# Being overweight, judging overweight, judging others generally...



## Omar B

LOL, reminds me of my college job.  I was a waiter at an Italian Restaurant/take out place in Long Island, dude all of us were bombed out of our minds but functional a good chunk of the time.  It's monkey work you could do without being very mentally engaged.  Ah, the good old days when we used to go back behind the building and smoke up then wash off with Listerine and Febreeze before the evening rush.

As for fat people, they disgust me.  Those big watery eyes fatties get that remind me of a cow always makes me laugh.  The worst part are the fat chicks who hit on you though.  As if I who spend so much time working out would ever even be seen with someone who's idea of caring for themselves is hair and make up ... ever notice fat chicks really do up the hair and make up?  LOL.

As for fighting a fat opponent, same rules apply, except you usually have a small amount of time more than usuall because they have to move their bulk.  It's still about moving and finding the angle though.  Oh, and strikes to the midsection are not as effective, go for the legs.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Omar B said:


> As for fat people, they disgust me.  Those big watery eyes fatties get that remind me of a cow always makes me laugh.  The worst part are the fat chicks who hit on you though.  As if I who spend so much time working out would ever even be seen with someone who's idea of caring for themselves is hair and make up ... ever notice fat chicks really do up the hair and make up?  LOL.



Is this an attempt at humour? I can't believe what I'm reading.


----------



## MJS

Thesemindz said:


> So what do you guys think?* I don't want this to turn into fat bashing. *I'm fat too. I get it. I just want to discuss approaches to fighting overweight people, and what you've learned or observed in doing so.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 


Omar B said:


> As for fat people, they disgust me. Those big watery eyes fatties get that remind me of a cow always makes me laugh. The worst part are the fat chicks who hit on you though. As if I who spend so much time working out would ever even be seen with someone who's idea of caring for themselves is hair and make up ... ever notice fat chicks really do up the hair and make up? LOL.


 
Umm...yeah, something was missed apparently.


----------



## terryl965

*As for fat people, they disgust me. Those big watery eyes fatties get that remind me of a cow always makes me laugh. The worst part are the fat chicks who hit on you though. As if I who spend so much time working out would ever even be seen with someone who's idea of caring for themselves is hair and make up ... ever notice fat chicks really do up the hair and make up? LOL.
*

You my friend have some serious growing up to do and also some serious apologizing. I wold like to point out that the op says let not turn this into a fat bashing party. Please remember all people have feelings and have feelings as well.


----------



## Omar B

Did I offend?  I'm sorry.  I just don't have a high opinion of 'em, sue me.


----------



## terryl965

Omar B said:


> Did I offend? I'm sorry. I just don't have a high opinion of 'em, sue me.


 
Everybody is entitle to there views but why be so tastless about it, especially toward the ladys? I mean no one person is perfect and I am sure you have some faults a swell that you would not like somebody making comments about. But I am sure you have not consider this and really you probaly do not care. Have a wonderful life and remember when you gt older and put on a few pounds you will look back and say I was once small and in shape. Not every single overwieght person is that way because they choose to be some it is medical or stress or a tew other reasons.


----------



## Thesemindz

Omar B said:


> Did I offend? I'm sorry. I just don't have a high opinion of 'em, sue me.


 
I wouldn't sue you.

Any more than I would sue Obama for comparing his bowling to "special olympics," or I would sue Jesse Jackson for wanting to cut Obama's balls off, or I would sue anybody for saying anything crude and offensive.

It's your right to say it. It's everyone else's right to judge you for it.


-Rob


----------



## Omar B

terryl965 said:


> Everybody is entitle to there views but why be so tastless about it, especially toward the ladys? I mean no one person is perfect and I am sure you have some faults a swell that you would not like somebody making comments about. But I am sure you have not consider this and really you probaly do not care. Have a wonderful life and remember when you gt older and put on a few pounds you will look back and say I was once small and in shape. Not every single overwieght person is that way because they choose to be some it is medical or stress or a tew other reasons.



I've got plenty of faults ... like being tasteless for one.  But as you said, what people think of me matters not unless you are giving me a pay check.

But back to my original point, the midsection's pretty much useless in their case.  waste of energy for too little results.  Go for the legs and watch out for the arms.  Try to keep some distance and maybe they'll gas.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Omar B said:


> I've got plenty of faults ... like being tasteless for one. But as you said, what people think of me matters not unless you are giving me a pay check.


 
I should hate to believe you think so little of yourself. That comment alone shows a lack of respect for yourself.

Yes, Omar, we all have faults, and we all say things we shouldn't. Being resentful of overweight women for being attracted to you says more about you than them. Saying that you 'have no use' for people who are overweight is one of the crueler things I've ever seen anyone put their name to and post online.

I can't speak for others, but I can tell you how I react to this. When I grew up, I knew adults in authority who would use slurs like, ******, kike, wop with utter impunity. I was fortunate enough to grow up knowing this was wrong. I've spent a good chunk of my personal and professional life pointing out these wrongs.

As I got older, I learned that people who say these things are carrying a burden of their own -- that burden gets bigger and harder carry. Ultimately cruel words and thoughts have a way of hurting not only those who hear them, but those who say them.


----------



## Omar B

I think quite highly of myself man.  I'm successful enough to honestly not care about other people's opinions, if you see that as a flaw so be it.  Thanks for the bit of psych analysis based upon a post though.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Omar B said:


> I think quite highly of myself man.  I'm successful enough to honestly not care about other people's opinions, if you see that as a flaw so be it.  Thanks for the bit of psych analysis based upon a post though.



Then we'll leave it there.


----------



## Guardian

Omar B said:


> I've got plenty of faults ... like being tasteless for one. But as you said, what people think of me matters not unless you are giving me a pay check.
> 
> But back to my original point, the midsection's pretty much useless in their case. waste of energy for too little results. Go for the legs and watch out for the arms. Try to keep some distance and maybe they'll gas.


 
Is this what your Martial Arts have taught you, no respect, no giving a crap what you say or do or how you say it.  Then exactly why are you here, certainly not to learn, because you have just basically told us, we have nothing to offer you if we don't issue you a paycheck.

I can't fathom why you would want to be here among us low lifes.


----------



## Raynac

also i think you guys are being a bit hard on omar, I think his comment about it not mattering what you think of me unless your handing me a paycheck, was more about how he feels comfortable with who he is and feels no need to impress other individuals when hes ok with being himself.

plus he admits that he has faults which alot of people in todays society have trouble doing. we arn't perfect and even after he started handing out what he thought was good fighting advice you guys kept comming after him for that statement.



all that aside I agree that the bash on the fat ladys was uncalled for, but I would be hypocritical if I said that I didn't know what he was talking about.  :uhohh: 

also i don't have time to quote it but somebody posted a video of a "fat girl" beating up a skinny guy, i put that in quotes cause... well she wasn't all that fat in my definition, sure she had a couple extra pounds but I see much larger on a daily basis.


----------



## bowser666

Omar B said:


> Did I offend?  I'm sorry.  I just don't have a high opinion of 'em, sue me.




Honestly man , noone asked you for your opinion about them.  Seriously, i bet many forum users have a much worse opinion of you since you made that post. You sound like a major a-hole. How would you like someone picking on you for the color of your skin and saying that your skin color disgusts them ?  There is no difference between that and what you just did. You really should be ashamed of yourself. Cocky @#$%^&*


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> As for fat people, they disgust me.  Those big watery eyes fatties get that remind me of a cow always makes me laugh.  The worst part are the fat chicks who hit on you though.  As if I who spend so much time working out would ever even be seen with someone who's idea of caring for themselves is hair and make up ... ever notice fat chicks really do up the hair and make up?  LOL.



Ah.  Now I get it.

A month or so ago, right after I joined MT, I happened to post some photos from my Flickr account here.  Right after that, someone with a freebie account on Flickr decided to make some really offensive comments on my wife's photos.  I deleted the comments, banned the person from posting again, and they popped back up a day later, only from another free Flickr account.  I eventually had to turn off the ability to make comments on my photos completely just to get the anonymous person from making the most horrible statements about my wife.

And the strange thing is, Omar, he used the same words you just did.  The very same words.

People use the same word patterns over and over again, Omar.  They don't typically change.  So I'm going to ask you politely - this is not an accusation, because I haven't any evidence - were you the person who made those awful comments?  I would like to know.


----------



## BrandonLucas

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ah. Now I get it.
> 
> A month or so ago, right after I joined MT, I happened to post some photos from my Flickr account here. Right after that, someone with a freebie account on Flickr decided to make some really offensive comments on my wife's photos. I deleted the comments, banned the person from posting again, and they popped back up a day later, only from another free Flickr account. I eventually had to turn off the ability to make comments on my photos completely just to get the anonymous person from making the most horrible statements about my wife.
> 
> And the strange thing is, Omar, he used the same words you just did. The very same words.
> 
> People use the same word patterns over and over again, Omar. They don't typically change. So I'm going to ask you politely - this is not an accusation, because I haven't any evidence - were you the person who made those awful comments? I would like to know.


