> Well, it's because adults didn't want their children to become fat, you see.

This is a sOuNd argument. It stands to reason that as you mentioned, it is something you can totally teach your children without engaging them with books like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where the verses literally compare fat people to pigs and portray them as disgusting beings. Do you really think it teaches kids to eat less or to hate fat people?

> The reasonable response is something along the lines of "eating too much will make you big, and it's not good for you, but that doesn't mean you should be mean to that lady, or treat her differently from anyone else".

Some people, including my friends, are fat because of genetics and health disorders. Things that they cannot control. I've seen them eat very less compared to anybody else, practically starve and still remain fat. Eating too much is not the only reason.

The author never in any manner specifies eating too much is okay. All the author tries to say is that being fat doesn't make someone less of a human being. How exactly do you think you'll be able to teach your kids to not grow into being fatphobic when you portray being fat an undesirable quality, as you're trying to say here. Apart from themselves, doesn't this automatically burn the image into their heads that they should never love anyone who is fat?

I remember the exact kind of argument being used to tell kids that "you shouldn't treat queer people differently from anyone else, but you cannot be queer yourself".

> Imagine this. Let's say we come up with "Natural Dental Acceptance", "natdent" for short, a burgeoning movement for people who believe plaque is a protective coating for one's teeth and that "bad breath" is fake news that can be sufficiently combated by chewing Mentos. I could imagine now the blog post claiming children's literature is "netdentphobic" by claiming children need to brush their teeth etc, filling their heads with visions of "mouth bacteria" that nobody can even see. That's the level of ridiculous this post is.

This doesn't make a shred of sense. Nobody is preferring about random blog posts over science/good health here. Being fat and being healthly are two different things. Some bodies are just fat, and that doesn't make them unhealthy. All the author wants is for kids to be not bullied over their bodies and not form opinions on others or themselves just based on how they look. I can't even fathom how you went from there and arrived to this messed up logic.

> When kids become "fatphobic", we are arming them with important health information that can increase their lifespan and health, reproductive fitness, and more. If they follow through and live healthier lives, they will be happier people.

Wow. I regret posting this on hackernews. I genuinely believed smart people would be able to understand issues faced by other "undesirable" people in our society. By your argument, an unhealthy child should not exist/can never be happy. I am thin and I have a rocking bod and I have asthma, a condition that's going to exist as long as I live. Basically, you're trying to say that I can never be happy and I shouldn't exist.

Does this reply seem like I'm totally misunderstanding what you're trying to say? Yes, I was going for it, because that's what you've done with what the author is trying to say. Maybe you should first teach your kids to not grow up to be like you.

I don't care if this gets me blocked from here, while people advocating fatphobia, racism and denial of basic human rights, still get to say whatever they want on hackernews. This place isn't good for anything other than tech, especially not social issues. People here seem to have decent IQ and very little to zero EQ.