of the blind and absurd and I should know better than to even bother.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 5, 2012)

Over weight and obese are basically the same fucking thing.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 5, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Over weight and obese are basically the same fucking thing.



really, now?  :roll:


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 5, 2012)

Ricky said:


> really, now?  :roll:



Yes, to be obese you have to be over the general weight for your group, if you're not over that weight how can you be obese?

In lamens terms, if you're not over weight how can you be obese?


----------



## Ricky (Jul 5, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Yes, to be obese you have to be over the general weight for your group, if you're not over that weight how can you be obese?
> 
> In lamens terms, if you're not over weight how can you be obese?



_lamens?_

I don't know what that means, but generally overweight and obese are two distinct groups on the BMI scale.

Yes, people who are obese are also overweight.  That falls into the "no shit" category.

They are not the same thing.


----------



## Bambi (Jul 5, 2012)

Okay, so they might not be the same thing, but the language does appear to be getting ambiguous. Where overweight once would have been used to describe someone whose twenty over, now it appears to be near synonymous with "Obese". If someone's making a cultural argument about the issue and how they are basically the same thing, more than likely they're picking up the social Zeitgeist of lumping everyone whose out of shape into the obese category.

Wasn't there also the discrepancy with overweight and obese as terms to describe someone who happened to be "overweight" specifically because the BMI is, and I can't recall if this isn't true, had some issues, or people had issues with how it was measured? Someone whose 6'4 and weighs 220lbs might be obese, but I mean Christ, he could also be some meat-head on Jersey Shore.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> _lamens?_
> 
> I don't know what that means



Laymen's Terms = To put something in layman's terms is to describe a complex or technical issue using words and terms that the average individual (someone without professional training in the subject area) can understand, so that they may comprehend the issue to some degree.

Man, I love Wikipedia.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Bipolar Bear said:


> Laymen's Terms = To put something in layman's terms is to describe a complex or technical issue using words and terms that the average individual (someone without professional training in the subject area) can understand, so that they may comprehend the issue to some degree.
> 
> Man, I love Wikipedia.



Oh.  So _layman's_ (as opposed to _lamens_, which is what he wrote).

I was making fun of the misspelling, you dork =P


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Oh.  So _layman's_ (as opposed to _lamens_, which is what he wrote).
> 
> I was making fun of the misspelling, you dork =P


Going after typos is pretty weak, bro.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Going after typos is pretty weak, bro.



That's not a typo.  It's using big words you don't know how to spell.

A typo is when you fuck up a key or something.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> That's not a typo.  It's using big words you don't know how to spell.
> 
> A typo is when you fuck up a key or something.


He only missed a key.* Just as likely a regular typo. It's not like he spelled it "laimins" or something.

But I'm not going to continue arguing about it.


*Well, two if you include the apostrophe, but people goof up possessives all the time.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> He only missed a key.* Just as likely a regular typo. It's not like he spelled it "laimins" or something.
> 
> But I'm not going to continue arguing about it.
> 
> ...



_la*y*m-e-*a*n's

_2 keys.  Without the apostrophe.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> _la*y*m-e-*a*n's
> 
> _2 keys.  Without the apostrophe.


This is the trouble with announcing one's departure: There's always a reason to come back.

Laymen is the plural of layman. The singular is used more commonly for that idiom but either works.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> This is the trouble with announcing one's departure: There's always a reason to come back.
> 
> Laymen is the plural of layman. The singular is used more commonly for that idiom but either works.



http://www.google.com/search?q="laymens"

See where it says:



> Did you mean: "layman's"



That's _*BECAUSE IT IS FUCKING WRONG*_*



*it is not the proper way to spell the goddamned phrase


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> http://www.google.com/search?q="laymens"
> 
> See where it says:
> 
> ...


So upset.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/layman

See where it says:



> noun, plural layÂ·men.



Either is grammatically acceptable.


This is a really silly derail. I'm out. Pax.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Either is grammatically acceptable.



