Dear Fat People

[VINYLONE]

I have two more things to add to this thread:

1. I'm reading lots of "excuses".
2. Health and fitness start in the kitchen. If you do not fuel your body right, no amount of exercise will yeild results. The only way to lose weight, is to burn more calories than you take in. Lean proteins, good fats and good carbohydrates.

Yeah, I think 80% of losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight is diet. I think most folks love to stuff their fat faces.

 

[The Midnight]

Public shaming would fail miserably as a policy. Anyone who thinks it would have the least chance of working has zero understanding of human nature.

Yeah this.

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/fitness-star-cassey-ho-takes-on-the-perfect-body-117089175753.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsL7W-GHhJA

“ What worries me is this: 1. That some people think this is real and that it should be “goals.” 2. That some people still think it’s not good enough.”

 

[Stoked]

Public shaming would fail miserably as a policy. Anyone who thinks it would have the least chance of working has zero understanding of human nature.

I absolutely agree. I see someone shaming over something like that in public and things quickly get interesting.

 

[VINYLONE]

"Fat acceptance is about being comfortable in your own body..."

 

[LogGrad98]

"Fat acceptance is about being comfortable in your own body..."

Or 4 bodies...

 

[default]

"Fat acceptance is about being comfortable in your own body..."

That is definitely not an example of a 30 BMI body, which I keep hearing as so obese that it is disgusting by posters in this thread. This man's BMI is MUCH MUCH higher (50+? 60+?).

 

[VINYLONE]

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Well, simple minds, perhaps.

But this topic relates to something more complex. . . . habits, attitudes, conditioned behaviors. . . . even political agendas for driving social change or healthcare.

"Should X people be shamed?" What for? When? How? When people set out to enforce some ideal of society by imposing hate or shame, it rubs against other ideals, like personal rights.

I'd be more inclined to call the shamers bigots and use the term "shamer" as something worse than most of our epithets. Vinny has been asking me for examples of how "liberals" today are more intolerant than "conservatives". Those terms fail in this topic because "shamers" are in a sense the "conservatives" who want to use government to enforce a behavior code. It's a matter of who controls the rhetoric, not what the rhetoric really means.

"liberals" as some style themselves at the moment, are the ones pushing the agenda for more government power or more intolerance in this case.

I understand that when government assumes total control of health care, the idea is pretty much going to be assuming total control of all personal decisions and behaviors that might reasonably impose expenses to that healthcare budget.

Couch Potatos of the World!!!!! Unite!!!!! Reject intrusive government projecting an agenda of intolerance and hate against you!!!!!

Popaholics of the World!!!!! Unite!!!!! Defend your sippy cups and high-fructose addictions that enrich ArcherDanielsMidlands, whose railroad cars full of high fructose corn syrup are responsible for the modern obesity and diabetes epidemic!!!!!!

Well, I don't want to pay for the health care of ignorant folks who can't be reasoned with about good health practices, so I don't hold with national, single-payer, or in fact any government involvement in health care. If you want to help the poor, put your own money up for it, and fund your own charity. And I think "liberals" do use "hate" to push their ideals.

I'd like to reason with those "liberals" a bit. Why not get up a drive to sue Archer Daniels Midland corporation and other food cartels and make them pay for the obesity and diabetes they cause?

Nope. . . . Nope. . . . No way. . . .. That wouldn't do anything to make government more powerful, and there'd be no personal jollies in that. You really do like to tell others they are lesser humans. . . . .

Liberals today are intolerant bigots who hate anyone who doesn't buy their load. But I love ya, anyway. You are so much fun to shame.

Just out of curiosity, who on this board is claiming that liberals don't have their fair share of narrow minded, fanatical knuckleheads.

A difference of note, however, between intolerant liberals and intolerant conservatives (very generally speaking) is that only one of these groups has over the last 100 years or so fought against, and continue to fight against, extending Constitutional rights, along with basic civil liberties, to all citizens.

Etc.

By the way, I'm interested in your evidence that liberals are more intolerant toward fatties than conservatives.

Also, aside from a few kooks, where precisely is the upswelling of liberal support for laws that regulate what fat people may ingest or otherwise regulate their behavior? (Meanwhile, conservatives are passing laws regulating what poor people may eat or do with their money.)

 

[LogGrad98]

Just out of curiosity, who on this board is claiming that liberals don't have their fair share of narrow minded, fanatical knuckleheads.