 
Even if he is the person who made those comments, he's not going to own up to them.

What difference is it going to make even if he did?  Everyone can make their own judgement based just on what he has said in this thread alone.

My advice:  let it go.  Don't take it personally.  The internet is full of people who are just plain turds.  Besides, how do you know that the person who made the comments about your wife isn't physically bloated and disgusting?  How do we honestly know that Omar isn't?

Tread lightly, man.  I would honestly get angry if someone called my wife terrible names, too, but what am I going to do about it?  Kicking their a$$ isn't going to really solve anything, other than making you feel better at the moment.  It certainly isn't going to shut them up.

You did the right thing to correct the situation by disabling the comments on pictures.  Be the better man and let it go.


----------



## shesulsa

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ah.  Now I get it.
> 
> A month or so ago, right after I joined MT, I happened to post some photos from my Flickr account here.  Right after that, someone with a freebie account on Flickr decided to make some really offensive comments on my wife's photos.  I deleted the comments, banned the person from posting again, and they popped back up a day later, only from another free Flickr account.  I eventually had to turn off the ability to make comments on my photos completely just to get the anonymous person from making the most horrible statements about my wife.
> 
> And the strange thing is, Omar, he used the same words you just did.  The very same words.
> 
> People use the same word patterns over and over again, Omar.  They don't typically change.  So I'm going to ask you politely - this is not an accusation, because I haven't any evidence - were you the person who made those awful comments?  I would like to know.



The scumbag who left those comments isn't worth the resultant matter from digesting Del Taco, my friend.  Ignore it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

BrandonLucas said:


> Even if he is the person who made those comments, he's not going to own up to them.



He stated that he prided himself on his honesty.  I thought perhaps he meant it.



> You did the right thing to correct the situation by disabling the comments on pictures.  Be the better man and let it go.


The problem is that I like to allow comments on the photos I take, and it is a service I pay for.  Whilst I can disallow comments on a case-by-case basis, that does not work when people just keep creating new free accounts for the purpose of harassment.  I'd be fine with it if I did not have to turn off a feature I paid to have just to get the person leaving the comments to stop.

If it happens to be Omar, I have no intentions of threatening him.  He doesn't like fat people, and my wife and I are not thin.  I get it.  But I'm happy to leave him alone if he will return the favor.  Then I can use my Flickr account in the manner I paid for it and he can rest easy knowing that I know he despises my fatness.


----------



## Thems Fighting Words

bowser666 said:


> How would you like someone picking on you for the color of your skin and saying that your skin color disgusts them ?  There is no difference between that and what you just did. You really should be ashamed of yourself. Cocky @#$%^&*



Skin color is not something you can do anything about whereas weight is. Now I'm not defending Omar's comment, just pointing out the difference between race and weight. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Happiness matters too.  I don't like broccoli and never will.  I won't eat it.  Not even for an extra decade.  And the same goes for all broccoli's evil green cousins.  That's not food, that's what food eats.  I like my food to have had a face on it.



So true. I have a favorite shirt that reads: "Meat is murder. Sweet, delicious murder."  And a screen saver which reads: "Vegetarian: An old Indian word for Bad-Hunter." :uhyeah:

All joking aside though, a good diet should be balanced. And peak performance requires a good diet. I get away with eating junk right now because of lack of training. If I had to get back into training, my diet would also change.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Thems Fighting Words said:


> All joking aside though, a good diet should be balanced.



All joking aside, I eat what I want. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





As a former smoker, and a current lard-***, I can say that these are the two things people feel they have the most right to tell others about how they ought to live.  I quit smoking because *I* wanted to.  I'll do whatever I think is right about my food intake and selection.  My life, my rules.  Everybody has to die.  I won't die unhappy because I ate food I didn't like.


----------



## Archangel M

Bill Mattocks said:


> Happiness matters too.  I don't like broccoli and never will.  I won't eat it.  Not even for an extra decade.  And the same goes for all broccoli's evil green cousins.  That's not food, that's what food eats.  I like my food to have had a face on it.



Yes, happiness does matter, but its my opinion that some folks use the "Id rather die happy than live a long time miserable" as a rationalization and excuse for the status quo. Im betting that when the moment of their early death arrives they would be willing to trade a few of those "happy moments" on the couch with the bag of chips for a few more years of "unhappy" life. There are plenty of things to enjoy in life besides a 'happy diet".

While I have never been heavy, just giving up soda and being conscious of limiting "junk food" has done wonders for what "spare tire" I have been developing in my middle years.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Archangel M said:


> Yes, happiness does matter, but its my opinion that some folks use the "Id rather die happy than live a long time miserable" as a rationalization and excuse for the status quo.



I believe I am entitled to my _rationalizations and my excuses_.  As you are yours.  The difference is that I have no impulse to tell others how they ought to take care of themselves.



> Im betting that when the moment of their early death arrives they would be willing to trade a few of those "happy moments" on the couch with the bag of chips for a few more years of "unhappy" life.



Let us say that is true.  Again, so what? 



> There are plenty of things to enjoy in life besides a 'happy diet".



Do you think I don't engage in those things also? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> While I have never been heavy, just giving up soda and being conscious of limiting "junk food" has done wonders for what "spare tire" I have been developing in my middle years.



 I think that's great, it's an accomplishment to be proud of.  What makes you think I want to do that?  More to the point, if I do choose to do that, it will be because I want to do that, and most certainly not because someone else thought it was a good idea for me to do it.

I have often found that normal-sized people assume I am very unhappy about my size - I guess because they think about it and decide that they would be unhappy if they were my size.  So it is often with a sense of pity, or empathy, or honest desire to 'help' me have a better, happier, or healthier life that they shove their little health fact nuggets in my ear.

MY LIFE.  That's all that really matters.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  People with their advice about my health and what I ought to do about it get the same treatment as the nice earnest people who come to my door with a copy of Watchtower, know what I mean?

And now, my friend, I am have to get ready to head out to the dojo.  3 hours of physical pain and suffering, and then I will return home and have dinner.  The one I want.  No veggies, I hate them.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Thems Fighting Words said:


> Skin color is not something you can do anything about whereas weight is. Now I'm not defending Omar's comment, just pointing out the difference between race and weight.



TFW,

I'm going to tread out on the head of a philosophical pin -- on the one hand, yes, race and weight are different. The choice to cast judgment over a group of people for their weight, age, race or religion, to my mind, equates to the same thing. What if people could change their race? Should they do that for convenience sake? People can change their religion? Should they?

Your argument -- though I respect that it comes from a thoughtful place -- suggests the people have rights in certain cases to judge others. If it's ok to pronounce upon fuller-figured people like me, it's similarly ok to pronounce upon the poor. Heavy people can get lighter in many cases, but they should be doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do, not because their presence offends others.

Sorry to drift the thread, everybody.


----------



## Wishbone

Gordon Nore said:


> TFW,
> 
> I'm going to tread out on the head of a philosophical pin -- on the one hand, yes, race and weight are different. The choice to cast judgment over a group of people for their weight, age, race or religion, to my mind, equates to the same thing. What if people could change their race? Should they do that for convenience sake? People can change their religion? Should they?
> 
> Your argument -- though I respect that it comes from a thoughtful place -- s*uggests the people have rights in certain cases to judge others*. If it's ok to pronounce upon fuller-figured people like me, it's similarly ok to pronounce upon the poor. Heavy people can get lighter in many cases, but they should be doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do, not because their presence offends others.
> 
> Sorry to drift the thread, everybody.



So I suppose none of us have a right to judge serial murderers, rapists and child molesters.  How dare we.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Wishbone said:


> So I suppose none of us have a right to judge serial murderers, rapists and child molesters.  How dare we.


I think anyone too stupid to see the difference between a fat dude and a rapist, or a murderer, or a child molester, is someone who is too stupid to be allowed to reprorduce and should be sterilized, lest they pass on their dimwittedness.

7 pages, and you get what? Lots of crap, stereotypes, and prejudice.

Sometimes, I think some people's views stink like a fattys butt crack, in August, in Panama, when they hasn't seen a shower since February.

I'll bow out here.  The Obama Bashing's still in full swing, so I go now to read even more enlightened views from burned out bulbs.


----------



## Sukerkin

Wishbone said:


> So I suppose none of us have a right to judge serial murderers, rapists and child molesters. How dare we.


 

That's an argumentative fallacy, *Wishbone*.  