No.  No, it's not.

"Laymen's terms" isn't a proper phrase.

Please go to bed.


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 6, 2012)

Stop being silly and get back to talking about fatties.


----------



## Neuron (Jul 6, 2012)

BMI is a shitty way to measure anything individually (although it's great for giving us a broader picture of society.)

The problem is people that are overlapping "overweight" and "obese" as meaning exactly the same thing, causing people like me who eat quite healthy and exercise a good amount but are in that naturally "overweight" bracket to have a lot of displaced discrimination. The problem is people failing to fucking understand how complicated weight issues can be, and what their hurtful words do to people who are vulnerable with self-esteem issues and should not be exercising to be pretty *for you*; they should be exercising for the health of *themselves*. But when people throw out all these hurtful words over how it's their fault, it's all just laziness, they are shitty people, they are ruining society, etc, that doesn't exactly make people who struggle with weight issues encouraged to put down the twinkie and hop on the treadmill. If anything, you're going to encourage the self-pity of, "No one loves meeee" and they'll just eat the whole damn box of pastries.

The shitty weight discrimination problem encourages unhealthy ways of losing weight, and only discourages people who want to lose weight because it makes them feel worthless as people in general. 

If you want a society full of healthy adults with a good weight range, I suggest that people recognize that everyone has a different body. Everyone has different needs. To really address the obesity problem in this nation and others, this is the first goddamn point that needs to be bolded and fucking emphasized. What is "overweight" for one person with a small build may be a perfectly normal weight range for someone else with a different build. What is actually healthy is not measured in your BMI, or in how much you _appear_ to weigh. It is measured in how you are eating, how much you are exercising, and what is good for YOU, and I believe my post demonstrates that how someone appears to be is not always the best indicator of what their lifestyle is like.

So how about everyone just kind of knocks it the fuck off, because what I'm trying to say is you don't know if that person you're going to laugh at for having fat rolls is struggling with some kind of medical issue, food allergy, and you have no idea what their lifestyle is like, you have no idea if they are sitting on the couch all day being lazy or whether they are getting up and jogging to try and get it down unless you actually know them.

And if you actually know them, don't be like my family, okay? If someone asks you for diet advice, exercising advice, I mean, sure, feel free to tell them what you know. But this trend of completely random and unwarranted diet and exercise advice is annoying and won't help, because more than likely you don't know what the fuck you're actually talking about, especially since everyone's needs are different. You're more likely to just end up unintentionally hurting them with your good intentions.

The best thing you can do is be congratulatory and say, hey man, that's good for you, and be ENCOURAGING of exercising, eating healthier, etc. Even if it's a small effort that you think is just laughable, weight loss requires baby steps. Great change doesn't happen overnight unless people are starving like I was. So encourage those baby steps, don't be a dick.

Phew that's a long post. 

TL;DR I had a long struggle with weight issues because of birth control pills that stupid doctors didn't recommend I stop taking because they refused to listen to me when I had a huge problem losing weight. Later, when I lived out on my own, I lost a lot of weight by starving and people praised me for it, which is p. fucked up. Then my family made fun of me for that when I moved back in after realizing what it was, and I thought that was pretty fucked up, too.

The point of this long and elaborate tale is to say that everyone has different needs for their own health and good health is in no way measured by how someone appears to be, so the problem of size discrimination obviously will impact individuals attempting weight loss negatively. The best thing you can do is be encouraging of even the smallest lifestyle changes that will lead to better health in your friends and family.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Neuron said:


> BMI is a shitty way to measure anything individually (although it's great for giving us a broader picture of society.)



I agree with that.  It's maybe OK as a rule of thumb but there are so many exceptions it's ridiculous they use it as a metric in law, etc.

People have different body types though, and looking like people do in the magazines isn't healthy for _most _people.

But society has the idea that's what a healthy person looks like, because people are dumb shits.