A difference of note, however, between intolerant liberals and intolerant conservatives (very generally speaking) is that only one of these groups has over the last 100 years or so fought against, and continue to fight against, extending Constitutional rights, along with basic civil liberties, to all citizens.

Etc.

By the way, I'm interested in your evidence that liberals are more intolerant toward fatties than conservatives.

Also, aside from a few kooks, where precisely is the upswelling of liberal support for laws that regulate what fat people may ingest or otherwise regulate their behavior? (Meanwhile, conservatives are passing laws regulating what poor people may eat or do with their money.)

In babe's defense, often on this board when we get into political discussions it ends up with certain vocal posters spewing the typical "dems are everything Good in the world, repubs are all the slime of the earth and evil and should be killed on sight" and vice versa.

 

[babe]

Just out of curiosity, who on this board is claiming that liberals don't have their fair share of narrow minded, fanatical knuckleheads.

A difference of note, however, between intolerant liberals and intolerant conservatives (very generally speaking) is that only one of these groups has over the last 100 years or so fought against, and continue to fight against, extending Constitutional rights, along with basic civil liberties, to all citizens.

Etc.

By the way, I'm interested in your evidence that liberals are more intolerant toward fatties than conservatives.

Also, aside from a few kooks, where precisely is the upswelling of liberal support for laws that regulate what fat people may ingest or otherwise regulate their behavior? (Meanwhile, conservatives are passing laws regulating what poor people may eat or do with their money.)

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge what sorts of groups or classes of thinkers, are pushing for the veggie school lunches(Michelle Obama), or the soda pop bans, or the war on twinkies. I don't have a special hatred for "liberal" stupidity, I hate conservative stupidity as well. I take it you refer to "conservatives" who don't want food stamps being used to purchase cigarettes and alcohol, or to buy lottery tickets. Well, I'm actually ignorant of the food stamp issues. We have a lot of people on food stamps now, more than relied on the soup kitchens in the great depression. I think conservatives who quibble about issues like this are missing the point, and are ineffective in addressing the issues of our economy.

Politically, they would be wise to move on to other issues. Let the voters see what food stamps are used for, and think what they will. Dems will take the heat. But the real issue is corporate lobby power, and if you want me to call someone a good politician, I'll have to see the evidence that they do not rely on corporate contributions nor listen to corporate lobbyists. I think we have, effectively, a one-party system, and the right name for it is "The Corporate Party".

What we need to do is restore equal rights for human beings in our political life.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge what sorts of groups or classes of thinkers, are pushing for the veggie school lunches(Michelle Obama), or the soda pop bans, or the war on twinkies. I don't have a special hatred for "liberal" stupidity, I hate conservative stupidity as well. I take it you refer to "conservatives" who don't want food stamps being used to purchase cigarettes and alcohol, or to buy lottery tickets. Well, I'm actually ignorant of the food stamp issues. We have a lot of people on food stamps now, more than relied on the soup kitchens in the great depression. I think conservatives who quibble about issues like this are missing the point, and are ineffective in addressing the issues of our economy.

Politically, they would be wise to move on to other issues. Let the voters see what food stamps are used for, and think what they will. Dems will take the heat. But the real issue is corporate lobby power, and if you want me to call someone a good politician, I'll have to see the evidence that they do not rely on corporate contributions nor listen to corporate lobbyists. I think we have, effectively, a one-party system, and the right name for it is "The Corporate Party".

What we need to do is restore equal rights for human beings in our political life.

Personally, I have no problem for the state to have a say in what types of food are dispensed at public schools. I don't see that as a liberal/conservative issue but a common sense, public health issue. For example, if a school district or state decides it won't dispense sugary food with little to no nutritional benefit in public schools, I hardly see that as an egregious infringement on personal liberty. Students are perfectly free to buy crap food on their own time. I believe that the state is well within its reasonable rights to determine, as a matter of public health, what food it will serve children under its care.

Anyhoo, I do agree that that we are increasingly becoming the government of, by and for the corporations, and Citizen's United (a towering hallmark of conservative legal reasoning) will only make this more and more so.

Did you every watch the original Rollerball with James Caan (not the dumb remake)? The premise there, if I remember correctly, was that corporations had pretty much taken over the world, and James Caan used Rollerball to stick it to the corporate man. While that premise is a bit far fetched, it's becoming closer to reality.

Brother, you and I are walking metaphorically arm in arm down the road in protest of the power corporations have over our policies and our lives. To me, the power of corporations is a very worrisome thing.