The judgement that is made upon such offenders is a legal one based on the need to protect society as a whole from those who deliberately harm others.

Making mock of fat people is no different from making mock of tall or short people or red headed people.  In no small part, 'fatness' is genetic or socialised in it's roots and is certainly tied in to marital status, age and wealth.

I am now fat for the first time in my life.  Why?  Because I'm in my mid-forties, have a larger disposable income than I ever had and have settled down.  Does this mean you have the right to make fun of me?

That's a rhetorical question by the way.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Wishbone said:


> So I suppose none of us have a right to judge serial murderers, rapists and child molesters. How dare we.


 
Actually, *judges *have the right to *judge *them. But if you want to wander out there on that slender reed of an argument, I'll take a little stroll with you. Anybody *can *judge members of another group. What I have challenged in my splendid post above is the idea that one can legitimize or rationalize one form of discrimination over another.

Now I'm guilty of this myself. I'm terribly intolerant of people who use ****** logic. It's a character flaw that I'm working on.

:lfao:


----------



## Thesemindz

Sukerkin said:


> Does this mean you have the right to make fun of me?


 
While I agree generally with your post, I wanted to pull this quote out and comment on it seperately.

I am of the firm belief that we all have the right to make fun of you. And of me. And of fat people. And of disabled people. And of homosexual people. And of black people. And of white people. And of redheads, and blondes, and people who wear glasses, and poor people, and rich people, and democrats, and republicans.

We always have the right to make fun of other people. Whether for some form of satire intended to teach a lesson, or out of pure mean spirited nastiness. 

And everyone else has the right to watch us do it and say, "that guy is a total ***."

That's what free speach is about. The right to be an ***. It's not about educating the masses, or enlightening the unwashed, or changing minds. It's about making a total *** of yourself, and having every right to do so, while everyone else in the room looks on in disgust. 

That's how we make informed decisions with regards to our freedom to assemble. If the idiots and bigots and partisans all had to hide their true feelings, we'd never know who to avoid. We might accidently end up standing next to a racist, or a sexist, or a scientologist.

So no, we don't suddenly have the right to make fun of you for being fat now. We've always had the right to make fun of you, for any reason we see fit.

And you've always had the right to judge us for it.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz

Gordon Nore said:


> Actually, *judges *have the right to *judge *them. But if you want to wander out there on that slender reed of an argument, I'll take a little stroll with you. Anybody *can *judge members of another group. What I have challenged in my splendid post above is the idea that one can legitimize or rationalize one form of discrimination over another.
> 
> Now I'm guilty of this myself. I'm terribly intolerant of people who use shi++y logic. It's a character flaw that I'm working on.
> 
> :lfao:


 
Actually, I judge them too. I feel perfectly comfortable in saying that child molesters are scum, and I am a better person than a child molester.

I don't feel pretentious or snotty in saying so either. In fact, I don't feel anything. I think on any objective scale, I would rate higher than a child molester.

So while I agree with the general thrust of your argument, I must also agree with Wishbone when he speaks of judging people. I do. 

I judge statists, and murderers, and rapists, and arsonists, and gangbangers, and priests who molest children, and corporations who defraud their investors, and jerks at work who steal money from their coworkers, and stupid people, and irrational people, and people who live off the government, and people who recognize evil and make a conscious decision to go along with it. 

You're welcome to judge me for being so judgemental, I'm okay with that to.


-Rob


----------



## Sukerkin

Aye, I actually do wholeheartedly agree with you, *TMZ*.  

We have all become far too thin skinned these days - which is ironic considering the all too real horrors that are going on around the globe.

However, there is a definable difference between 'gentle ribbing' and 'demonising/denigrating'.  It has to be said that it depends where the 'offending' remark comes from.  If a friend says, "Crikey, Mark, you've turned into a bit of a fat bastard these days!", it's one thing, if someone else who doesn't know me from Adam says the same thing, it's something rather more hurtful.


----------



## Thesemindz

Sukerkin said:


> However, there is a definable difference between 'gentle ribbing' and 'demonising/denigrating'. It has to be said that it depends where the 'offending' remark comes from. If a friend says, "Crikey, Mark, you've turned into a bit of a fat bastard these days!", it's one thing, if someone else who doesn't know me from Adam says the same thing, it's something rather more hurtful.


 
I agree, which is why that stranger is more the bastard for having done so.

Even when it is demonising or denigrating it must be allowed to go forth. If we stifle the words and thoughts of those we despise, then those who despise us will do the same.


-Rob


----------



## Wishbone

The Last Legionary said:


> I think anyone too stupid to see the difference between a fat dude and a rapist, or a murderer, or a child molester, is someone who is too stupid to be allowed to reprorduce and should be sterilized, lest they pass on their dimwittedness.
> 
> 7 pages, and you get what? Lots of crap, stereotypes, and prejudice.
> 
> Sometimes, I think some people's views stink like a fattys butt crack, in August, in Panama, when they hasn't seen a shower since February.
> 
> I'll bow out here. The Obama Bashing's still in full swing, so I go now to read even more enlightened views from burned out bulbs.


 
I'm going to presume this is directed at me since you quoted me.  Nothing in my post reveals that I do not know the difference between a fat dude and a rapist if that's what you are saying.  I would agree that someone who doesn't know the difference between those two might not be the best parental candidate, but it is not my place to restrict their right to do so.  

My point is that when Gordon Nore said 'suggests that the people have rights in certain cases to judge others' it implies that we don't ever have the right to judge others.  He then goes on to point out if it's okay to judge someone for being fat, then it's okay to judge someone for being poor.  I think it is okay to judge for both.  Does it make me right?  No.  Does it make me better than who I am judging?  Certainly not.  

I know people who claim they have a genetic problem with, weight and they will say this with a straight face while stuffing themselves with fried chinese buffets.  Then brag about how they are eating healthy by getting the medium fries from McDonalds.  Do I judge these people?  Hell yes I do.  Does it make me better than them?  No.  Then there are people like Bill Mattocks.  He seems comfortable with himself and I say Bravo.  I don't judge him for being overweight.  I judge him for his character, which he seems to have plenty of.  But I do judge people with the lack of character who blame their situations of weight, poverty, education, on others, and not themselves.  This includes the types I mentioned of murderers, rapists and child molesters.

My point is that Gordon Nore is wrong in implying that people are ever in situations where they _don't_ have a right to judge others.  Is the judgement correct?  Maybe, depends each time, and to each person.  But under no circumstances do we not have a _right_ to judge others.


----------



## Wishbone

Sukerkin said:


> That's an argumentative fallacy, *Wishbone*.
> 
> The judgement that is made upon such offenders is a legal one based on the need to protect society as a whole from those who deliberately harm others.
> 
> Making mock of fat people is no different from making mock of tall or short people or red headed people. In no small part, 'fatness' is genetic or socialised in it's roots and is certainly tied in to marital status, age and wealth.
> 
> I am now fat for the first time in my life. Why? Because I'm in my mid-forties, have a larger disposable income than I ever had and have settled down. Does this mean you have the right to make fun of me?
> 
> That's a rhetorical question by the way.


 

Rhetorical or not, it will be answered. 

Yes, I do have the right to make fun of you.  I'm not going to mostly because I don't know you and I don't generally make fun of individuals I don't know.  

I wear glasses.  You have the right to call me four-eyes, or anything like that.  Guess what?  I'm not going to get offended.  And if you bring a new joke about my eye sight that I haven't heard before I'm probably going to laugh my *** off and consider you awesome.  

I'm not talking about a legal judgement against the groups I mentioned.  I'm talking about a personal one, the same I could make against a fat person.  Just my own personal judgement of them.  I would agree if I were trying to equate judgement in a legal sense to judging overweight people that would be a logical fallacy, but I'm not.

By the way, fatness is not genetic near as people pretend.  That is a lame excuse.  If you argued it is due to the nature of our modern sedentary society we could discuss that, but don't tell me that it's genetic.  That affects a tiny population of the overweight population.


----------



## Archangel M

And I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with "judging". If there is anything wrong with our society today it is the social pressure to avoid telling people that we believe their behavior is WRONG. 

"You can judge me!" translates into "I want to do whatever the hell I want regardless of its impact on others and I dont want to be criticized for it."


----------



## Andy Moynihan

I like to judge the people who even after about half a dozen attempts to re-rail the thread topic are still too stupid to get the bloody clue.


----------



## shesulsa

Archangel M said:


> And I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with "judging". If there is anything wrong with our society today it is the social pressure to avoid telling people that we believe their behavior is WRONG.
> 
> "You can judge me!" translates into "I want to do whatever the hell I want regardless of its impact on others and I dont want to be criticized for it."



