The Fat Acceptance Movement?

[EmphaticPikachu]

Despite the fact that I've commented here a few times, I've never actually given my own opinion on the matter.

I think some shaming is needed, not the "You are a horrible person for being fat", but the "come on, you should lose some weight" type of thing. (For some reason, directly telling people that they're harming the economy by eating to much feels like you're impling that they are, in fact, a pretty bad person for forcing that upon other people. At least, that's how I take it. I'm not saying the statement is not true, but that just seems to be the feeling I get.) There should be social pressures, but they should be lax and positive. Rewards in this situation would work better then punishment in my opinion, and should be thought of first and foremost...

To be honest though, becoming thinner is probably going to stay an individual problem and needs an individual solution. I'm not sure if it's even a good idea to pour a lot of resources into a large scale change, but what do I know? That's for the people more knowledgable about obesity's effects to decide, not me.

 

[The Federation]

I really don't get what you're trying to say here. I would argue that programs that help obese people get healthy would be a benefit to society and should be funded by things like taxes.

That's a benefit to an individual, not society. If there were less obese people, it would benefit us, but there's plenty of ways to decrease the numbers we're seeing. Awareness programs and sin tax is already part of the mix, but there could easily be more tacked onto that, like programs that force an obese individual to account for the burden they clearly and obviously place on their fellows. This would include things like space on busses and planes, and a higher ceiling for insurance. This is what we do we smokers, though in different ways, and smoking is an addiction that's unbelievably hard to control. At least this much could be done for obese peoples.

I don't think we need federal, state or district taxes paying for obesity, though... that's like funding rehab centers for smokers. I don't know, that's a bit of a complex issue, I would need to think on it.

 

[ellie]

That's a benefit to an individual, not society. If there were less obese people, it would benefit us, but there's plenty of ways to decrease the numbers we're seeing. Awareness programs and sin tax is already part of the mix, but there could easily be more tacked onto that, like programs that force an obese individual to account for the burden they clearly and obviously place on their fellows. This would include things like space on busses and planes, and a higher ceiling for insurance. This is what we do we smokers, though in different ways, and smoking is an addiction that's unbelievably hard to control. At least this much could be done for obese peoples.

I don't think we need federal, state or district taxes paying for obesity, though... that's like funding rehab centers for smokers. I don't know, that's a bit of a complex issue, I would need to think on it.

It's already been shown that lower socioeconomic status people are far more likely to be obese. I have already explained a lot of the reasons why in this thread. And you think adding even more of a monetary burden on these people is the way to reduce obesity? I don't agree at all.

Smoking is completely different from obesity because you still need food to live. If someone never started smoking or quit smoking, they wouldn't die (except for maybe rare cases where the addiction has gone too far and they need nicotine, but even then, you'd just have to wean them off instead of going cold turkey). But someone can't just stop eating in order to cure the obesity, they have to make huge lifestyle changes which is not always feasible. I'm not saying that the government shouldn't help people with smoking or other addictions, but it is not comparable to obesity.

You even say in your post it would benefit society to have less obese people. A lot of the causes of obesity are due to our society. So why shouldn't society have to help to change things to make less people obese?

 

[Swagmander]

It's already been shown that lower socioeconomic status people are far more likely to be obese. I have already explained a lot of the reasons why in this thread. And you think adding even more of a monetary burden on these people is the way to reduce obesity? I don't agree at all.

I wrote a paper on fat tax propositions for college. I strongly share your opinion; the fat tax is only going to turn into an economically regressive tax.

Sin taxes have been found not to work unless the price is hiked up dramatically, and from an economist's perspective, the tax itself would be self-defeating if people quit using the product in question. Of course, like the poster before me said, you have to eat to live. All a fat tax would do is raise income taxes for everyone, as we'd have more people applying for food stamps because they can't afford food.

 

[magmorta]

I think obese people should try to lose weight for their own health, but I really hate the word fat as an adjective to describe a person, and want to eradicate it.

 

[Kacho]

^Shame you're not allowed to use your security guard skills to track that person down and 'punish' them. If you're worried about being overweight, focusing on Body Mass Index is better than just weight. M = Mass (kg), H = Height (metres). BMI = M/H^2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index
A BMI between 18.5kg/m^2 and 25kg/m^2 is fine. BTW, is anyone else irked by mass being confused with weight?

Is it too late to talk about BMI after 4 pages?
I never understand why height is squared. just why? mathematically and statistically why?

And also the fact that people stick with it and don't bother looking or switching. It's kind of like metric and imperial system. Some things just need an update, you know. lol though i know that people tried changing from imperial to metric and failed lol

 

[The Federation]

It's already been shown that lower socioeconomic status people are far more likely to be obese. I have already explained a lot of the reasons why in this thread. And you think adding even more of a monetary burden on these people is the way to reduce obesity? I don't agree at all.

Perhaps you're right, but there do have to be countermeasures in place. I can't claim to know how to go about it, but there needs to be a stop in place.

But someone can't just stop eating in order to cure the obesity, they have to make huge lifestyle changes which is not always feasible. I'm not saying that the government shouldn't help people with smoking or other addictions, but it is not comparable to obesity.