People are really supposed to have some bodyfat, and unless you force yourself to have a certain body type (which you're probably doing for asthetic reasons, anyway) people could be healthy at either side of the scale: really thin or kinda big.  (not obese)

Technically I'm overweight because I lift weights a lot.  Just another reason BMI really isn't worth shit.



> The problem is people that are overlapping "overweight" and "obese" as meaning exactly the same thing, causing people like me who eat quite healthy and exercise a good amount but are in that naturally "overweight" bracket to have a lot of displaced discrimination.



_Who_ is doing that?

I don't think most people hold everyone to the standards you'll find in magazines.

If someone is mildly overweight I doubt even a handful of people are far gone enough to think they are obese.

People don't think they are the same thing.

Also, you mentioned you were 200 lbs, but I don't know how tall you are so that doesn't mean anything.

You mentioned you started binge eating again but not the first time you started binge eating.

But all told, even if that happened before it was most likely your doctor's fault.  They probably should have checked thyroid right away and they should know what you are on and the possible side effects.  It's their job.  Doing something and getting no results can be really frustrating and it's easy to give up.  I'm not sure I could benefit from running a mile a day myself, though.  Probably with cutting calories but I like eating too much to want to do that, so I just do lots of cardio instead


----------



## Neuron (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I agree with that.  It's maybe OK as a rule of thumb but there are so many exceptions it's ridiculous they use it as a metric in law, etc.
> 
> People have different body types though, and looking like people do in the magazines isn't healthy for _most _people.
> 
> ...


I am very short, but I have a broader build with larger hips and breasts than a woman of similar height with a narrower build and smaller breasts and hips. This means I often carry more weight than those comparable short women. So even though BMI doesn't mean a lot in my case, yes, the 200 lbs all of the sudden was incredibly alarming. The fact that I could not lose it no matter what was even more alarming! 

But my doctors, trained into believing that BMI is the epitome of how they label what is obese and isn't, and often with the mindset of, "Losing weight is really easy as long as you aren't a lazy pighead" from years of becoming jaded from the amount of 400+ "hambeasts" as the internet calls them, who do actually have issues with their concepts of health and need some incredible amounts of intervention, failed to realize that and thought it was just easier to dismiss me often with a cruel tone of voice that said, "I fucking hate your lazy fatass, get out of my office and quit asking me to do my job" and throw me in the same boat they do every "obese" person, than to actually do their fucking jobs. 

This is problem that you will probably find in many a doctor's office across America, and it's quite sad.



Ricky said:


> _Who_ is doing that?


Yo man, you answered that question yourself in the first part of your post.

"People have different body types though, and looking like people do in the magazines isn't healthy for _most _people.

But society has the idea that's what a healthy person looks like, because people are dumb shits."

This is society's problem. It's a problem with the conceptions of health in general being tied to weight and how you look so closely and not actually, you know, eating healthy and exercising disregarding what you look like, that causes this overlap.



Ricky said:


> I don't think most people hold everyone to the standards you'll find in magazines.
> 
> If someone is mildly overweight I doubt even a handful of people are far gone enough to think they are obese.
> 
> ...


LOOK AT YOUR POST AND MY POST, DUDE.

You pinpointed the problem. I pinpointed the problem. It's people like these shitty doctors I have had for years that just think dealing with fatasses is too hard and disgusting, and start throwing people with real medical issues into the same boat, and people that are subscribing to this idea that a thin body with average height and less than average body weight is ideal. 

I think most people would just like to say they don't have those images from the magazines, but even though I have a different philosophy on what "healthy" means beyond just what you look like you weigh and what you actually weigh, I won't get through to most average people who's ideal of health just really boils down to, "how fat do I appear to be to other people?" I've seen too many people who just cannot tell the difference between a few extra pounds they need not worry about and when they are actually becoming obese. I can't count the number of women a day I encounter who gain a little weight and go, "Oh no, am I fat? I must be fat." They look at themselves as if they are just one pound away from being on a rascal, while nothing could be further from the truth.