See ... the problem I have with your statement here is that I've known a handful of people who were put on specific drugs to save their lives which packed weight on them they can not get off; I've known others whose thyroid glands went berzerk or crapped out and the replacement for that packs on the weight. My son was on a particular drug that put forty pounds on his frame.

I suppose if you have to judge other people to make yourself feel better, then I guess that's what you'll have to do.  If you need to use the excuse that you should have the right to do so is ... well ... in my opinion, it's childish.  You can't possibly know the exact circumstances of every person walking down the street - fat, thin, moderate, short, fat, tall, acne-ridden, smelly or loony.  You may THINK you have it all dialed in ... but I assure you - as you mature, you will find out just how much you thought you knew was wrong.

I wish you luck and send you compassion.


----------



## Wishbone

Gordon Nore said:


> Actually, *judges *have the right to *judge *them. But if you want to wander out there on that slender reed of an argument, I'll take a little stroll with you. Anybody *can *judge members of another group. What I have challenged in my splendid post above is the idea that one can legitimize or rationalize one form of discrimination over another.
> 
> Now I'm guilty of this myself. I'm terribly intolerant of people who use ****** logic. It's a character flaw that I'm working on.
> 
> :lfao:


 
As I already addressed, I'm not talking about in a legal sense, so you can walk down that slender reed by yourself.

Your Splendid humble average post does not challenge the idea that one can legitamize or rationalize one form of discrimination over another.  It simply implies that people don't have the right to judge others, uses an analogy of comparing judging the overweight to the poor, and closes with an anecdote saying that fat people should change because they want to, not because of peer pressure.  If you want to discuss this new point you have mentioned feel free post about that.  However, as you'll see.  I'll bet we'd agree anyway, so don't do it on my account.

I'm saying people have rights to judge others all the time.  Whereas your post implied they do not.  I am not saying that their judging is correct, or that it is 'legitamite'.  And in fact, I agree with your opinion that on issues of weight people should change because want to.


----------



## Archangel M

shesulsa said:


> See ... the problem I have with your statement here is that I've known a handful of people who were put on specific drugs to save their lives which packed weight on them they can not get off; I've known others whose thyroid glands went berzerk or crapped out and the replacement for that packs on the weight. My son was on a particular drug that put forty pounds on his frame.
> 
> I suppose if you have to judge other people to make yourself feel better, then I guess that's what you'll have to do. If you need to use the excuse that you should have the right to do so is ... well ... in my opinion, it's childish. You can't possibly know the exact circumstances of every person walking down the street - fat, thin, moderate, short, fat, tall, acne-ridden, smelly or loony. You may THINK you have it all dialed in ... but I assure you - as you mature, you will find out just how much you thought you knew was wrong.
> 
> I wish you luck and send you compassion.


 

See you are confusing judging with no evidence or knowledge about the person (pre-judgement) vs. judging WITH evidence or information. If you think I have already judged someone based on just "looking" at them then you are wrong.

Thinking I am prone to the first and not the latter is about you pre-judging me. Thinking you know anything about me and my maturity or life-experience based on posts here is pre-judgemental as well.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Wishbone said:


> As I already addressed, I'm not talking about in a legal sense, so you can walk down that slender reed by yourself.



I wrote,



> Anybody *can *judge members of another group. What I have challenged in my splendid post above is the idea that one can legitimize or rationalize one form of discrimination over another.



*I don't believe* that one form of discrimination is more or less just than another. I don't think it is more reasonable to deride obese people than it is to deride black people. My argument is built on a personal belief that I never attempted to present as a universal truth.

Your counterpoint was to say, 'What about the child molesters?' So we're talking about two completely different things. I'm talking about groups of people at face value. You're talking about people who have invited judgment upon themselves by committing anti-social atrocities. That's the thin reed.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Wishbone said:


> I'm going to presume this is directed at me since you quoted me. Nothing in my post reveals that I do not know the difference between a fat dude and a rapist if that's what you are saying. I would agree that someone who doesn't know the difference between those two might not be the best parental candidate, but it is not my place to restrict their right to do so.


 
I quoted you so people would know what I referenced. If my comment accurately reflected on anyone on this site, I'd hope they'd have the good sence to go win a Darwin Award.

Seriously, between the venom in this thread, the stupidity in a few of the polical ones, and a couple of homophobic losers in others, I'm starting to rethink my partcipation here. For friendly people, there sure are alot of angry, bitter, paranoid, sorry sons of bitches posting as of late.

Not aiming at anyone specifically, but if the shoe fits, maybe its time to log off, walk up the stairs, and go outside for a while already. Geez.

Glad this threads in the Study and focusing on the medical, social and genetic issues of obesity, and not in the Self Defense area where one might expect it to have something to do with that topic.  Because if it was, all this other stuff might be considered off topic, and an awake mod might be in here posting nudges and winks and kicks in the *** about thread drift, and trolling, and all that happy horse pucky. 

Oh wait.  It is in Self Defense.

Guess someone ****ed up then huh?

Maybe splitting this off into the various parts (several of which are interesting) so that this one can refocus on Self Defense (You know, what this area's supposedly for) and the other parts can go where ever.

Someone let me know if any Self Defense discussion comes up in here, huh?


----------



## The Last Legionary

exile said:


> _*Moderator warning:*_
> 
> Please address your responses to the OP topic itself. Anyone who wishes to pursue the question of what kinds of judgments of others are legitimate, under what circumstance, etc. is welcome to start a thread specifically on that topic, but the current thread is about a particular SD problem posed by antagonists with certain physical characteristics. Off-topic posts and extended exchanges are not productive and will bring intervention by Staff if they continue.
> 
> Bob Levine
> MT Senior Moderator


*Thanks.*


----------



## Wishbone

Gordon Nore said:


> I wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't believe* that one form of discrimination is more or less just than another. I don't think it is more reasonable to deride obese people than it is to deride black people. My argument is built on a personal belief that I never attempted to present as a universal truth.
> 
> Your counterpoint was to say, 'What about the child molesters?' So we're talking about two completely different things. I'm talking about groups of people at face value. You're talking about people who have invited judgment upon themselves by committing anti-social atrocities. That's the thin reed.



Except that you clearly do think that one form of discrimination is more less just than the other.  You think that judging people who commit 'anti-social atrocities' is more just than judging people who are fat.  It's clear in your writing.  They're only completely different because you choose to see them as such.  But at the very core of it, I'm saying it doesn't matter what the situation or circumstances are, we all have the right to judge others, and that when we judge others, it doesn't make us any more right or wrong than the ones we are judging.  Judging is completely subjective.  Some people would disagree with what you call anti-social atrocities.  They would think that it is a natural way to live and probably judge things about your life.  Who is right and who is wrong?  It's all a matter of perspective.

It's only a thin reed because that's the way you choose to see it.


----------



## Wishbone

Wishbone said:


> Except that you clearly do think that one form of discrimination is more less just than the other.  You think that judging people who commit 'anti-social atrocities' is more just than judging people who are fat.  It's clear in your writing.  They're only completely different because you choose to see them as such.  But at the very core of it, I'm saying it doesn't matter what the situation or circumstances are, we all have the right to judge others, and that when we judge others, it doesn't make us any more right or wrong than the ones we are judging.  Judging is completely subjective.  Some people would disagree with what you call anti-social atrocities.  They would think that it is a natural way to live and probably judge things about your life.  Who is right and who is wrong?  It's all a matter of perspective.
> 
> It's only a thin reed because that's the way you choose to see it.



Saw the moderator warning after I posted this, apologies.


----------



## exile

*Mod Notice:*

This thread has been split off from the discussion whose OP addressed the question of how to engage large/fat/_big_ antagonists in self-defense situation, and the special problems posed by combat with such individuals. The current thread represents a series of exchanges which involve issues about weight as a personal characteristics, negative judgments about overweight people or people generally, and the right to make judgments. Please address these issues seriously and _without personal animosity_, as per MT's TOS rules.


----------



## Hand Sword

Truthfully, one shouldn't make judgements based on appearances. However, there is a problem with, forgive me, "fatness." American society in general is plagued with this issue, all the way down to our children, who, are more obese than ever. This is a serious issue.


----------



## Thems Fighting Words

Good to see this thread has split. Good call by the mods.



Gordon Nore said:


> TFW,
> 
> I'm going to tread out on the head of a philosophical pin -- on the one hand, yes, race and weight are different. The choice to cast judgment over a group of people for their weight, age, race or religion, to my mind, equates to the same thing. What if people could change their race? Should they do that for convenience sake? People can change their religion? Should they?
> 
> Your argument -- though I respect that it comes from a thoughtful place -- suggests the people have rights in certain cases to judge others. If it's ok to pronounce upon fuller-figured people like me, it's similarly ok to pronounce upon the poor. Heavy people can get lighter in many cases, but they should be doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do, not because their presence offends others.
> 
> Sorry to drift the thread, everybody.