I have to completely disagree here. Never having been a smoker myself, I can't claim to know from personal experience, but my dad once tried to quit using patches, pills, the works. There was a HUGE lifestyle change, finding things to replace the physical addiction, dealing with the mental issues like withdrawal and anxiety, and generally living with those handicaps is much more difficult.

You even say in your post it would benefit society to have less obese people. A lot of the causes of obesity are due to our society. So why shouldn't society have to help to change things to make less people obese?

Aren't we already? I'm just saying that we shouldn't have to pay for it without the consent of the people. Paying for them to keep their bad habits helps no one.

 

[ModelT]

To start this off ON TOPIC, I'm gonna say I see where the Fat Awareness Movement is coming from: Trying to stop abuse on all levels against overweight to morbidly obese people. Trying to raise the standard of human morality. Cool, I can get behind that. People ought to be better, and at least more openminded about other people's problems.

Key word there though IS problem. I won't be a deuche to a big person (unless they are truely unkind... then I don't like them because they are bad people, and weight has nothing to do with it), but the startling number of larger people IS... startling.

There are predispositons in our society that lend themselves towards looking down on higher weight, and they all seem centralized around one basic concept: The bigger the person, the less healthy they are. We don't want people we care about around unhealthy people. Basic nurturing instinct. This isn't anything to say Anorexic and Beulemic (Can't spell... sorry) people ARE okay, but that's different as they tend to look very unhealthy in different ways.

As for the general obesity problem in America: Though it does, finally, fall to the individual to maintain themselves, society as a whole lends itself against that. Healthy hobbies that involve exercise have either negative stigma (, have strongly elitest populations that deter new comers or unhealthier participants, or a high base cost. Healthy food falls into a very similar problem, where unhealthy choices are generally cheaper, tastier, and easier to find. Yes, there is a HUGE plethora of things people can do/eat that are cheap and free (not so much the food being free), but on a basic level, those things aren't a part of the average American lifestyle, which shys away from discipline in favor of the easy and simple. Society puts an emphasis on relaxation rather than discipline. With the boom of electronics in the age of instant communication that lends itself so well to a more sedentary life style, and the rise in criminal awareness, sexual predators, and gangs, there's more and more reason to keep children inside where its safe. Schools hands are tied in so many knots when it comes teaching and reenforcing disipline and healthy activities, with many lacking any sort of funding to help the cause. So of course obesity is a problem. How could it not be?

You wanna fix obesity? Get your kids into something cool like sports, martial arts, hiking, dancing, hell, even carpentry so they do it regularly. Maybe get to know people in your neiborhood and be a decent person so that you can trust your kids playing outside (Oh, maybe PLAY OUTSIDE WITH YOUR KIDS). Learn how to cook on a basic level so and teach your kids. Be disciplined and teach your kids to be disciplined. Be classy, and teach your kids exactly what that means.

 

[ellie]

Perhaps you're right, but there do have to be countermeasures in place. I can't claim to know how to go about it, but there needs to be a stop in place.

Like society changing to better accommodate poorer people who want to live a healthier lifestyle?

I have to completely disagree here. Never having been a smoker myself, I can't claim to know from personal experience, but my dad once tried to quit using patches, pills, the works. There was a HUGE lifestyle change, finding things to replace the physical addiction, dealing with the mental issues like withdrawal and anxiety, and generally living with those handicaps is much more difficult.

Okay I guess I misworded. I didn't mean to say that giving up smoking isn't a huge challenge for some people that can require a lot of changes. I have family members who have struggled with several different types of addictions. None of those are comparable to obesity though, because a person doesn't need the drug to live. You can cut out a drug or replace it with other things or never start the drug in the first place. If you can't afford to replace your bad food with healthy food, you can't just stop eating food. It's a completely separate argument from funding rehab centers because rehab and fighting obesity are completely different.

Aren't we already? I'm just saying that we shouldn't have to pay for it without the consent of the people. Paying for them to keep their bad habits helps no one.

It's not "paying for their bad habits," it would be paying to fund programs that help them become more healthy. We already fund a lot of programs to help out other people, and I think funding programs to fight obesity would help a lot too.

 

[Baba Yaga]

I think it's important to make a distinction from people that are morbidly obese, where their health is in direct danger, and people that are just chubby. If you're the type to look at someone that's just a bit portly, 25 to 30 pounds overweight, and see them as some lazy slob that needs to be hitting the treadmill, then I'm not cool with that. Bodies are diverse. If the "fat acceptance movement" isn't churning out scientifically erroneous information about obesity and it's simply focusing on getting people to treat others that are overweight with dignity and respect, I'm certainly all for it.

I mean, I doubt the movement was started because some fat douchebags were eating hershey bars and talking to each other about how they're the victims of society while crying into some cake batter. All it is are people wanting to be treated with respect. Fat acceptance =/= Obesity denialism

 

[Nukada]

Is it too late to talk about BMI after 4 pages?
I never understand why height is squared. just why? mathematically and statistically why?

