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

>> ^scannex:

So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.
And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.
It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.
Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP
No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

_{I realised why your comments annoyed me so much: they remind me of those MRA-holes who try to defend the missteps and/or bile of privileged/sexist people and then see them as being persecuted or "witchhunted". I can only hope I am wrong in seeing a connection.}

To the substance: you completely miss my point, go after strawmen, and then try to defend the unethical while falsely accusing the anchor and myself of persecuting a person (instead of criticising a... you guessed it, behaviour).

Yes, certain behaviour causes and/or aggravates obesity, but do you see her glamourously binge-eating junkfood while telling the news? Unlike a meth addict, there are plenty of overweight people who are overweight of no fault of their own. In fact, the example you give about obese parents having a higher chance of having obese children supports my point, not yours. Children of obese parents have a higher risk of being obese genetically, as well as environmentally, and that has nothing to do with imitating the parents' behaviour (but it's their fault, right? They should just exercise and not eat what their parents feed them, right?). Of course the parents who feed their children junkfood are responsible for their child's obesity, but what does that have to do with an overweight woman being on TV? Not to mention that even that can be more complex, since there are socio-economic factors, what with the US's terrible education system and the fact that its cheapest high-calorie food (i.e. what poor/hungry people will buy) is 98% corn-syrup (yes, I made that stat up, but the point remains). Finally, obesity can be a side-product of mental health issues / eating disorders (but then maybe you're the kind of ignorant douche who'd tell people with depression to just stop wallowing in self-pity and be happy; I hope not).

You go on in your second comment to, on your own admission, redefine what a behaviour is so it can suit your argument. Say the following phrase, out loud if need be, to realise how ridiculous your argument is:

"The woman on the TV is behaving/being overweight/fat/obese". See what I mean?

Finally, you accuse her of "wanting to crucify the guy". Did you even read my points 1) & 2) above (you know, the ones you ignored in your answer)? The "guy" is not being attacked (you'll note he has been left anonymous), what he is saying/doing is. His letter is being taken as an example to call out a certain kind of behaviour, one which is rampant in our society, and doing much harm. Whether his letter is a well-intentioned yet ignorant expression of misplaced concern (at best, and highly unlikely) or a surreptitious piece of condescending shaming (much more likely*) is irrelevant. It's anti-bullying month, and she's saying "people, don't do this, and here's why".

Your more recent comment is a perfect example of why what she's doing is of utmost importance:

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.

If what he said was not reprehensible, who cares if it's made public (note once again that no names are named)? Shaming people or projecting one's narrowmindedness on them is all fine, but shhh, don't shed light on it! It's just a private message on the internet, it does no harm! (because we all know that there is no bullying, shaming, sexism, etc. on the internet. Nuh-uh)

When only one side of an exchange says "shhh, don't tell anyone about this, it's private" you usually have a bad situation; and the fact that you would defend the letter-writer and his "right" to not have his error called out does not suggest anything good about your own mindset, either.

In conclusion, it is all the more to this woman's (and her husband's/colleagues') credit that she/they took a "seemingly" (to the thickest out there) innocent letter to expose this form of abuse; a harmful remark need not be shocking or particularly vulgar to leave its mark, and it can even come from good intentions. Maybe some people watching will realise that the words they themselves speak/write are harmful, even if not intentionally, and will be more aware of it in future, while others might realise that the words they heard/read were not so innocent after all, and that they should stop beating themselves up for feeling guilt/shame/self-hate when in fact they've been being worn down by ignorant and/or hurtful attacks.

_{*It would be quite easy to analyse just how ignorant and condescending this letter is, not to mention borderline sexist (try imagining this person writing the same letter to Chris Christie, for example, replacing "girls" with "boys"). Analysis starter kit for you: "choice/habit/lifestyle", and the cornerstone phrase "Surely you don't..."}

>> ^Xax:

He's tired of dealing with the crazies? And he's a Republican politician? Come on Chris, come to our side.


Unfortunately this is the exception with Christie, not the rule. Normally he's bombastically blasting away at people who're making sense, not people who aren't.

Couldn't he be saying a muslim american? Instead of muslim-american?