Sorry my post was open to this interpretation. As I stated, I wasn't supporting Omar's judgment nor supporting judging others in general just pointing out the fact that there existed a difference. I'm currently overweight (BMI 28) myself and unlike in the past, my extra mass is definitely not muscle. Seeing as I'm not the hypocritical type, I'm hardly going to insult another martial artist for being overweight. However, if someone were to insult me on my weight (and a few people who have known me pre-gut have done so), I wouldn't be anywhere near as offended as if they had insulted me on my race (which also occurs).


----------



## BrandonLucas

I'm glad this was split from the OP, because this is an interesting topic to discuss as well...

I am a large person.  I'm not fat because of genetics.  I'm large because of genetics.  There is a difference.

I have a higher percentage of body fat because I became lazy and complacent, and did nothing about it until recently.  However, even if I were to be a lean, mean, fighting machine, I would safely weight 230 lbs...and I say safely because it's not worth getting sick just to drop pounds.

I am certain that at 230 lbs, I will have lost my spare tire, have toned and defined muscles, and be at the correct BMI.  But 230 lbs is still heavy, no matter how you look at it.

Does weighing that amount make me fat?  No.  I'm just a big guy.  I know the old saying "big boned" gets played out, but I truly have a large frame...my shin bones are more than 3" across...that's not from being fat, that's from having a large frame.  Add on top of that muscle, and it all starts to add up.

Now, being judemental of the fact that I'm a big guy without even knowing anything about me is petty.  And, quite honestly, I try to make a good first impression on people, but if my size turns your head the other direction, what have I lost?

And, just to clarify the whole thing about judging a rapist or child molester...

Can you tell a child molester just by looking at them?  You may think you can, but if that were the case, catching them would be far easier than it actually is.  

The issue at hand is people who judge others by physical appearance, without knowing anything about them.  Judging a child molester is different, because molesting a child is not a physical attribute.

What sets people off about those that judge based on physical appearance is the "holier than thou" state of mind that they portray.  In this case, Omar doesn't appear to be one who needs to cast stones, if that is his picture in his profile...

It is one thing to find someone unattractive because of physical appearance, but it is another to judge their character based on physical appearance, which is what Omar did in his post that started all of this.  Just because someone is fat doesn't mean that they will eat everything in sight, and making an assumption like that is an assumption of someone's character, plain and simple.


----------



## Gordon Nore

Thems Fighting Words said:


> Good to see this thread has split. Good call by the mods.
> 
> Sorry my post was open to this interpretation. As I stated, I wasn't supporting Omar's judgment nor supporting judging others in general just pointing out the fact that there existed a difference.


 
I don't think it was. I was running off on a tangent, balanced upon certain assumptions that I cling to. 

For my part, my needle was stuck on "righteous indignation;" rather than simply stating my case, I resorted to sarcasm and arrogance. In and of itself, not the crime of the century, but if I had had to listen to me, I would have kicked myself.


----------



## harlan

I think a small, but important, aspect of this topic has been overlooked.

While we are inheritors of the idea of the 'right to free speech', society no longer allows the traditionally accepted right to correct another's improper use of it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I don't mind being judged for being fat.  I don't care if people find it distasteful or offensive, or if they tell jokes about my wide ***.  Truly, it doesn't bother me.

I only object to people telling me how I ought to live based on their preferences. I'm _'too fat'_ for their taste - or some medical standard - and they feel compelled to inform me about it.  I respectfully suggest that such people should stick to their knitting and leave me to mine.

_"But being fat is not healthy,"_ is not a valid reason for telling me how to live my life.

In many ways, fat is the next frontier of social control.  We are slowly, but surely, making personal choice in lifestyle obsolete in favor of social approval.

I can go to San Francisco - see a man leading another man down the street on a dog leash, both of them wearing biker leather and diapers with nipple clamps, and I have to accept that and be tolerant of their lifestyle.  But light up a cigarette and you'd think I was Satan, marching down the street and farting brimstone on widows and orphans.

And the argument that my fat (or my former smoking) is a *public health issue* and therefore that makes it YOUR business - is bogus.  If that's true, then I demand no more extreme sports. I demand no more gay men - after all, you bone smugglers are destroying our public health system with all your nasty diseases.  What?  You mean I can't demand that the gay guys stop driving the hershey highway?  Then get off my fat *** about my fat ***.  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, baby.


----------



## rabbit

Look at some powerlifters. They are overweight and very very very strong. If you are overweight and not fit, it's time to start working out. I think anyone on martial talk that has weight problem is going in the right direction by  practicing their martial art.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

rabbit said:


> If you are overweight and not fit, it's time to start working out.



Unless you don't want to.



> I think anyone on martial talk that has weight problem is going in the right direction by  practicing their martial art.



My weight isn't a problem for me.  My only problem is with people for whom my weight is a problem.

Sorry, nothing personal.  Just noting some fairly common statements people make - ie, they think that someone has a 'weight problem' and therefore it is a problem.  With respect, your opinion of my weight has no standing.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





:asian:


----------



## rabbit

Bill Mattocks said:


> Unless you don't want to.
> 
> 
> 
> My weight isn't a problem for me. My only problem is with people for whom my weight is a problem.
> 
> Sorry, nothing personal. Just noting some fairly common statements people make - ie, they think that someone has a 'weight problem' and therefore it is a problem. With respect, your opinion of my weight has no standing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :asian:


 
ok


----------



## KELLYG

All you have to do is look at advertisements on TV, Magazines, in the movies, thin model (body type)  is almost exclusively what is being sold.  Heaven help you if you don't fit the mold, what ever that is. Then you have to listen to some dumb a## explain that you are too fat therefore unworthy.  The thin model (body type) is a fallacy.  They are the ones that are abnormal.  They want us to feel bad about ourselves so that we won't realize it.  

The thin model stereo type and its fall out has probably done more harm than good.  Young people >men and women> 6, 7, and 8 year olds that are running around on diets trying to live up the the hype that for most of us is unattainable anyway.  How many young people have developed life threatening eating disorders or have died to buy into the supper skinny hype.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Interesting op-ed piece, published today:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903240322

I've noticed it myself.  When people have a problem with something a fat person says - like, say Rush Limbaugh - the first thing they say is something about their weight - not their argument.

Nobody ever says "Did you hear what that tall SOB said the other day?"

But they will say "Did you hear what that fatass said the other day?"

Why?


----------



## Sukerkin

So true, *Kelly*.  On similar lines I believe I have said in a related thread that there are a variety of body types for a very good genetic reason - that diversity allows for a greater chance of species survival under different circumstances.

If we were all super 'ripped', hyper-metabolic, walking cliches then, come a time of shortage and, paff, there goes the whole Bronzed-Adonis lot of us .

This doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to slim down my newly aquired fat tum; after all I lived for forty years as a 'Slim White Duke'.  But neither does it mean that I will be bullied about it either.


----------



## KELLYG

I think of it this way, I'm not over weight just height impaired.


----------



## BrandonLucas

Say what you want, but IMO, it all comes down to tact.

Some people have tact, others do not.  Those that don't offend others in the crowd and don't worry about it, but rest assured will be up in arms when offended about something else.  Those that do will know what to say and when and how to say it.

It's not being politically correct, it's being just plain nice.  Those that don't understand how to be nice in public get treated like the child that they act like.

The thing about discussion forums is that we're all here to *discuss*.  We are not here to force our opinions and beliefs down one another's throats, nor are we here to make childish insults regarding, of all things, someone's weight.

Grow up, people.


----------



## Steve

Edit:  Reading through the rest of the thread, I'm just deleting my post.  This is a thread that needs to be allowed to pass away.


----------



## JadeDragon3

Omar B said:


> As for fat people, they disgust me. Those big watery eyes fatties get that remind me of a cow always makes me laugh. The worst part are the fat chicks who hit on you though. As if I who spend so much time working out would ever even be seen with someone who's idea of caring for themselves is hair and make up ... ever notice fat chicks really do up the hair and make up? LOL.
> 
> Did I offend? I'm sorry. I just don't have a high opinion of 'em, sue me
> 
> I've got plenty of faults ... like being tasteless for one. But as you said, what people think of me matters not unless you are giving me a pay check.


 

Omar, You are a shallow, selfish, egotistical, little boy that needs to grow up.  Some people can't help there overweightness.  Some people have a thyroid gland problem others may have other reasons.  But Omar, you have NO right to ridicule.  What if I judged you and said that you were just a camel jockey because you have a middle eastern name?  I wouldn't call you that though because I have more class than that.  Just like I wouldn't call you any other middle eastern deragatory names.  So Omar, my advise to you is grow up, act like an adult, and change your name.  