It's a genuine problem, and I think everything about my quite personal anecdote demonstrates that there is a disturbing amount of people who are taking the magazine's POV.

I could go into more things that demonstrate my encounters with people that still bully me and other women on the street for being a fatass and being ugly and etc, but I feel like I've put a whining tone into my posts enough already. Point is, most people say they don't, but then society has this pretty huge problem that encourages everyone to think this way, to make up this conventional societal standard of beauty that is ridiculous and tie it to a measurement of how healthy someone is, and they end up subscribing to the mindset of overweight and obese overlapping whether it shows or not.


----------



## Bambi (Jul 6, 2012)

Neuron said:


> But my doctors, trained into believing that BMI is the epitome of how they label what is obese and isn't, and often with the mindset of, "Losing weight is really easy as long as you aren't a lazy pighead" from years of becoming jaded from the amount of 400+ "hambeasts" as the internet calls them, who do actually have issues with their concepts of health and need some incredible amounts of intervention, failed to realize that and thought it was just easier to dismiss me often with a cruel tone of voice that said, "I fucking hate your lazy fatass, get out of my office and quit asking me to do my job" and throw me in the same boat they do every "obese" person, than to actually do their fucking jobs.


This so much.

I need to find the -- HAH! Found it. 





> msnbc.msn.com, "When you lose weight -- and gain it all back."; Gretchen Voss, Womens Health:
> 
> ...
> Why does your own metabolism thwart you? Simple, says Kelly Brownell,  M.D., director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale  University: "The body may perceive dieting as a threat to its survival.  It might not know the difference between Atkins and famine."
> ...


For the whole, "Just stop eating so much" crowd, or anyone else for that matter who wanted some basic information on as to what makes weight loss so much harder for others.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

*Neuron:*

I was stating people think the _ideal picture of health_ is what you see in magazines, and this isn't the case.

People don't get "overweight" and "obese" confused, and neither do doctors.

The distinction is most people on average _do not_ look like the people in magazines, and if someone has a large build I don't think they are seen by many people as "obese."  If that were the case, they would have this attitude with most everyone.  Something like 2/3 of Americans are considered overweight or higher.

If you were getting to the point where your BMI fell near/under obese, it's not because of your natural body type but a combination of the medicine/hypothyroid syndrome and the fact that you were eating enough food / not expending enough calories to get to that weight.  Your doctors were correct at that point to try and get you to do something about it, even though they kinda missed the boat.  You can still curb off fat with diet and exercise.  It's the laws of Conservation Of Energy and Mass.  You need to eat to get calories to use as energy or your body will need to consume it's own tissue to get it instead (which is primarily fat).

Again, though...  I don't know your height at the time so you may have fallen under obese, or moderately overweight.

If you were just moderately overweight I don't think your doctors were under the impression you were obese but rather they saw warning signs and told you about them (even though they missed the main reason your metabolism sucked).  If people made fun of you calling you fat maybe they were just being dicks and grasping at straws?  (or maybe they knew it would bother you)

*Bambi*:

Strict dieting can fuck up your metabolism.  That's why it works that way.

You still need to be in a calorie deficit to burn fat (...duh) but it's best to taper off calories slowly and also do lots of cardio instead of just starving yourself.

Still, you can definitely burn fat by cutting calories, even _only_ doing that.

That's physics.


----------



## Neuron (Jul 6, 2012)

and i give up.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Neuron said:


> I told you about situations of mine where people get those confused all the time, and you just simply choose to fucking ignore me like you did with Onnes, and you'll just reword everything and make everything my fucking fault like you made it Onnes' fault for "not reading the study" even though YOU didn't and he finally got frustrated and gave up because you completely ignored and disregarded everything he fucking said.
> 
> Will you shut the fuck up and quit not knowing what you're talking about if you're just going to pretend to read everything and not actually do it? Thanks.



U mad?

