The obese should not be entitled to disability benefits.

Because an obese person deviates far from what our societies deem attractive, people find it very easy to be cruel and close-minded and make a number of unwarranted assumptions about obese people. This is a chance to discuss facts. I appreciate Mr. Eggleston's concession that the facts are exactly as I have explained them. Unfortunately, he has introduced a sort of slippery slope argument that is ungrounded in the law and contrary to the facts. Starting with the latter, Mr. Eggleston claims that this case is the thin edge of the wedge. If he is still discussing the U. S. , as was his initial argument, this is contrary to the facts. As already set forth at reasonable length, the U. S. has taken obesity into account in determining eligibility for SSD for some time, and requires that obese people are offered reasonable accommodations so that they can stay employed. This is the think end of the wedge, and it is precisely the system that Mr. Eggleston claimed must not be changed. If he is disussing Europe, as pointed out there is already a vibrant welfare state in Europe. Going a step further, there is no reason to conclude that obesity and the effects of obesity, such as muscular-skeletal diseases, are not taken into account in determining whether a person is incapable of working and thus eligible for full or partial disability. In fact, Denmark itself may be at the thick end of the wedge, and a ruling that requires that accommodations are made to avoid the payment of partial or full disability is likely a boon. (. https://www.swisslife.com...) In short, the proposed slippery slope is contrary to the facts as admitted by Mr. Eggleston, and is illogical because there is no reason to suppose that keeping people employed sends anyone down the path to reliance on the welfare state. Proceding to the former, Mr. Eggleston's assumption that this ruling is precedent for an expansion of disability benefits is unwarranted. As pointed out in my original argument and sources, this cannot be true in the U. S. , where SSD for obesity-related condition long preceded the requirement of workplace accommodations. And, it may not be true in European countries, where by all appearances an obese person with related conditions that rendered him unable to work would already have been eligible for disabiity benefits. But, more importantly, Mr. Eggleston's assumption runs contrary to the way in which a judicial system based on precedent and the rule of law actually works. Courts make limited rulings, and have done so since time immemorial, without succumbing to the slippery slope, in large part because courts are in fact bound by the necessity of interpreting statutes. Here, disability due to an inability to work is completely different from disability requiring workplace accommodations, because of the simple logical reality that a person eligible for workplace accommodations is not eligible on a claim of inability to work. And, the inability to work one particular job does not qualify a person for disability benefits, rather, it is required that the person is permanently unable to work. (. http://www.ssa.gov...) So, the concept of a disability that requires a workplace accommodation is vastly removed from the concept of a disability that creates eligibility for benefits due to an inability to work. The two are not even remotely the same. Courts are aware of the distinction, and it is unreasonable to conclude that they will create a rule whereby people who by definition can work are thus eligible for benefits that require that they cannot work. As a parting shot after all of Mr. Eggleston's resistance to facts and logic, I will point out that in the U. S. (and likely elsewhere) it is already the case that persons who cannot walk long distances can obtain handicap decals, despite Mr. Eggleston's warnings about this being an eventuality of the decision. (. http://www.daytondailynews.com...) I wonder how we can fear Mr. Eggleston's bogeymen when he is blissfully unaware that they are walking about beneath his nose. Thanks for the debate.