And also the fact that people stick with it and don't bother looking or switching. It's kind of like metric and imperial system. Some things just need an update, you know. lol though i know that people tried changing from imperial to metric and failed lol

Consider a cube of 1 meter on each side. You can say that the volume of the cube is one cubic meter.
Now, consider a cube of 2 meters on each side. It would take exactly eight of the 1 meter cubes to build it, so this cube is 8 cubic meters.

But the human body doesn't scale like that. Its closer to the squared metric for some reason. Don't ask me why.

 

[The Federation]

Like society changing to better accommodate poorer people who want to live a healthier lifestyle?

That's far too optimistic. The best and most likely change would be governmental, because society's views don't simply change, no matter how many campaigns you run and how much cash you put behind public relations.

It's a completely separate argument from funding rehab centers because rehab and fighting obesity are completely different.

You said it yourself before, didn't you? That obesity requires massive lifestyle changes for those who want to lose weight? It's the same with many other "addictions", which are comparable because getting hooked is paramount to dependence. I don't know if you've posted this before, but is there an article confirming that the majority of obese/overweight people are too poor for a lifestyle change? I don't know if I buy that.

It's not "paying for their bad habits," it would be paying to fund programs that help them become more healthy.

You misunderstood me. I meant, in the now, society is paying for obesity in a variety of different ways. That I have already outlined. Most of these are health care costs.

Is it too late to talk about BMI after 4 pages?

BMI has been documented for quite some time to have been an awful way to measure obesity.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/04/where-bmi-fails-researchers-suggest-a-new-measure-of-body-fat/

 

[ellie]

That's far too optimistic. The best and most likely change would be governmental, because society's views don't simply change, no matter how many campaigns you run and how much cash you put behind public relations.

society's views don't change? are you kidding? 60 years ago society was wayyyy less tolerant towards gays, blacks, women who didn't want to be housewives.. etc. society's views are constantly changing bit by bit. i'm not saying it would be fast or easy but every tolerance movement has to start with little steps.

You said it yourself before, didn't you? That obesity requires massive lifestyle changes for those who want to lose weight? It's the same with many other "addictions", which are comparable because getting hooked is paramount to dependence.

it's still not the same though. food is a huge part of EVERYONE'S life since we need it to live. you can't just stop eating like you can with smoking either, you have to change a ton of things. smoking and other addictions are not a massive part of someone's life from the moment they are born and also a massive part of everyone around them's life. apart from actual food addictions, which are rare, the way that overeating works is different from an addiction.

I don't know if you've posted this before, but is there an article confirming that the majority of obese/overweight people are too poor for a lifestyle change? I don't know if I buy that.

i never said the majority were like that. i am saying this is one of several reasons someone could be obese. they could be poor, they could have an unhealthy relationship with food (addiction or other psychological problems) that they aren't ready to face, they could just have things in life that are more important to them than being thin, or a million other reasons. the point of fat acceptance is to not assume things about people because of their weight and treat them with the same respect you'd treat a not-fat person.

You misunderstood me. I meant, in the now, society is paying for obesity in a variety of different ways. That I have already outlined. Most of these are health care costs.

yes, we are. and we also pay for a whole lot of other things that we didn't explicitly consent to. i don't think tax dollars going to help obesity is a bad thing.

 

[Deku_Link]

Fat-shaming is never done for the sake of the fat person, and is never necessary in any capacity.

You can say you're doing it because you want the fat person to be healthy, but anyone with a modicum of social awareness knows you're just doing it for yourself.

 

[The Federation]

society's views don't change? are you kidding? 60 years ago society was wayyyy less tolerant towards gays, blacks, women who didn't want to be housewives..

Sure, in 60+ years. If that's the timeframe, then sure, views can change. I thought you were talking about the short term, in about a decade or so.

it's still not the same though. food is a huge part of EVERYONE'S life since we need it to live. you can't just stop eating like you can with smoking either, you have to change a ton of things. smoking and other addictions are not a massive part of someone's life from the moment they are born and also a massive part of everyone around them's life. apart from actual food addictions, which are rare, the way that overeating works is different from an addiction.

You're right, overeating is different. It's a choice that can be made at any time. Just because you must eat food, in the same way you can control how much you eat. Addictions and obesity are similar in the change to a person's life, but different in how it occurs. You can do the math, watch the calories, and not overeat. I'm fairly certain rice and beans are extremely cheap everywhere.

the point of fat acceptance is to not assume things about people because of their weight and treat them with the same respect you'd treat a not-fat person.

If that's all there is, then you won't hear an argument from me. I don't care if you're fat or not, it's your life you're shortening. If a person is fat by his own choice, which I feel is most people, then so be it. As long as it isn't argued that the obese are victims, I'm fine with nearly anything said here.

yes, we are. and we also pay for a whole lot of other things that we didn't explicitly consent to. i don't think tax dollars going to help obesity is a bad thing.

I don't either. Better than paying for them to retain their current form in the way of externalities. It would be far better this way, really.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Fat-shaming is never done for the sake of the fat person, and is never necessary in any capacity.

You can say you're doing it because you want the fat person to be healthy, but anyone with a modicum of social awareness knows you're just doing it for yourself.

Can I quote this for posterity?