As in, an american who happens to be muslim, not in the sense of african-american.
>> ^hpqp:

Nice defence, but please, "Muslim-American"? Stop making religion sound like the equivalent of ethnic origin, it is not! Islam is not a race; Sohail Mohammed is simply an American of Indian origins who holds muslim beliefs.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Fact is that the federal government doesn't need 4+ TRILLION dollars to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. It takes that money to do a lot of unnecessary crap that buys votes (particularly union votes). The government could easily be trimmed back to a lean 1 trillion dollars by divesting itself of foolish entanglements in social experimentation and other welfare entitlements.
The states that are facing fiscal collapse (New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, California, et al) are almost UNIVERSALLY states that been controlled by decades of left-wing liberal "tax & spend" nanny state philosophy. The Chris Christies and Walkers of the nation were voted in to clean up the mess. To put it plainly, people got tired of dealing with children-liars who promise the world while brooming problems onto the next generation - and so they hired some grown-ups.
The kid in this vid doesn't come off as 'destroying' anything except his own credibility. It's an open display of a person who is not a critical thinker, and who has little or no understanding of economics, or civics.


Those states also have much higher income per capita than the red states. They're doing fine economically, just not quite balancing the budget.

It's a bit paradoxical that the states with the highest income per capita, which contribute much more to the Federal Government's income than they recieve in spending, are blue states, while the states with the lowest income per capita, which contribute much less to the federal government's income than they recieve in spending, are red states.

Maybe the reason the people in the red states think the government doesn't do jack shit for them is because they're in a state with both a poor population AND low taxes so as a consequence the government doesn't have the budget to do jack shit.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Fact is that the federal government doesn't need 4+ TRILLION dollars to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. It takes that money to do a lot of unnecessary crap that buys votes (particularly union votes). The government could easily be trimmed back to a lean 1 trillion dollars by divesting itself of foolish entanglements in social experimentation and other welfare entitlements.
The states that are facing fiscal collapse (New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, California, et al) are almost UNIVERSALLY states that been controlled by decades of left-wing liberal "tax & spend" nanny state philosophy. The Chris Christies and Walkers of the nation were voted in to clean up the mess. To put it plainly, people got tired of dealing with children-liars who promise the world while brooming problems onto the next generation - and so they hired some grown-ups.
The kid in this vid doesn't come off as 'destroying' anything except his own credibility. It's an open display of a person who is not a critical thinker, and who has little or no understanding of economics, or civics.


Oh please, red and blue states are hurting across the board. Speaking for my own state (very red) we're hurting financially too and it's the same nonsense, give tax breaks away like candy to the people and companies who don't need them while at the same time, punishing the needy. We've gone through this shit before and it just doesn't work!

By your same logic, your top earners don't NEED all that extra money their tax breaks and bonuses net them. If you've got such moral outrage for the public sector "supposedly" having too much money, then where is the moral outrage for the private for having way more than they need when you're a top earner. Double standard much?

I totally agree that cuts need to happen, but they need to start at the top where it's fattest, not the bottom where it's already lean.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Fact is that the federal government doesn't need 4+ TRILLION dollars to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. It takes that money to do a lot of unnecessary crap that buys votes (particularly union votes). The government could easily be trimmed back to a lean 1 trillion dollars by divesting itself of foolish entanglements in social experimentation and other welfare entitlements.
The states that are facing fiscal collapse (New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, California, et al) are almost UNIVERSALLY states that been controlled by decades of left-wing liberal "tax & spend" nanny state philosophy. The Chris Christies and Walkers of the nation were voted in to clean up the mess. To put it plainly, people got tired of dealing with children-liars who promise the world while brooming problems onto the next generation - and so they hired some grown-ups.
The kid in this vid doesn't come off as 'destroying' anything except his own credibility. It's an open display of a person who is not a critical thinker, and who has little or no understanding of economics, or civics.


On that note, Texas is sitting on a budget surplus last I checked, but then again we are the best country on this continent

Fact is that the federal government doesn't need 4+ TRILLION dollars to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. It takes that money to do a lot of unnecessary crap that buys votes (particularly union votes). The government could easily be trimmed back to a lean 1 trillion dollars by divesting itself of foolish entanglements in social experimentation and other welfare entitlements.

The states that are facing fiscal collapse (New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, California, et al) are almost UNIVERSALLY states that been controlled by decades of left-wing liberal "tax & spend" nanny state philosophy. The Chris Christies and Walkers of the nation were voted in to clean up the mess. To put it plainly, people got tired of dealing with children-liars who promise the world while brooming problems onto the next generation - and so they hired some grown-ups.

The kid in this vid doesn't come off as 'destroying' anything except his own credibility. It's an open display of a person who is not a critical thinker, and who has little or no understanding of economics, or civics.

Also...

What's the deal with New Jersey governors being named Christie? Christie Todd Whitman and now Chris Christie? What's going on up there?