And one last thing Omar, no I'm not overweight.  Just thought I'd clear that up before you say I must be fat for taking up for fat people.   It's called having cooth(sp?).  Thats manners in case you didn't know.


----------



## Flea

I think a lot of the fat bigotry problem comes from the way that Westerners tend to link food with morality.  Anything that tastes delicious is "sinful," for instance.  If one truly believes that certain foods and eating patterns are more morally acceptable than others, then that belief would logically extend to (what one would assume are) the physical effects of certain eating behaviors.

Of course, reality has very little to do with these "logical extensions."  Google the term "thinspiration" and you'll see what I mean.  *shudder*  If you want to equate food with morality in a coherent way, consider distribution issues - we have the technology (sort of) to feed everyone in the world a basic diet, but can't get it from "here" to where it's needed most in an effective way.  Now there's a moral food issue that demands attention.  But you can't pin that one on the fatties either; if we can't get our act together to ship vast quantities of rice and cornmeal to the starving, I don't think Little Debbie is going to figure it out either. 

Most of the Morality arguments I've heard to the detriment of the overweight don't really hold up under examination.  Are they upping your health insurance premiums?  What about skinny people who get cancer?  Don't find them attractive?  Beauty is subjective, and they didn't ask your opinion anyway (personally, voluptuous women drive me wild.  :ladysman  There are so many _valid_ issues to discuss, moral and otherwise, that I'm always disappointed to see this one come up.  It seems to be a popular horse to beat for whatever reason.  Can't we all find something else to do?


----------



## searcher

Here is my only irritation with obese people(and I am not like Omar).    As a trainer, I have the responsibility to help people get in shape andto keep them safe while they are in the gym.   Those who are obese, run a much higher risk of injury or heart attack then the average healthy person.    Why is this important?   Becasue if they get hurt or have a heart attack, I have the responsibility to work on them until EMS gets there.   I have had to work on people before and it is not pleasent.    Now, I am not saying that obese people need to stay away from the gym, I just wish people would start working towards a more healthy end.

I am not disgusted by "fat" people.    I just wish that people would get a clue and get some help.

One thing to add here.   The BMI chart is so flawed it is crazy.    Arnold S. was considered obese when he won Mr. Olympia.   Thought I would share.


----------



## Omar B

searcher said:


> Here is my only irritation with obese people(and I am not like Omar). .



I find that hilarious.  I don't like the obese so I'm now a pariah, awesome.


----------



## Omar B

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ah.  Now I get it.
> 
> A month or so ago, right after I joined MT, I happened to post some photos from my Flickr account here.  Right after that, someone with a freebie account on Flickr decided to make some really offensive comments on my wife's photos.  I deleted the comments, banned the person from posting again, and they popped back up a day later, only from another free Flickr account.  I eventually had to turn off the ability to make comments on my photos completely just to get the anonymous person from making the most horrible statements about my wife.
> 
> And the strange thing is, Omar, he used the same words you just did.  The very same words.
> 
> People use the same word patterns over and over again, Omar.  They don't typically change.  So I'm going to ask you politely - this is not an accusation, because I haven't any evidence - were you the person who made those awful comments?  I would like to know.



Not me man, I was in New Delhi at my grandmother's deathbed.  Nice of you to think of me though.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Omar B said:


> Not me man, I was in New Delhi at my grandmother's deathbed.  Nice of you to think of me though.



Fair enough,  I take you at your word.  Sorry to hear of your grandmother's passing, my sincere condolences.


----------



## Omar B

Thanks, but it's not needed, we saw it coming for years.  If post records were available here it would show that on till about 3 weeks ago I have not even been on this site since last summer.  Traveling, working.

Feel free to accuse me of anything else guys.  My dislike for the obese opens the door for all kinds accusations.


----------



## Cryozombie

Omar B said:


> Feel free to accuse me of anything else guys.  My dislike for the obese opens the door for all kinds accusations.



Ok.  You probably smell like cheese and have random bits of lint in your belly button.


----------



## Archangel M

KELLYG said:


> All you have to do is look at advertisements on TV, Magazines, in the movies, thin model (body type)  is almost exclusively what is being sold.  Heaven help you if you don't fit the mold, what ever that is. Then you have to listen to some dumb a## explain that you are too fat therefore unworthy.  The thin model (body type) is a fallacy.  They are the ones that are abnormal.  They want us to feel bad about ourselves so that we won't realize it.
> 
> The thin model stereo type and its fall out has probably done more harm than good.  Young people >men and women> 6, 7, and 8 year olds that are running around on diets trying to live up the the hype that for most of us is unattainable anyway.  How many young people have developed life threatening eating disorders or have died to buy into the supper skinny hype.



Thats all well and good, but what is the larger health issue here in the US? Obesity or malnourishment? What is the cause of most health problems in our society? You dont need a study or statistics to know, just look around. 

Im not interested in belittling people and my opinions on "judging" really dont apply to bodyweight. I just object to the knee jerk "you shouldnt judge" response to any and all issues. My concern is for peoples health. You may be "happy" the way you are, but keep in mind how unhappy others will be if you go to an early grave because you dont want to change your lifestyle. I have lost loved ones way to soon  due to heart disease and smoking. Living your life based on what makes YOU happy is selfish IMO.

I also think that there are multiple facets on this "judgementalism" issue. Some people unfairly judge others based on appearance while others throw down the "you are judgemental" card to divert the issue at hand away from themselves.


----------



## Jade Tigress

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS*_

*This thread is taking the same direction as the thread it was split from. Please keep the conversation at a mature and respectful level and refrain from offensive comments. 

Continuing to disregard Martial Talk posting policies will result in escalated action and we could wind up with one, or both, of these threads locked in addition to any individual actions that may be warranted.

Thank you,
Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator*


----------



## Ronin74

People who have problems, and people who have problems with people who have problems... a nice productive circle.

If a someone's lifestyle is not attractive to another, so what? Unless it has anything to do with that person directly, it's really none of their business. If John or Jane Doe likes to have hearty meals, and really has no concern over how it affects their health, the only other people who might be allowed a say are the relativs (if any) who'd have to care for them. If they don't have an issue, then it's really nobody else's concern. The same goes for anyone else with a lifestyle different than our own.

As for physical appearances, I'm a shorter-than average guy and I have been incredibly overweight, and I've been bullied for both since elementary, and I can tell you it's a big f****n' waste of time and energy to care what the next person thinks. If they want to be insulting, let them be- ignore them.

Sure words can hurt, but if we're REALLY LEARNING martial arts, shouldn't our resolve be as strong as our bodies? If we're learning to let go of past technical habits, shouldn't we be learning about letting go of hurt pride and damaged egos?


----------



## BrandonLucas

All of this backs up what I said in my previous post...it all comes down to tact.

Omar doesn't like fat people.

The rest of the people here apparently don't like Omar, because of the way he says that he doesn't like fat people.

Let's let it go.  I'm sure we all have better things to do than to hurl fat rocks at eachother.


----------



## Archangel M

I think that there is a huge difference between looking at an overweight person and being concerned for their health or being concerned over the health and size of the average American and looking at an overweight person and not liking THEM, or treating them unkindly. Fat or thin, everybody deserves respect and consideration until their behavior/actions deem otherwise.


----------



## Archangel M

As an aside. I have sat through union meetings about health care and contracts and insurance agents have stated that there is a direct correlation between the expanding Amarican waistline and its associated medical issues and skyrocketing health care costs.


----------



## Carol

Archangel M said:


> As an aside. I have sat through union meetings about health care and contracts and insurance agents have stated that there is a direct correlation between the expanding Amarican waistline and its associated medical issues and skyrocketing health care costs.



Now that a problem has been identified, is there a solution?


----------



## Makalakumu

Carol Kaur said:


> Now that a problem has been identified, is there a solution?



That's a hard one.  One argument says that as long as we subsidize the health care for people who make poor health decisions, then we will see the problem get worse and worse.  However, if everyone had to pay their health coverage out of pocket, the "obesity problem" would clear it way up really quick.

Another argument states that through better education and more subsidization of health care costs we can create an overall healthier society.  People will become less obese through the careful management of government and experts.

There are a bunch of other positions out there regarding solutions and several probably would work.  It's really a matter of picking one and sticking with it.  Public health problems don't change overnight.


----------



## Omar B

JadeDragon3 said:


> Omar, You are a shallow, selfish, egotistical, little boy that needs to grow up.



Shallow, yes, very.
Selfish, just about the most selfish person you've ever come across.
Egotistical, why yes.  _"If there's anything on this ship more important than my ego, I want it caught and shot right now_"
Little boy, it's all how you look at it, I consider myself a youthful 28.