You didn't give me any situation where people get overweight and obese confused all the time.  So...  Yeah.

If you're considered obese by BMI then you have a serious fucking problem.  Yeah, the scale isn't always good for determining if people are slightly overweight but you're talking about the extreme side of the spectrum where pretty much anyone in it has a problem (save maybe this guy).  There are very few exceptions to this, and I'm certain you aren't one of them.

Also, I complained to Onnes for not citing stuff in the paper because I didn't want to read the whole thing just to find the relevant parts.  I never complained about him not reading it.  And it turned out to be mostly irrelevant anyway, like usual where people throw a PDF at you to try and back their argument.



> No seriously fuck you and don't fucking talk about my health problems like you know _shit_, because you don't know my medical history aside from one very specific story I told you.



I only said if you were considered obese there is no way in fucking hell that could be considered healthy for you because of your body type.

That's rediculous.



> You keep talking about my height and weight despite the fact you said you don't give a fuck about BMI and don't subscribe to it, then you go on to ASSUME what my specific problems with overeating and shit were WITHOUT EVEN FUCKING KNOWING ME, Just a tiny little TIDBIT that I was afraid of people like you misinterpreting and jumping in with a whole bunch of bullshit about YOUR DOCTORS WERE RIGHT AND WEREN'T REALLY DISMISSING YOUR PROBLEMS AND MISTREATING YOU.



I don't think BMI is a good metric, but knowing your height is pretty important when trying to judge if your weight is possibly okay given you may have a large build, or obese (which would be on the extreme side of things).  So it really had nothing to do with BMI.

The rest of that I'll ignore because you are obviously quite angry and you're taking what I said out of context.



> And to make things WORSE, dismissing how hurt I was and how bad it affected me to not be able to exercise for my own good and you're sitting here trying to think of any reason it's okay for people to be dicks to people with weight problems because it will "bother them" into doing something about it, which is what people are pissed off at you for because it's a seriously asshole attitude to have and it's incorrect.



I'm not one to join in people's pity party.  And yeah, I'm a bit of an asshole.  It's just my nature.

Still, doesn't change the fact that I'm right.



> I was 200 lbs and obese and trying everything from eating much healthier to a fuckload of exercise to get it down, and I sat there and told my doctors multiple times EXACTLY FUCKING THIS, and they didn't believe me, and you don't believe me either about how hard I tried. Fuck you and leave me alone, never respond to me again because I will not respond to you. I don't appreciate being talked down by the likes of people like you who make everyone's BMI their fucking business to correct.



Oh, okay.  So you were considered obese then.

I don't really need to know any more than that.

There's no way you could fall under "obese" just because of your normal build / body type.

That is an extreme and is normal for NO ONE.  That is why it is different then just "overweight."

So yeah, I guess OTHER PEOPLE are NOT the ones getting "obese" and "overweight" confused.  _*YOU ARE!!!*_


----------



## Neuron (Jul 6, 2012)

*I never, ever, said that I was obese and that it was just "normal" for me. This is your own assumption. READ MY POST AGAIN*



Neuron said:


> I am very short, but I have a broader build with  larger hips and breasts than a woman of similar height with a narrower  build and smaller breasts and hips. This means I often carry more weight  than those comparable short women. *So even though BMI doesn't mean a  lot in my case, yes, the 200 lbs all of the sudden was incredibly  alarming.* The fact that I could not lose it no matter what was even more  alarming!


If you don't get the SUBTLETY of what I was trying to say, let me REWORD IT for you. While I am a naturally "bigger" chick and usually BMI is not a good way to tell if I am overweight, I recognized 200 lbs as being concerning for my short body type and being OBESE and was alarmed that I could do nothing about said obesity even with a lot of effort. And my doctors completely ignored my pleas that something else was wrong and disregarded me as simply not trying hard enough.

But I'm done. My point was that someone's appearance of being obese does not necessarily mean they are obese because of the reasons you assume them to be and it does not mean they are doing "nothing" about their problem. I had another point that there's doctors who are not addressing the real needs of their patients out of a misplaced hatred for anyone with a BMI of obese that is "wasting their time" with their "laziness" that was obviously lost on you. My point was also that bullying people who are obese in an attempt to "bother them" into having low self esteem and thus the motivation to lose weight will do nothing but encourage them to gain weight, a point that will never be understood by the likes of you. I am no longer considered obese so your goading that I am definitely obese is something that was in the past, but another thing you failed to understand by not reading, but I don't have to justify myself to someone who is obviously needs a tutor just to read a fucking post on the internet. So in short, I'm _through.
_


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

You're still mad.


----------



## Neuron (Jul 6, 2012)

you illiterate son of a bitch. get off this fucking forum, it requires reading and a high school level education that you don't fucking have.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Neuron said:


> you illiterate son of a bitch. get off this fucking forum, it requires reading and a high school level education that you don't fucking have.



Hey, at least I'm getting payed right now... :roll:


----------



## Tango (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> You're still mad.



Going the 'U mad, bro?' route? Wow, that's kinda dickless of you. Funny thing is that most pro bodybuilders would fall under 'obese' on the BMI yet most of them have very little body fat. And what about pro athletes? You know, like pro football players? I'd like to see you call a 6'4" offensive lineman obese then try to outrun him. I mean he's 'obese' right? Should be no problem for you to outrun that guy, right?

I understand the point you were -trying- to make but next time do it in a more tactful and way less retarded manner.


----------



## Neuron (Jul 6, 2012)

Go wipe your fucking paycheck with your ass, I don't give a shit how much money you claim to make over me and I don't even fucking believe a retard like you that can't read has a fucking job.


----------



## Tango (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Hey, at least I'm getting payed right now... :roll:




And? You act as though a paycheck (I'm guessing a meager one) is some huge accomplishment. People like you amuse me so much.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Neuron said:


> Go wipe your fucking paycheck with your ass, I don't give a shit how much money you claim to make over me and I don't even fucking believe a retard like you that can't read has a fucking job.



I have people skills.



Tango said:


> And? You act as though a paycheck (I'm guessing a  meager one) is some huge accomplishment. People like you amuse me so  much.



Right now, at the current moment.

As opposed to another moment when I would probably be doing something better with my time then posting here making owl/goat people angry.

Also, there is no such thing as Psilocybin Cubensis.  It's Psilocybe cubensis.  Psilocybin is a drug.


----------



## Tango (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I have people skills.



Bwahahahah!!!! Sure you do. You have all the charm of a 14 year old South Korean kid losing at DotA 2.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Tango said:


> Bwahahahah!!!! Sure you do. You have all the charm of a 14 year old South Korean kid losing at DotA 2.



Fix your species.


----------



## Tango (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Also, there is no such thing as Psilocybin Cubensis.  It's Psilocybe cubensis.  Psilocybin is a drug.



Oh! Look out folks! we have Spergy the Badass Botanist over here! :V


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Tango said:


> Oh! Look out folks! we have Spergy the Badass Botanist over here! :V



Mycologist.  It's a mushroom.  Botanists don't study mushrooms :roll:

You're right.  Maybe I just don't match the intelligence level of the people here.


----------



## Neuron (Jul 6, 2012)

oh look guys he knows everything about fungi, too!

shit I didn't know we had a fucking EXPERT in health AND plants over here. GET OUTTA HERE, NO WAI.

Wait aren't you supposed to be at work, getting paid, or some such nonsense instead of gracing us with your knowledge of everything?

I bet your boss would totally love to know about you wasting company internet posting on some shitty furry forum to piss off harmless oats. :V


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Neuron said:


> oh look guys he knows everything about fungi, too!
> 
> shit I didn't know we had a fucking EXPERT in health AND plants over here. GET OUTTA HERE, NO WAI.



I have to be an expert to know the difference between a botanist and a mycologist?

