The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

cullennz said:
Awesome. You are the ultimate in extreme scenarios
Click to expand...

So you don't have an answer? Can't say I'm surprised. It's much easier to stigmitise and shame people by calling them "fatty" and accuse them of "moaning" than it is to think your way through complex issues.
 
bit_pattern said:
So you don't have an answer? Can't say I'm surprised. It's much easier to stigmitise and shame people by calling them "fatty" and accuse them of "moaning" than it is to think your way through complex issues.
Click to expand...

No.

Solving the problem does not have to involve your warped name calling an hurtfulness.

It involves encouragement and education (especially kids)

Thereis a certain irony in you acusing me of things I would accuse others of without knowing
 
cullennz said:
No.

Calling it a disability implies lack of simple healthy cure.
Click to expand...

It would be easier if you quoted the post you were responding to.

So, do you think that people, upon being told that they have a disability or face a disability, give up on their simple health care? Or is it just fat people because they're...........
 
cullennz said:
It involves encouragement and education (especially kids)
Click to expand...

Encouragement like this?

cullennz said:
Just not moaning about being misunderstood woyld probably alleviate some misconception.

Also saying every fatty is disabled and none are just lazy doesnt help
Click to expand...

"Hey, Fatty, stop moaning about being misunderstood - you're just lazy"

Do you think that kind of "encouragement" is helpful and not stigmatising?
 
Last edited:
bit_pattern said:
No it doesn't. Please point to any definition of disability that is predicated on whether a condition is able to be cured or not.
Click to expand...

I dont know the case in your country but in mine it implies non self causrd affliction
 
bluesjnr said:
It would be easier if you quoted the post you were responding to.

So, do you think that people, upon being told that they have a disability or face a disability, give up on their simple health care? Or is it just fat people because they're...........
Click to expand...

You right. Im wrong. Think of any stupid worse case scenario hang it pn me.


I am evil hatey the fatty dude
 
bit_pattern said:
We already do - in the context that this thread is actually about, i.e. treating the addiction like a disability. Long term addicts receive often receive the disability pension, or at least sickness benefits paid at the same rate as the dole. I have zero problems with treating drug addiction like a sickness. Do you?
Click to expand...

Nope.

All addiction is sickness and should be treated. Drug addicts aren't given disability pensions unless they have other medical problems.

Sickness benefits, or Newstart (incapacitated). To qualify and continue receiving payments, you must agree to attend regular treatments. You don't have a right to refuse treatment and still be paid. You must enter into a rehabilitation agreement and counselling, as well as be willing to undertake study/retraining.

I know the system. I spent years on and off with a back injury.

If that's how they plan to treat obesity, (as a sickness) I don't have a problem.

A sickness isn't the same thing as a disability. Unless we mean 'temporary disability', but we already have a system for that.

What concerns me about the 'disability' classification is the obvious enabling paradox.
Also, what public expense will be required to facilitate for these disabled people?
Does being disabled mean you don't need to pay for two airline seats, lest you be discriminated against? Do we need to redesign public transport and public access?

Because they're sick? Or because they're disabled?
 
From the NZ HRC:

In New Zealand disability is defined in a variety of laws. The Building Act 1991 defines a person with a disability as any person who suffers from physical or mental disability to such a degree that he or she is seriously limited in the extent to which he or she can engage in the activities, pursuits and processes of everyday life. Earlier legislation such as the Maori Affairs Act 1953 and the Judicature Act 1908 refers to people as disabled if they are of unsound mind or physically or mentally infirm and unable to manage their own affairs - effectively illustrating the patronising approach typical of a medical model of disability.

As a general principle the purpose of the legislation tends to dictate how disability is defined. Thus the definition of disability in legislation designed to protect peoples’ rights will be interpreted broadly and inclusively while in legislation such as the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 (which governs service provision or needs assessment) the term will be interpreted more narrowly: Cooper J & Vernon S Disability and the Law, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers (1996) at 16.
Click to expand...
 
cullennz said:
I dont know the case in your country but in mine it implies non self causrd affliction
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's crap. I don't need to know NZ law to know this.

Case in point. I knew a bloke, a neighbor, who had attempted suicide by putting a shotgun under his chin. He survived. He only has half a face and lost part of his brain.

Should we, as a society, refuse to care for this bloke?

Its his own fault that he's disabled. Nobody can fix it though.
 
Can the dude grow his face back with some excercise and eating less?

Stupid analogy
 
Shiner said:
Nope.

All addiction is sickness and should be treated. Drug addicts aren't given disability pensions unless they have other medical problems.

Sickness benefits, or Newstart (incapacitated). To qualify and continue receiving payments, you must agree to attend regular treatments. You don't have a right to refuse treatment and still be paid. You must enter into a rehabilitation agreement and counselling, as well as be willing to undertake study/retraining.

I know the system. I spent years on and off with a back injury.

If that's how they plan to treat obesity, (as a sickness) I don't have a problem.

A sickness isn't the same thing as a disability. Unless we mean 'temporary disability', but we already have a system for that.

What concerns me about the 'disability' classification is the obvious enabling paradox.
Also, what public expense will be required to facilitate for these disabled people?
Does being disabled mean you don't need to pay for two airline seats, lest you be discriminated against? Do we need to redesign public transport and public access?

Because they're sick? Or because they're disabled?
Click to expand...

I apologise in advance for the source - but we already pay DSP for disabling condition related to obesity

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/fa...055955717?nk=8f6c2dc0cfe5082aaaaa4348d3b5ae8f

And DSP recipients are also subject to the kinds participation and treatment conditions you describe. The qualifying factor for DSP is if a condition is going to be disabling for a period of greater than two years.

Although, assuming the incompetents we have running the show in Canberra ATM can negotiate their legislative agenda through the senate then it is likely that we will soon have two categories of the "deserving" disabled (i.e. people that we can outwardly see their disability and feel suitable pity for) and the "underserving" disabled (i.e. people with less obvious disabilities who are clearly bludgers that must be stigmatised and condemned by the tabloid media).
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
Can the dude grow his face back with some excercise and eating less?

Stupid analogy
Click to expand...

Look, I've already provided you with the relevant legislation from NZ - your prejudiced idea of who is a deserving of being considered disabled is not reflected in te wording in any way whatsoever.
 
bit_pattern said:
Look, I've already provided you with the relevant legislation from NZ - your prejudiced idea of who is a deserving of being considered disabled is not reflected in te wording in any way whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am an idiot, but what is basic common sense and what is literal law an be different. Saying people should be helped to lose weight rather yhan being labelled does not automatically mran I want to hunt them down. Vilify them. Call them names. Stone th to death.

Grow some perspective
 
cullennz said:
Can the dude grow his face back with some excercise and eating less?

Stupid analogy
Click to expand...

So, what you meant was, 'non self causrd affliction wot they can't fix themselves'?

Sorry, I missed that qualification in your erroneous representation of your countries position on disability.

That you find my analogy "stupid", comes as no surprise.
 
cullennz said:
Maybe I am an idiot, but what is basic common sense and what is literal law an be different.
Click to expand...

I would have though the relevant laws were a very good measure of the commonality of supposed "common sense" - especially when you have framed your answer to the question I posed about definitions around what happens in your country.

Saying people should be helped to lose weight rather yhan being labelled does not automatically mran I want to hunt them down. Vilify them. Call them names. Stone th to death.

Grow some perspective
Click to expand...

This might be more believable if not for the fact that you have been doing exactly that (the bolded bits) in this very thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom