Why aren't we allowed slag fat people?

PeakOutput

whats stopping you? slag whoever the **** you want

i personally dont need to make fun of anyone BUT i do think being overwieght is far to socially acceptable and fat people have far too many excuses for how they are

dont need to make fun of them over it though

Blatter

Sergeant wrote: »

Yes, there is more fatty and processed food than there used to be. But no one is under any obligation to eat it. Just because biscuits, soft drinks, fast food are readily available doesn't mean anyone is being forced to indulge in it.

I never said people are forced to indulge in it.

The fact is, alot people are going to indulge in it and there's isn't a whole lot you or I can do about it.

The only solution is to cut down the production of it.

Look, it's like anything. Just say there is more cocaine readily available in the world now compared to 50 years ago. You can bet your life that there is going to be a higher consumption rate by a higher number of people. There is nothing much any of us can do about it. The only real solution to the problem would be to make sure there is less cocaine readily available.

Blatter

R_H_C_P wrote: »

It comes down to laziness to eat healthy, exercise and more available fatty foods than ever.

Its personal imo. If it were societies fault we would all be fat.

Self-fucking-control.

Problem is here, not everyones self control is equal. Some people get fuller than other, quicker and that is a fact. Straight away these people are at a huge disadvantage.

Sergeant

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

The fact is, alot people are going to indulge in it and there's isn't a whole lot you or I can do about it.

The only solution is to cut down the production of it.

I don't want to do anything about it. If people choose to eat food that is bad for them, then let them off. What I certainly don't want is more regulation into what I can or cannot eat. If I want to eat a burger once a month, then I should be allowed. If someone chooses to eat a burger every day, then they should be allowed too. As long as they take personal responsibility for the damage it is doing to their body.

Oxenhandler

Blatter

Sergeant wrote: »

I don't want to do anything about it. If people choose to eat food that is bad for them, then let them off. What I certainly don't want is more regulation into what I can or cannot eat. If I want to eat a burger once a month, then I should be allowed. If someone chooses to eat a burger every day, then they should be allowed too. As long as they take personal responsibility for the damage it is doing to their body.

That's fair enough, that's your opinion.

I'm just pointing out that people will always be fat unless society changes.
And by change, I mean

1)Decrease production of ****e food.
2)Educate people better to make good food choices.

TeddyTedson

Thread is getting a bit state so lets change it a bit,
NEW Thread
Why aren't we allowed shag fat people?

Twee.

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Explain why far more people are fat now compared to 50 years ago then.

It's about choice. "Society" brought microwave dinners, but didn't shove them in your mouth.

I have a mate who is very skinny naturally. She doesn't put on weight, and would like a few extra pounds on her hips. Girls in club toilets say "Omigawd you're SOOO skinny!", even though we don't know them, strangers. Imagine if she turned around to someone and said "Omigawd you're SOOO FAT!", and just walked out. Somehow I feel it wouldn't be taken up the same...

Also agreeing with the glandular bull****. YES it does affect some people, and I genuinely feel for them. It's a medical condition. It shouldn't be used as a cop out. The same with people self-diagnosing their kids with ADHD or Tourette's. No, you're child is just a badly behaved brat, sorry. If they had either of these conditions boy would you know about it.

The only solution is to cut down the production of it.

Eh, no. If I want to treat myself with a few biccies or a ready meal if I'm in a rush, I want them available. I can choose to have them in moderation. If someone else can't make this choice, we should take them off the shelves?

high horse

Big boned? I've never seen a fat skeleton...

Joe10000

Weakness should be tolerated regardless of how it manifests itself but I see nothing wrong with sneering under your breath. I'm sure we have all been sneered at for some reason or other.

Sharpshooter

leggo wrote: »

I'm highly aware that this might hit a nerve...if it can find one. But why the **** aren't we allowed ridicule fat people?

Just a thought.

What exactly do you consider fat?

Size 10, or 12 maybe? No?

What about size 14-16 or 18?

Have you ever considered the fact that you might be slagging off someone who to you looks fat, but they might have dropped 2 or three stone before you laid eyes on them.

And they most likely did that through hard work exercising and diet ect.

And then you come along, with your opinions.

ON THE INTERNET.

Twee.

Sharpshooter wrote: »

ON THE INTERNET!

But that's where all the best opinions are!!!

Blatter

Twee. wrote: »

It's about choice. "Society" brought microwave dinners, but didn't shove them in your mouth.