I always thought that was pretty basic...


----------



## Tango (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Fix your species.



Aww...It's almost like you care or something! Inner-City Kitty? I didn't know that was an actual species of feline. If that's the case why does your avatar look like a scared rabbit with jaundice? 

Great thing is that everyone already knows your a shitty little fail troll so no one is going to really give a damn as to what you say or think. You just happened to catch Neuron on a bad day in a bad way and rode it as far as you could go with it. Congrats. Still doesn't change the fact that you are a sad, cock-juggling little shit heel who will always be -at best- tolerated here. 

And if you disappeared no one here or I imagine anywhere else would even remotely give a damn.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Tango said:


> Aww...It's almost like you care or something! Inner-City Kitty? I didn't know that was an actual species of feline. If that's the case why does your avatar look like a scared rabbit with jaundice?



It's a character from Fritz the Cat.

Seeing how he was a junky and junkies often have hep C the jaundice doesn't seem that far fetched.



> Great thing is that everyone already knows your a shitty little fail troll so no one is going to really give a damn as to what you say or think. You just happened to catch Neuron on a bad day in a bad way and rode it as far as you could go with it. Congrats. Still doesn't change the fact that you are a sad, cock-juggling little shit heel who will always be -at best- tolerated here.
> 
> And if you disappeared no one here or I imagine anywhere else would even remotely give a damn.



If nobody gives a damn, why has this thread gotten so emotional? <3


----------



## Tango (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I have to be an expert to know the difference between a botanist and a mycologist?
> 
> I always thought that was pretty basic...



Eh, since mycology falls under the field of botany a mycologist is still technically a botanist. Just a specialized is all. Isn't a cardiologist still a doctor?


----------



## Neuron (Jul 6, 2012)

don't most places of work that involve IT monitor what their employees are doing online?

Why aren't you getting back to work so you don't get fired? :V


----------



## Tango (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> If nobody gives a damn, why has this thread gotten so emotional? <3



Oh, I wasn't referring to the tread, just you as an individual. <3

Sorry, I should have been a little more clear on that.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Tango said:


> Eh, since mycology falls under the field of botany a mycologist is still technically a botanist. Just a specialized is all. Isn't a cardiologist still a doctor?



no it doesn't.  botanists study plants.  a mushroom is not a plant


----------



## Tango (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> no it doesn't.  botanists study plants.  a mushroom is not a plant



Caps lock key break on you or is that emotion from angry typing? Also I noticed that you didn't even touch on what I said about BMI. Nothing to say? :3


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Tango said:


> Caps lock key break on you or is that emotion from angry typing?



Yes.  When I get very emotional I stop hitting the shift key for some reason :roll:



> Also I noticed that you didn't even touch on what I said about BMI. Nothing to say? :3



when/where?

Sorry, might have missed it.  I looked several posts back though and didn't see anything.


----------



## Tango (Jul 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Yes.  When I get very emotional I stop hitting the shift key for some reason :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was my very first response to this thread. But I guess you mistook it for a PDF file and didn't bother to read it.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 6, 2012)

Tango said:


> It was my very first response to this thread. But I guess you mistook it for a PDF file and didn't bother to read it.



Look.  I don't have time to respond to every post in this thread.

Since you are being a bit snippy here I'll have to ask you to go to the back of the line.

*edit:  why didn't you say it is on the page before this one?*



Tango said:


> Going the 'U mad, bro?' route? Wow, that's kinda  dickless of you. Funny thing is that most pro bodybuilders would fall  under 'obese' on the BMI yet most of them have very little body fat.



I already pointed out this fact:



Ricky said:


> Yeah, the scale isn't always good for determining  if people are slightly overweight but you're talking about the extreme  side of the spectrum where pretty much anyone in it has a problem (save  maybe this guy).



Good job.

I don't think pro football players would fall under obese. I don't really care because the person in question is neither a bodybuilder, nor a pro football player.


----------