If you were aiming at a personal attack you've missed chicka.  But I'm not sure how the Forum Lords would look upon that if you were successful.


----------



## Cryozombie

Omar B said:


> If you were aiming at a personal attack you've missed chicka.


 
Just so you know, My cheese and Belly Button Lint comment was meant as a joke.


----------



## Ronin74

maunakumu said:


> That's a hard one. One argument says that as long as we subsidize the health care for people who make poor health decisions, then we will see the problem get worse and worse. However, if everyone had to pay their health coverage out of pocket, the "obesity problem" would clear it way up really quick.
> 
> Another argument states that through better education and more subsidization of health care costs we can create an overall healthier society. People will become less obese through the careful management of government and experts.
> 
> There are a bunch of other positions out there regarding solutions and several probably would work. It's really a matter of picking one and sticking with it. Public health problems don't change overnight.


I think another point worth adding to it is the underlying theme of people more or less being forced to make lifestyle changes that they may not want. I myself have relatives who could stand to make more healthier choices, but any effort that's been made with them usually results in butting heads. The argument is almost always, "make healthier choices" vs "let me live my life the way I want to".

Another thing to point out is if we did pick a solution (and I'm not saying we shouldn't- indecision is rarely a good thing), there's always the exceptions, and trying to set fair parameters on who qualifies.

On a sidenote, this really reminds me of the tip conversation from Reservoir Dogs... lol.


----------



## Archangel M

Carol Kaur said:


> Now that a problem has been identified, is there a solution?


 
One option that comes to mind is increasing contributions based on lifestyle. Dont care about your weight or your smoking habit, then you pay more into health care than those who do. Participate in a program to show that you are taking action then that ammount will be reduced.

Of coures that doesnt address those who are not working. Or are participating in gvt. supplied medical care.


----------



## Cryozombie

I'm curious.  Can someone actually show some hard numbers that prove that Overweight people cause our health premiums to go up a significant amount as opposed to  those numbers not affected as much by things like Age, Pregnancies, etc?


----------



## Archangel M

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/economic_consequences.htm

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071002/obesity-driving-rising-us-health-costs.htm



> "The United States spends twice as much as European countries on health care," noted lead researcher Kenneth Thorpe, chairman of the department of health policy and management at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta. "Seventy-five percent of what we spend in this country is associated with patients that have one or more chronic conditions and most of the growth is due to obesity."


 
Just google "obesity and health care cost" and read away.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Archangel M said:


> One option that comes to mind is increasing contributions based on lifestyle. Dont care about your weight or your smoking habit, then you pay more into health care than those who do. Participate in a program to show that you are taking action then that ammount will be reduced.



Ah, but it is already happening.  Where my wife works, the company had a plan - a health plan.  Get healthy, go to an approved health club and get checked quarterly to ensure you are on track to your 'plan' and get a discount on the company's health insurance premiums.  Sounds good, right?

But not enough people participated.  So the company made it mandatory.  If you were 'asked' to join a health club by your manager, and you refused, you got a $100 copay added to ever doctor visit.  If you joined the health club but did not make the quarterly checkups or failed to meet your company-set 'goal', you lost your health insurance completely.

My wife is now on my health insurance, which does not have such onerous requirements.  The company she works for still requires all employees, insured through them or not, to submit to an annual health screening, and the results are sent to managers - who hassle my wife about her weight and 'lifestyle choices'.  If she did not absolutely need this job, she'd have told them to shove it a long time ago.

From my point of view, it's a criminal intrusion into her privacy.  I just wish I could do something about it, but apparently it is quite legal.  I expect to see more and more of this as health costs continue to rise.  Get in shape, fattie, or lose your health insurance.

Even in countries that have national health care, there have been well-known issues of people being denied health care due to their own bad health-care choices - no lung transplants for smokers, no surgery for people told to lose weight who fail to do so.  What a world we're heading towards.  A healthy, happy, world.  By law.


----------



## Archangel M

Whats the alternative? Everybody pays for others health choices?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Archangel M said:


> Whats the alternative? Everybody pays for others health choices?



Insurance is a socialist scheme to begin with.  Everybody pays into the pool, and the money is given to people who incur covered expenses.

If we are talking about health insurance, then everyone pays premiums to cover sick people.  If there are enough sick people, premiums rise.  People who do not have many claims get a bad deal - they pay for services they don't get.  People who have a lot of claims get a good deal - they do not pay full cost for services they receive.

In order to keep the costs lower, many exclusions are applied.  People with pre-existing conditions are often excluded or excluded for a period of time.  Many conditions are not covered, and situations under which the need for health care was incurred may also be excluded.

If we decide, for example, to charge fatties more, then we also have to charge smokers more.  And if we're going to do that, then there is no reason not to charge other risk factors more - such as those who ski, snowmobile, skydive, etc.  Tattooed people, recreational drug users, and those who take anti-depressants are higher risks too.  Some occupations are much higher risk than others, including police officers, EMT's, doctors, etc.  Then we get into new breakthroughs that identify genetic risk factors for diseases.

The point is that it is a slippery slope.  Healthy non-fatties who are non-smokers may complain that they pay 'more' for the dangerous behavior that they don't engage in - but that's the nature of insurance - you also pay more for people with congenital diseases that they inherited, and people who get drunk and crash their cars and those who get AIDs from being butt-pirates.

If you insist that fatties and smokers pay more or be excluded from your group, then the others must be on the list as well.  What you end up with are groups of very cheap insurance for those who do everything right, and very expensive or prohibitively expensive insurance groups for people who do not - which kind of defeats the socialist ideals of insurance in the first place.

When you take part in a cost-sharing scheme, you accept that some will pay for services they do not get and some will get services they did not pay for.


----------



## KempoGuy06

Omar B said:


> LOL, reminds me of my college job.  I was a waiter at an Italian Restaurant/take out place in Long Island, dude all of us were bombed out of our minds but functional a good chunk of the time.  It's monkey work you could do without being very mentally engaged.  Ah, the good old days when we used to go back behind the building and smoke up then wash off with Listerine and Febreeze before the evening rush.
> 
> As for fat people, they disgust me.  Those big watery eyes fatties get that remind me of a cow always makes me laugh.  The worst part are the fat chicks who hit on you though.  As if I who spend so much time working out would ever even be seen with someone who's idea of caring for themselves is hair and make up ... ever notice fat chicks really do up the hair and make up?  LOL.
> 
> As for fighting a fat opponent, same rules apply, except you usually have a small amount of time more than usuall because they have to move their bulk.  It's still about moving and finding the angle though.  Oh, and strikes to the midsection are not as effective, go for the legs.





Omar B said:


> Did I offend?  I'm sorry.  I just don't have a high opinion of 'em, sue me.



i would comment but honestly you arent worth my time and id like not to get kicked of this site, so ill keep *my* opinions to myself unlike what you did

B


----------



## KempoGuy06

what is this thread about?

B


----------



## Carol

Archangel M said:


> Whats the alternative? Everybody pays for others health choices?



To be Devil's advocate, Arch, would you support such an actuarial decision making regardless of whether you were or were not on the beneficial side of the decision? 

For example, as a LEO, you are subject to a greater-than-average risk of injury (or worse) due to motor vehicle accidents and assaults from BGs.  Should your health care costs be higher than (say) an accountant, who typically faces little-to-no risk of injury on the job? 

What about pricing based on education levels?  Discounts on auto insurance in Massachusetts are slim-to-none, due to the unique state regulations on the industry.   Yet I was able to receive a discount on my auto insurance because I have a (verifiable) Bachelor's degree.  Actuarially, folks with a four year degree take less risks with their lives and property than those that don't. A quick google on health care costs and college education indicates that people with a 4 year degree (or higher) tend to have lower costs than those without.


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/economic_consequences.htm
> 
> http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071002/obesity-driving-rising-us-health-costs.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Just google "obesity and health care cost" and read away.


 
Unless I'm completley misreading those articles, it is citing health care costs... thats what americans are paying... not "Bobby is Fat, so Tony has to pay more" which is the common argument I hear why people's diet and excercise programs are everyone elses buisness.  While Im sure there is a certain amount of that built in, by the same token, Im sure there is a certain amount of cost built in as well because of STD's... should It be my buisness to tell people to quit having sex?  Or the over use of Alcohol, or just about any number of other factors... And thats not counting the soaring costs of healthcare due to Hospital E.R.'s being used as primary care physicians for Illegal immigrants... I'm willing to bet your health care costs a lot more do to that than fat people... 

I'm just saying, that if we are going to say "Hey Fat guy, you are costing me money" we should be doing it fairly across the board, cuz I'm doubtful its the biggest culprit of them all...