Eh, no. If I want to treat myself with a few biccies or a ready meal if I'm in a rush, I want them available. I can choose to have them in moderation. If someone else can't make this choice, we should take them off the shelves?

Read post #34 with regards to your first point.

With regards to your second point, I never suggested eliminating the ****e food, I suggested making it less readily available ie. decrease production. That way the people who do succumb to temptation too often, have less opportunities to do so. I'm not saying we should have to do this, I'm saying if we a society with less fat people in it, it has to be done. Unless you have any other ideas?

Sharpshooter

Twee. wrote: »

But that's where all the best opinions are!!!

Opinions, yes.:pac:

The best........not necessarily

benjamin d

I don't agree with the slagging off bit, but I fully agree that people tiptoe around the feelings of fat people far too much. Before anyone defends it with genetics or society or anything else, the simple fact is that most fat people have only themselves to blame.

Smokers are openly vilified and ridiculed by society and have no defence against it. I would argue that being very overweight is exactly comparable to smoking. Its the result of a poor lifestyle choice, and I think it would involve arguably the same amount of time and effort to quit smoking and get fit that it would take to quit overeating and get fit.

Its perfectly ok, and rightly so, to ridicule someone who is unfit because they smoke. Why is it not ok to ridicule someone who is unfit because they are a fat tub who doesn't watch what they eat?

Before anyone comes back at me, I know there are quite a number of people who genuinely have difficulty controlling their weight, but the majority of people just need to learn to have self-control.

Twee.

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

With regards to your second point, I never suggested eliminating the ****e food, I suggested making it less readily available ie. decrease production. That way the people who do succumb to temptation, have less opportunities to do so. I'm not saying we should have to do this, I'm saying if we a society with less fat people in it, it has to be done. Unless you have any other ideas?

But that's business - supply and demand. If consumers stop buying the product, the company won't make the product, or will change it to suit the buyer's needs. Change on the supermarket shelves must be a consumer-led operation. Consumers vote with their money. If you were a business person whose company made a best selling convenience food, would you sell less to shops because you felt bad for your buyer? No. Business is business and it reacts to its market. If, on the other hand, your best selling meal saw a decrease in sales, you would make the move to get people buying again. Less added salt or sugar, 10% more veg in every meal etc etc.

Blatter

benjamin d wrote: »

Before anyone comes back at me, I know there are quite a number of people who genuinely have difficulty controlling their weight, but the majority of people just need to learn to have self-control.

You see this is the common mistake.

Firstly, Fat people need to fundamentally change what they are eating whole wheat instead of flour, more vegetables, more fruit, more fish, more lean meats etc.

And then it becomes much easier to work on the self control bit.

benjamin d

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

You see this is the common mistake.

Firstly, Fat people need to fundamentally change what they are eating whole wheat instead of flour, more vegetables, more fruit, more fish, more lean meats etc.

And then it becomes much easier to work on the self control bit.

Ok fair enough, but its essentially the same point. What i meant by self control was eating healthier food not crap just because its easier, but I see how you picked it up.

Cook my sock

I slag fatties all the time.

Blatter

Twee. wrote: »

But that's business - supply and demand. If consumers stop buying the product, the company won't make the product, or will change it to suit the buyer's needs. Change on the supermarket shelves must be a consumer-led operation. Consumers vote with their money. If you were a business person whose company made a best selling convenience food, would you sell less to shops because you felt bad for your buyer? No. Business is business and it reacts to its market. If, on the other hand, your best selling meal saw a decrease in sales, you would make the move to get people buying again. Less added salt or sugar, 10% more veg in every meal etc etc.

Yes I understand it's a difficult situation but personally I'm in no doubt at all that these fast food giants/soft drink companies/sugar snack, ready meal companies are almost entirely to blame for the obesity epidemic the western world finds itself in today.

Something has to change, things can't keep escalating the way they are. It might take 10, 20 or 50 years but I do think Governments will take a stand on it someday.

scientific1982

I'm a fairly big lad myself. Not fat, but definitely overweight. You can say anything to me you skinny, weak, twig mother****er.

Cook my sock

scientific1982 wrote: »

I'm a fairly big lad myself. Not fat, but definitely overweight. You can say anything to me you skinny, weak, twig mother****er.

Nice outlook, fook everyone who doesnt like it. you have my respect!

Cavehill Red

Joe10000 wrote: »

Weakness should be tolerated regardless of how it manifests itself but I see nothing wrong with sneering under your breath. I'm sure we have all been sneered at for some reason or other.

