Fatness !

Okay so I was lazy on the evidence, still the fact that the first thing that you say is that there is no evidence, suggests that the point put you on the defensive. Because you didn't always address what I had said, it suggests that if I did present the evidence, you may of had trouble with it. But I accept, I will present more evidence. Though many points are generalisations and philisophical or moral concepts that have little evidence available to me right now, also it is more supportive evidence than proof, as proof is sometimes impossible. So I will go through your answer piece by piece. Fat is a choice. Call it a disease if you like, non the less, it is a choice. Fact. There are very rare cases of genetic conditions that cause people to be fat, very rare being the key phrase here. (1). So when we are talking about DISEASE, don't mislead the audience: Oxford definition: a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury. With this definition many things can fit under this classification. For example, alcohol poisoning: 1, 'disorder of structure of function in the human' yes. 2, 'especially on the produces specific symptoms, acts in specific location' yes. 'Not simply the direct result of physical injury' yes. And so definitions are man made and broad, so I don't agree that just because it can 'fit' the description, that it counts as the same thing as everything else under that category. There are many similarities I know, but your classing it as a disease because of one (mislead) understanding of 'disease'-that it is inevitable and the person is an innocent victim. This is for the sole reason that you are saying its a disease in order to make us feel more sorry for them, because they are innocent victims. You are using the word 'disease' to make it sound almost like a sexuality issue or a race issue. Obese people, in my experience, will accept responsibility and they should not be ashamed because we mostly are weak people. Fat people are just unfortunate enough to have a weakness that has a effect on their appearance. Your second paragraph I answer above. Though I will add that I say (most the time) because you cannot rule everything out 100% if you are serious about science. It is mearly a humbleness, in practice, as if said above, people are fat because they have eaten too much bad stuff with not enough exercise. A tiny fraction has genetic disorders. Your third paragraph. So the statement you repeat at the top you do not dispute. So we agree that's accurate. You say it is not relevant to the dabate, well its relevant to your point about it being a disease like I have said above. You catergorize it as a disease, because diseases have an understanding by the general public to be inevitable. Therefore your point about glamorising them stands legitimate because its not their fault and you feel sorry for them and they shouldn't be discriminated because of something they have no control over. This is why the point WAS relevant because it explains why it is self inflicted and why your labelling of disease was an attempt to mislead the audience. Also, still on your third paragraph. I do not provide any evidence for fat people harming anyone when in the media, because that is not what I am trying to say. Glamorising fatness, as opposed to fighting it, is not the best choice. Nor can you do both. We want fat people to hate being fat lets be real! anyone who loves the person enough to want to see them grow old does anyway. Fatness being glamorised and made to look cool or at least totally acceptable like homosexuality and racial groups is not right. This could lead many overweight people remaining overweight, this could be because it could serve as an "identity" for example. Your fourth paragraph: I don't think you fully understood me there? The fact that people are overweight, reflects the characteristics of the society that lead to this. Them being, bad food education, stigma attached to "greens" and attitude towards sweets, unfulfilling jobs and shallow materialistic society that lead to depression and thus addiction (which is fatness, as addiction to food is what causes fatness), alcohol culture, not shameful to be lazy (to some). So how does the fact that people are getting ill from food reflect something good about the society? it doesn't make sense too me... you make this speech about liberalism and rights of the (diseased) but it has no relevance that I can see. I am not saying if someone is funny and qualified but fat, that one should offer the job to the same man who is just skinnier. I am saying we should not be pushing for, and prioritizing putting fat people on T.V in some political correctness frenzy. As fat is a problem that needs help and prevention, not more acceptance. More acceptance = more fatness More fatness = more death. Not good. And I could find evidence suggesting that if something is accepted then people will feel more comfortable doing it, I just take that as obvious. 5th paragraph. I am not saying show the top 8% only. I am saying we should show the middle 80% but also you must remember that its not 8% of women are skinny, its 100% of women are a healthy (quite skinny) normal size, and their diet can change that. If 60% of women in society are obese, should we show more obese people? No, we should not deliberately show more fat people to make the fat population feel better about their life deteriorating addiction. I don't fully understand what your point is on this paragraph so excuse me.. 6th. Don't understand what your trying to say here. 7th. No there isn't anything wrong with that. We should all know that anyways, I don't understand why not deliberately glamorizing fatness shows that they are not beautiful. 8th. When I say people with neurological or personality disorders I mean people who might normally be considered dangerous or completely retarded to the point of where talking to them was pointless. And so showing their real self is good to decrease stigma and help sufferers belong. It could be any other life effecting conditions, such as multiple-sclerosis, multiple personality, schizophrenia etc. Fatness is fatness, they may have a 'personality disorder' its called laziness, greediness etc. The are fat because they where to greedy or lazy to stop it, its not fair to put a sufferer of schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis in this same basket. Indeed its a cop out for a fat person to call it a disease, it reduces responsibility. Your 9th. What? its a hypothetical situation what facts could I of possibly got? Answer the question and stop avoiding them all, it makes you look desperate when all you can do is discount on the basis of no evidence. (bare in mind I have no evidence for something's because they are intuitive and others are just hard to find) the points still stand though and have not been disputed. Not to mention the spelling errors of mine you so intelligently pointed out. Now that's clutching at straws if ever I saw it. Your 10th. I think I need you actually explain why they cannot be compared based the reasons that I gave you for why they can be compared. Again with the avoidance, proof is here (paragraph 11) Paragraph 12. Ye it might be seen as respectful to be fat in a starving country of course! it shows you have money and you are probably more healthy than the others who are starving. It is not respectable, solely to be fat. Its what it says about you, in that culture that is respected. Not the fact that they are lazy and greedy. paragraph 12, yes health foods are for talking obesity. So what, I don't get why you are saying that? I would if I was in charge yes. 1. Hu F. Genetic predictors of obesity. In: Hu F, ed. Obesity Epidemiology. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2008; 437""460.