The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

Shiner said:
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.
Click to expand...

So someone who refuses to leave your house power turned on because it affecys yheir yv reception is disabled
 
bit_pattern said:
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.



This might be more believable if not for the fact that you have been doing exactly that (the bolded bits) in this very thread.
Click to expand...

That is because the majority have a choice and ate just stupid.

Which is why they need education and not vilification
 
bit_pattern said:
I apologise in advance for the source - but we already pay DSP for disabling condition related to obesity

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/faeople-addicts-paid-by-government-to-stay-at-home/story-e6freuy9-1226055955717?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).
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't obese people be stigmatized though? We stigmatize drug addicts.
We stigmatize the dole bludgers who play the system because they prefer to stay at home and deal drugs or steal.

I don't see how "obesity" can be diagnosed as a condition that will require > 2 years to recover/rehabilitate from. It gets murky. Obesity causes a lot of other medical conditions. So does drug addiction. If you're receiving disability payments for heart problems, or because you're on dialysis (both possible results of obesity and drug addiction), then the addiction isn't what stops you from working, and not what attracts the payment.

Just thinking out loud.

I don't hate fat people. I just have less sympathy for them than people with other sicknesses.
 
isissxn said:
I also found the claim that improving diet alone will just magically make obese people slim down to a regular weight ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Really?

Sorry, you'll need to explain to me when the laws of chemistry & physics changed, because I'm still working on the basis that people must lose weight if they consume fewer calories than they use.

isissxn said:
Oh, okay. Now I'm pretty sure this is all a joke after all.
Click to expand...

Cherry picked. Try using context next time.
 
Shiner said:
Why shouldn't obese people be stigmatized though? We stigmatize drug addicts.
We stigmatize the dole bludgers who play the system because they prefer to stay at home and deal drugs or steal.
Click to expand...

Do you think we SHOULD stigmatise drug addicts? I certainly don't. Do you think stigmatisation is in any way helpful in getting people to not be drug addicts?
 
cullennz said:
So someone who refuses to leave your house power turned on because it affecys yheir yv reception is disabled
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Yes, my reception is obviously disabled. I don't have a clue what that means.
Do you type with your eyes closed?
 
bit_pattern said:
Not sure if you realise that we can all see what you've previously written in this thread.
Click to expand...

That most fat people are lazy and stupid.

This I haven't denied.

But my arguement is education (especially the next generation)

This dors not mean I think they are some kind of scum that should be cast out
 
bit_pattern said:
Do you think we SHOULD stigmatise drug addicts? I certainly don't. Do you think stigmatisation is in any way helpful in getting people to not be drug addicts?
Click to expand...

You answered a question with a question. I'll answer yours ....

It's what we do. Rehab is all about recognising that the problem is ugly and self destructive. Owning it. The goal is to not regress to the former self.

Self stigmata.

Its only right that society do its bit here.

Do you know any recovered alcoholics?
 
cullennz said:
That most fat people are lazy and stupid

...

This dors not mean I think they are some kind of scum that should be cast out
Click to expand...

Maybe the problem here is that you don't understand the meaning of words like "shaming" and "stigmatising"?
 
Shiner said:
You answered a question with a question. I'll answer yours ....

It's what we do. Rehab is all about recognising that the problem is ugly and self destructive. Owning it. The goal is to not regress to the former self.

Self stigmata.

Its only right that society do its bit here.

Do you know any recovered alcoholics?
Click to expand...

I'm an ex-addict of a number of substances - cannabis and methamphetamine being the big ones. I'm currently dependent on nicotine and would be classed as an alcoholic by any measure of the term. So, no, I don't think stigmatisation, self or otherwise, is particularly helpful for addiction recovery. Quite the opposite, actually. All it does is break down self worth and make you kick-back against the stigma by using more drugs.
 
bit_pattern said:
Maybe the problem here is that you don't understand the meaning of words like "shaming" and "stigmatising"?
Click to expand...

So your theory is to pat them on the hand and say "It is not your responsability. You are disabled"

"Let us tell the kids you are going to die at 40 isnt because your dumb as pig poo"
 
isissxn said:
Add on top of that the claim that it takes more effort to gain weight than to lose it - well, I started to wonder if this was all some kind of joke. Surely no one could actually think that, regardless of his or her other views on obesity and/or its condition as a disability. Surely?
Click to expand...

I was hoping someone would challenge this, as I'm confident I can back the argument up with both science and economics.

Fat-causing foods are more expensive than healthier foods. I proved this in a study over a month last year where I fed my entire family on a limited budget to show that it is possible to eat healthy food in near-poverty conditions. http://charman.co.nz/poverty/povertynz2.htm

Factor in things like sugared drinks bought at ridiculous cost against almost-free water and it becomes very obvious that it is easier and cheaper to eat healthily than unhealthily.

Please feel free to post evidence to support your position.
 
cullennz said:
So your theory is to pat them on the hand and say "It is not your responsability. You are disabled"

"Let us tell the kids you are going to die at 40 isnt because your dumb as pig poo"
Click to expand...

No. No it isn't. But let's just say I'm not surprised that the level of discourse with you has sunk this low.
 
bit_pattern said:
The CICO model is looking increasingly flimsy...
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

As your link states:
“The fundamental cause of obesity and overweight,” the World Health Organization says, “is an energy imbalance between calories consumed and calories expended.”
Click to expand...

I happen to agree entirely that the type of carbs ingested will have a significant impact, but the maths still works.
 
The Atheist said:
I was hoping someone would challenge this, as I'm confident I can back the argument up with both science and economics.

Fat-causing foods are more expensive than healthier foods. I proved this in a study over a month last year where I fed my entire family on a limited budget to show that it is possible to eat healthy food in near-poverty conditions. http://charman.co.nz/poverty/povertynz2.htm

Factor in things like sugared drinks bought at ridiculous cost against almost-free water and it becomes very obvious that it is easier and cheaper to eat healthily than unhealthily.

Please feel free to post evidence to support your position.
Click to expand...

Not sure how that menu can be considered healthy or not fattening. Seems to me there's a lot off sugar and refined starches being consumed there.
 
The Atheist said:
I was hoping someone would challenge this, as I'm confident I can back the argument up with both science and economics.

Fat-causing foods are more expensive than healthier foods. I proved this in a study over a month last year where I fed my entire family on a limited budget to show that it is possible to eat healthy food in near-poverty conditions. http://charman.co.nz/poverty/povertynz2.htm

Factor in things like sugared drinks bought at ridiculous cost against almost-free water and it becomes very obvious that it is easier and cheaper to eat healthily than unhealthily.

Please feel free to post evidence to support your position.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Brought KFC for my two nephews as a one off treat the other day. Could have cooked three or four meals with the cost. Not doing that again
 
The Atheist said:
Nonsense.

As your link states:


I happen to agree entirely that the type of carbs ingested will have a significant impact, but the maths still works.
Click to expand...

Either you didn't read past the first paragraph or your terminally dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom