I think it's on point.
Doctors rarely tell people forcefully enough that being obese will kill them and make their lives miserable and prone to disease. Not being obese helps your health in every way.

No, it's not a guarantee you won't get sick, a seatbelt isn't a guarantee you won't get hurt in a crash, but it absolutely helps your odds of not being hurt and minimizes injuries when you are.

No, being healthy doesn't mean you can't spread disease, but being health conscious means you would know better, and know how to be safer. If you weigh 500 lbs it's clear health isn't your priority with very few exceptions.

Bill has been saying this for decades....it's like he's suggesting fireproof surrounds for wood stoves. Just because people are burning their houses down in huge numbers now is not a reason to stop advocating for safety, it's more reason to be louder.

Most doctors don't. They nudge, hint, maybe say "if you eat more baby, we're going to have to take your foot" (Simpson's), they don't tell 65 year old women "you weigh 350 lbs, you need to drop 200 lbs now or you're going to die and we aren't going to waste money and effort treating you if you won't lose weight". They should, imo.

Being overweight should be treated like smoking, it's a choice for 99%+, and that choice effects others. Covid proves it, many can't be treated at all because so many have horrible illness, far worse than most other thinner and healthier countries.

Fat acceptance, even fat pride is a thing, there are millions who claim they're obese and healthy, and it's fine to be obese. Take Lizzo as an example.

Full disclosure, I'm not obese, but I am overweight at 5'9" 170lbs.

Any math teacher I've ever had would fail you for that. The only reason to remove units is to hide how ridiculous your measurements are....but fine, let's just use ratios...you still fall flat.

Then your trig and measurements suck, because your measurements put the stage floor at a minimum of 4.5' and the ramp a maximum length of 23.5', both of which are obviously excessively wrong.
The SS at the corners of the stage are waist high to the stage floor....are they 9' tall SS? When on stage, two stripes are waist high to Trump, is he 9' tall? I guess to save Trump, you say yes.
The stage segments are at least 10' long, using Trump as a 6'+ measuring stick....is Trump now only 3.5' tall? The ramp covers 3 segments (one slightly short with a podium) then continues for 5-8' beyond the stage (more if I use your breitbart photo)....sure, it's only 23'...that makes sense. *facepalm

Measuring on a curved screen is useless....which you have proven. Measuring based on a photo is also useless unless it's a top down long distance shot, as perspective skews the image. I guess all your college math classes omitted the concept of perspective? Just for giggles, I did it anyway, and still got a slope under 7 degrees, higher than reality thanks to skewed perspective.
It's clear you must insist your measurements are perfect but our eyes lie. Very Trumpian of you, congratulations, and bye. Enjoy your perfectly healthy, not obese and demented president and your near vertical ramps that are suddenly everywhere. Don't come to my house, my ramp is nearly 3 times the slope of the one you claim is 11 degrees, it should be impossible to climb (oddly it's not).

Lol.
Compared to the only other choice, his health is above reproach....mental and physical health.

He's not obese, he's not addicted to adderal or speed, he doesn't have diabetes, and doesn't have dementia.

Not to mention all the character flaws the incumbent has that the challenger doesn't.

So, your excuse is Trump is so incredibly disorganized and self absorbed that he ignored the brief about exactly what he was doing and just dressed inappropriately? Sounds right. It's the same ramp they've used at least all decade, there's no excuse for not knowing about it....none whatsoever....just like there's no excuse for wearing slick leather soled shoes for an outdoor military event.

>> ^scannex:

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?
2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.
3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity
4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.
5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.
6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.
7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.
Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.
>> ^hpqp:

Words



It's a fair point to call me out on making presumptions about you and linking your comments to those I've been reading elsewhere; my apologies for that.

You cannot dissociate my first 2 points above from the third: you do not go telling strangers, even in a passive-aggressive way, that they are unfit to be in the public eye. For someone so quick to see personal attacks in comments about you, you seem rather impervious to those in the letter you defend (then again, 'tis true that I'm not very subtle when pissed). The real tangent, one I should probably not have given so much weight to, is whether or not obesity is something one can show/not show and induce simply by showing it (my argument remains valid, btw, it's just not so important as to repeat it all over, and your strawmen are so obvious as to no longer require pointing out).

Your point as I understand it is twofold: the letter-writer has a right to send the anchor his personal criticism and is right to do so. I only agree with the first part; he has a right to do so ((so long) as it is not harassment/threats), but she is also right to call him out for it, and point out that such behaviour is wrong, and that it participates in a culture that tolerates bullying, by letting people think it's fine to say whatever they think to whomever without questioning whether it might be hurtful or not. And nobody's saying that something like this is as bad as WBC-style bullying or systemic racist bs, just like nobody would argue that a female politician being meowed in a session by a colleague is as bad a case of sexism/misogyny as a continually harassed or beaten wife, for example. They are, however, on a spectrum with a unifying underlying belief, namely "I can and should voice my opinions/(dis)tastes about others without taking how it affects them into consideration (and society has nothing to say about it)".