Don't mean to get too serious, but increasingly I wonder about this from a philosphical viewpoint.
Why should we tolerate weakness that is self-induced and can be avoided with some self-discipline? Furthermore, why should we actively fund and support it (in this case, by way of healthcare provision)?
What does it do to a society which systematically tolerates self-indulgent weakness at every turn?
As I said before, I'm utterly in favour of the strong protecting the weak who cannot protect themselves, such as children, the elderly, the mentally infirm.
But how can a society be expected to protect people from weaknesses they induce upon themselves?

Joe10000

But if you and me decide the line should be drawn at self indulgence what if somebody else wants the line drawn a little further back. It could be a slippery slope, euthanasia for children with breathing defects ?

On the specifics of healthcare I agree that if you are a bigger risk because of your lifestyle choices then you should be penalised in much the same way as a smoker or a skydiver is for life assurance.

Cavehill Red

Joe10000 wrote: »

But if you and me decide the line should be drawn at self indulgence what if somebody else wants the line drawn a little further back. It could be a slippery slope, euthanasia for children with breathing defects ?

The purpose of a society is that its strong protect its weak. Anyone proposing euthanising sick kids is going to find some fairly strenuous opposition from me.
They're weak because they are underage and because they are ill through no fault of their own. Neither of these things is preventible, and in neither case was the weakness chosen.
There's no continuum as you suggest between self-induced weakness among fully formed adults and serious illness in children. The two are in entirely separate categories.

macquarie

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The purpose of a society is that its strong protect its weak. Anyone proposing euthanising sick kids is going to find some fairly strenuous opposition from me.
They're weak because they are underage and because they are ill through no fault of their own. Neither of these things is preventible, and in neither case was the weakness chosen.
There's no continuum as you suggest between self-induced weakness among fully formed adults and serious illness in children. The two are in entirely separate categories.

Eliminate the weak eh? I seem to recall an Austrian gentleman attempting this during the years 1939-1945. Didn't work out too well for him in the end though.

Joe10000

macquarie wrote: »

Eliminate the weak eh? I seem to recall an Austrian gentleman attempting this during the years 1939-1945. Didn't work out too well for him in the end though.

Thanks where I was going, who am I decide who the weak are ? Who is to know where the next guy will draw the line ?

Burgerman1

hey OP, passive smoking kills. your habit is a nasty one indeed. never heard of death as a result of cancer caused by passive eating though

Cavehill Red

macquarie wrote:

Eliminate the weak eh? I seem to recall an Austrian gentleman attempting this during the years 1939-1945. Didn't work out too well for him in the end though.

Joe10000 wrote: »

Thanks where I was going, who am I decide who the weak are ? Who is to know where the next guy will draw the line ?

What are you talking about eliminating people for? I was talking about societal tolerance and funding of self-induced weakness.
If someone wants to eat until they're the size of a small bus, I couldn't care less. It's not my health they're ruining.
What I'm getting at is what the ramifications of a society financially incentivising such self-destructive lifestyle choices might be.
Why should I have to fund some lardarse's gastric band op out of taxes I'd prefer to see go towards job creation, or schools or treating people who fell ill through no fault of their own?
Why can't that lardarse assume some responsibility for their own actions?
Why am I expected to tiptoe around their hypersensitivities? If they weren't fully aware that their condition was entirely of their own making, then they wouldn't be so hypersensitive to criticism of it.
I find it bizarre that in a country with the highest proportion of red-haired people on Earth, it's perfectly acceptable to slag people for an element of their appearance which harms neither them nor anyone else and is entirely genetic in origin, while at the same time it's considered insensitive to criticise someone whose lack of self-discipline has destroyed their health and quality of life and costs me money in trying to make them better.

Full disclosure: I'm slim with a teeny beergut, not redhaired and smoke. And I fully accept criticism of my smoking, don't smoke where it's not wanted or illegal, and assume full responsibility for my healthcare needs.

MagicSean

My mate put on a lot of weight this year due to what's called an insulinoma, a tumour on his pancreas which affected his insulin production. Despite the fact that he reduced his food intake to one meal a day he continued to put on weight. The extra weight caused him to develop sleep apnea which meant that he effectively could not get a good nights sleep and so he had no energy throughout the day to exercise. He then became clinically depressed. Can you blame him? Now he has had treatment he has to undertake the slow processes of losing the six stone he has put on while he was sick.

So tell me op, what would you like to slag him about?