The reason I projected the whole sexism/privilege thing on your comments is because they contain the same "it's harmless/no big deal" and "just poor me self-victimisation" and "what's with making a private event/exchange public?" and "you're trampling his rights!" dismissals. It was wrong of me to do so, but at least now you can understand why I did.

Speaking of projection, presumption and personal attacks, you sure are quick to jump to (and stick to) the conclusion that the anchor is overweight because she has poor lifestyle choices (the same assumptions behind the letter), which is why I (and @bmacs27) went on the tangent of "there's-more-to-obesity-than-being-a-lazy-junkfood-gobler". The assumption that an overweight person is that way because s/he choses so is insulting and ignorant in and of itself, the same way the GOP's "poor people are that way cuz they're lazy moochers who don't pull themselves up by the bootstraps" is.

As for Chris Christie, I refer to point 1) of my comment above: public denunciation all 'round!

I hope that has clarified my argument. Otherwise, I refer you to @Thumper's comments, less contentious than mine and with which I wholly agree.

My claim is that there is insufficient data to show a causal link between being significantly overweight (within reason, say BMI < 40) and negative health consequences when controlling for other known detrimental behaviors and health risk factors. That said, there is certainly an interaction effect whereas a higher BMI can tend to exacerbate underlying health issues/comorbidities. That is, it is erroneous to look at a fat person and tell them that they are necessarily unhealthy without having a more nuanced understanding of their overall health, other risk factors and activity levels.

Further, I believe it is erroneous to claim that long term weight loss is an achievable goal in all individuals, and that instead encouragement should be directed towards improvement in the overall health of the individual rather than emphasizing the primary goal of weight loss. Even if it were clear beyond all doubt that obesity directly caused the negative health effects it is psychologically pragmatic to avoid conflating body-image issues and health concerns. Finally, from an etiquette standpoint, it is inappropriate and counterproductive to comment on the health consequences of the behavior of an individual unless you are employed by that individual as a health professional or are otherwise a close, concerned acquaintance of that individual.

In other words saying, "you fatties shouldn't be on TV, think of the children," isn't exactly productive nor appropriate.

Clear enough?

Cheers. At least you are attempting some objectivity.

>> ^scannex:

Direct question then.
Is it your stance that claiming there are negative health consequences from being obese is erroneous?
Is it your stance that there is insufficent data to show a causal link between being significantly overweight (obese) and health problems?
>> ^bmacs27:
@scannex The claim is that many of the negative health consequences associated with obesity, e.g. cardiac arrest, are in fact dependent on other factors with which obesity is commonly comorbid. I showed you a case in which less hypertensive adult women showed no effect of BMI on mortality across the board. Your studies failed to address that so far. Even in the latest, it shows that many of the complications involve comorbidity, not obesity in its own right. Even when it talks about diabetes it talks about the protective effect of vitamin E. Now, if you want to start talking about joint replacements or whatever, fine, but then we should probably tell people to be careful about their morning run too.

Direct question then.
Is it your stance that claiming there are negative health consequences from being obese is erroneous?
Is it your stance that there is insufficent data to show a causal link between being significantly overweight (obese) and health problems?

>> ^bmacs27:

@scannex The claim is that many of the negative health consequences associated with obesity, e.g. cardiac arrest, are in fact dependent on other factors with which obesity is commonly comorbid. I showed you a case in which less hypertensive adult women showed no effect of BMI on mortality across the board. Your studies failed to address that so far. Even in the latest, it shows that many of the complications involve comorbidity, not obesity in its own right. Even when it talks about diabetes it talks about the protective effect of vitamin E. Now, if you want to start talking about joint replacements or whatever, fine, but then we should probably tell people to be careful about their morning run too.

@scannex The claim is that many of the negative health consequences associated with obesity, e.g. cardiac arrest, are in fact dependent on other factors with which obesity is commonly comorbid. I showed you a case in which less hypertensive adult women showed no effect of BMI on mortality across the board. Your studies failed to address that so far. Even in the latest, it shows that many of the complications involve comorbidity, not obesity in its own right. Even when it talks about diabetes it talks about the protective effect of vitamin E. Now, if you want to start talking about joint replacements or whatever, fine, but then we should probably tell people to be careful about their morning run too.

Yes, thank you, you put it so much simpler than I do!
In reply to this comment by Thumper:
Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)

I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?

Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

>> ^gwiz665:

Jebus christ. I mean, seriously, they should have layed off the big macs back in school. America, you need to run your ass around the block a few times.


Mein gott. I have a fear of being over 250 pounds again, and I'm not obese. After seeing this I'm going to run 5 marathons in one week. Shit is fucking scary.

I like how the spokesperson defends it as a way to shame people into losing weight.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against coddling obese people, but there is a difference between people who are simply overweight which is normal, and the morbidly obsese, which is NOT normal.

6'1" and 230lbs is not obese. It's overweight, sure, but being overweight isn't the problem, its the truly obese people that are the problem. I like how even the tiny girl right away said that while she liked it, it just wouldn't work in reality.

Besides, this isn't about shaming fat people into losing weight, it's about maximizing profits. The obesity epidemic is just a convenient excuse for airlines to hold passengers hostage for more money.

>> ^dead_tofu:
hey, i dont see how being fat plays a role in this.....??? its kinda the same as refering to the color of peoples skin, isnt it?


gluttony is a choice, and a deadly sin. dark skin colour is not.

obesity costs the taxpayer. dark skin does not.

i am sure crazy "christian" tracy is going to give all her money to the poor and love her neighbour some time soon. Oh yeah. Real soon. Any minute now.

I completely agree with you... the prescribing of medication to children is another thing that really, really angers and saddens me...

"My kid is hard to control"
"He must have ADHD, here take these drugs, they'll subdue the little f*cker"
"Thanks doctor... I feel so much better now that I can pretend it wasn't my piss poor parenting and lack of attention or discipline that is to blame"

And yeah, I speak from some experience here, my parents used to be foster parents while I still lived at home, and they'd often get kids labelled 'problem children' (young, under 5s), and actually labeled as having ADHD etc. A WEEK, a friggin' WEEK with my parents and they were MUCH quieter, more content, able to sit and do puzzles or draw or play with lego... SO much better behaved, so much happier, more smiles, more engaged.

Then they'd have a visit with their parent out somewhere, and when they returned they were as insane as they used to be for a set amount of time until the rules were reset again.

It's all a cop out... society (western) is scarily, horribly going down the route of 'it's not me, it's something I can't control, give me medicine/surgery to fix it'.

And I hate it.

>> ^Shepppard:
I can see your arguement Spoco.
But basically we can just say the world in its entirety is changed. Children are being diagnosed for Ritalin left and right because their parents/doctors think the fact a 8 year old can't sit still is a problem, and therefore something's wrong with the child.
More and more 'Intolerancies' are popping up, my mother is a larger woman, she's not Obese, but she's up there. Her massage therapist told her to stop eating dairy for a week, because maybe some of the fat around her stomach is there because her intestines are swelling, causing extra bulk because MAYBE she's lactose intolerant.(I'm glad to say she told him that sounds like a load
of bull.)
Ricky pretty much has it on the nose, people with some form of problem are always looking for a quick way to fix it, or say it's there for a reason.
Everybody wants to lose weight, but nobody wants to eat less, or healthier.
Obese people(With the exception of very few. Again, I point to prader willi syndrome, the one Jimms mother has, i'm assuming). just don't want to admit they're lazy and not doing anything to help fix it. Since they're too lazy to fix it, they want something to say in their defense. "I can't stop eating, it's a disease."
Basically, if you've missed my point, because i'm tired and probably not getting it across clearly, is that basically nobody want's to own up to whats real anymore.
and now, because i'm a fat bastard Diseased, i'm going to go get some pie.

I can see your arguement Spoco.

But basically we can just say the world in its entirety is changed. Children are being diagnosed for Ritalin left and right because their parents/doctors think the fact a 8 year old can't sit still is a problem, and therefore something's wrong with the child.

More and more 'Intolerancies' are popping up, my mother is a larger woman, she's not Obese, but she's up there. Her massage therapist told her to stop eating dairy for a week, because maybe some of the fat around her stomach is there because her intestines are swelling, causing extra bulk because MAYBE she's lactose intolerant.(I'm glad to say she told him that sounds like a load
of bull.)

Ricky pretty much has it on the nose, people with some form of problem are always looking for a quick way to fix it, or say it's there for a reason.

Everybody wants to lose weight, but nobody wants to eat less, or healthier.
Obese people(With the exception of very few. Again, I point to prader willi syndrome, the one Jimms mother has, i'm assuming). just don't want to admit they're lazy and not doing anything to help fix it. Since they're too lazy to fix it, they want something to say in their defense. "I can't stop eating, it's a disease."

Basically, if you've missed my point, because i'm tired and probably not getting it across clearly, is that basically nobody want's to own up to whats real anymore.

and now, because i'm a fat bastard Diseased, i'm going to go get some pie.