----------



## searcher

Insurance needs a whole new thread...............What a beast that one is.


I have a question for you all, How many of you are currently helping with overweight people to get them into shape?    And how many are not?     I currently have a fair number of obese clients that are in dire need of help, but some won't help themselves.     How do you feel about that part of the equation?

Of those who are overweight, how many of you are doing something about it?    I know there are some that are curently working on it.


----------



## BrandonLucas

Insurance is something I hate anyway.  I'm paying for something I may or may not use, and I'm paying alot for it.

All in all, if I were to not pay for insurance, and just go to the doctor and take the kids to the hospital when the need arises, I would probably come out the same, if not a little better than what I do now.  At least I would if hospital and medical fees weren't so outrageous to begin with.

The medical field as a whole charges far more than what the should charge, but they are able to do so because people are going to need medical help at some point.  

Besides all that, it's like pulling teeth to actually get the insurance company to do what you pay them to do in the first place.  I have never in my life seen any company try harder to do nothing than the insurance that I pay for.  The only reason I don't switch companies is because I can't afford to...the insurance is through my job, so I get discounts that I wouldn't get using a private insurance company.

In my own personal situation:

We just had twin girls.  My wife and I planned on having just one, but were pleasently surprised to find out we were expecting twins.  We planned on having a child during a time of financial stability, before we knew the economy was going down the crapper in a hurry, and our jobs would end up far less than secure.

So now we have a hefty, hefty medical bill that I doubt very seriously we'll be able to pay off within the next 30 years, due to fighting the insurance company in what they were supposed to pay and what we agreed to pay, and having to deal with my wife being laid off from her job.  Top all of that off with the fact that her unemployment, for some weird reason, wasn't taxed, so now we owe the government that is bailing out everyone and their grandmother over $2,000 for something that wasn't even supposed to happen.  Even better, when we try to apply for government assistance, like food stamps, I'm told that I make too much, even for a family of four, and yet we can't afford to buy the milk to feed our girls.

If I didn't have to pay for the insurance that is pretty much worthless, I'm fairly certain I wouldn't be in the financial disaster that I'm in at the moment.  

All of that being said:

To add to that some kind of stipulation that overweight people have to pay more money for coverage would be the same as shooting me between the eyes.  There isn't any possible way I could afford to pay more money, when half the reason I weigh as much as I do is because I can't afford to buy the healthy food to begin with.  

Beyond that, who's going to make up the rule of who's fat and who's not?  Someone like Omar?  I would hope not.  But seriously, how would something like that be judged?  BMI is a flawed system at best, and just to look at someone and say they're overweight is far less accurate than BMI.

The truth of the matter is that fat people are not what's driving premiums on insurance up...sure, fat people don't help the situation, but I just can't see that being a huge factor in the price of anything other than a grocery bill.

A good example to back that up...how many life insurance polocies stipulate how much you should weigh to qualify?  I know they specify a better rate for non-smokers and non-drinkers.

Bottom line:  the only thing insurance is good for is saying that you have insurance.  They don't actually do jack to help you.  The only actual added benefit you get from an insurance company is saying that you're a member when you go to the hospital.  You're more likely to be seen if you have active insurance than if you're not insured...which is a steaming pile of crap, too.


----------



## BrandonLucas

searcher said:


> Insurance needs a whole new thread...............What a beast that one is.
> 
> 
> I have a question for you all, How many of you are currently helping with overweight people to get them into shape? And how many are not? I currently have a fair number of obese clients that are in dire need of help, but some won't help themselves. How do you feel about that part of the equation?
> 
> Of those who are overweight, how many of you are doing something about it? I know there are some that are curently working on it.


 
You posted this while I was ranting about insurance...I agree that it needs a whole new thread...so my appologies for the rant lol.

At the moment, I'm not able to help anyone else lose weight.  I am, however, on my own weightloss program, and have lost 43 pounds since January 1st.  I have been trying to eat healthier, as much as I can afford, and I'm trying to stay more active.

It's not easy, but it's working.  I do feel better, and I am somewhat healthier.  The thing is, though, that I actually *want* to lose weight.

For those that don't want to lose weight, it's up to them.  If they're happy being that way, it's not my place to try to change their mind, just like Bill Mattocks was talking about.  I agree with what he was saying about that.  I'm not here to force my health beliefs on anyone else...the best I can do is to make sure that I'm healthy and that I am comfortable with the way that I am.

Not that I wouldn't like to see everyone out there be healthy, but it's just like anything else that's dealing with individual:  it's an individual decision.

Other people being overweight and unhealthy aren't affecting me, unless they're sick and/or contagious, and then it's my responsibility to make sure that I'm not around them to catch whatever they have.


----------



## Steve

BrandonLucas said:


> All of this backs up what I said in my previous post...it all comes down to tact.
> 
> Omar doesn't like fat people.
> 
> The rest of the people here apparently don't like Omar, because of the way he says that he doesn't like fat people.
> 
> Let's let it go. I'm sure we all have better things to do than to hurl fat rocks at eachother.


So... this is an entire thread about Omar? Like him or hate him, I don't understand why anyone on this board deserves that kind of attention. 

I still don't know what this thread is about, but I will share my opinion. Bill mentioned earlier that everyone has to die, and that's true. I might keel over tomorrow. But I can say that eating more veggies and less meat, exercising and losing 40 lbs has had a significant affect on my overall health. 3 years ago, when I started BJJ, I was over 220 lbs, pre-diabetic and had very high cholesterol. 

And even though I no longer eat as much fatty meats and sugars, which I love, I have no regrets. I don't even enjoy beer as often as I would like!  If it means more quality, healthy time with my kids... and hopefully their kids... I will happily do so.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> Bill mentioned earlier that everyone has to die, and that's true. I might keel over tomorrow. But I can say that eating more veggies and less meat, exercising and losing 40 lbs has had a significant affect on my overall health. 3 years ago, when I started BJJ, I was over 220 lbs, pre-diabetic and had very high cholesterol.
> 
> And even though I no longer eat as much fatty meats and sugars, which I love, I have no regrets. I don't even enjoy beer as often as I would like!  If it means more quality, healthy time with my kids... and hopefully their kids... I will happily do so.



I can't argue with your statements - healthy eating and exercise are more than likely going to extend your lifespan and make it a healthier lifespan at the same time.  I doubt many people think otherwise.

The questions revolve around whether or not that fact entitles people to demand, suggest, cajole, tease, or otherwise bullyrag people into doing what is 'best' for them.

What if you know the risks and decide you don't care? Is that OK, or must society step in for your own good and MAKE you lose weight and get in shape?


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can't argue with your statements - healthy eating and exercise are more than likely going to extend your lifespan and make it a healthier lifespan at the same time. I doubt many people think otherwise.
> 
> The questions revolve around whether or not that fact entitles people to demand, suggest, cajole, tease, or otherwise bullyrag people into doing what is 'best' for them.
> 
> What if you know the risks and decide you don't care? Is that OK, or must society step in for your own good and MAKE you lose weight and get in shape?


Personally, whenever I get roped into discussions about things like seatbelts, helmet laws, healthy eating, smoking and legalization of drugs, I tend to fall on the side of allowing people to exercise their own discretion. If you want to eat ribeyes and mashed potatoes every night, more power to you. Just don't be surprised if you pay for it later.

Smokers, too... although that one necessarily involves other people. By all means, smoke in your car or home. We shouldn't criminalize it. 

Helmets? Well, just hope that you don't land on your noggin, otherwise your life will never be the same. But your lack of judgement doesn't directly affect me.

At the same time, and for exactly the same reasons, I am in favor of legalizing cannibus for adults.

Etc, etc.

Now, to be clear, I have heard and understand many of the liability/cost arguments in favor of these types of laws, but don't buy into them. I could die at BJJ class tomorrow from a freak accident. I can legally go jump out of an airplane or go fishing (statistically, the most dangerous sport in America). We should have choices.

On the other side, though, it should be balanced to protect children from adults with no judgement. In other words, kids are rightfully required to be secured in a car, even if the parents aren't. 

Finally, and specific to fat people, buy two damned tickets on the airplane. I'm not a huge guy, but I have relatively broad shoulders, and have been squished in between two fat people before. Had they been required to follow the rules, they would each have had two seats to spread into. These rules and others are not, in my opinion, discriminatory. They are essential. (And for the record, a fat person is refunded the cost of one seat if the plane isn't full). 

I hope all that makes sense. This has been a rambling post.

EDIT to add:  Bill, I just realized that you're the same guy who is so vehemently opposed to legalizing marijuana.  I think that's VERY interesting!


----------



## Flea

> I have been trying to eat healthier, *as much as I can afford,*



Another excellent tangential point.  Healthy food costs more.  I've been on both sides of this equation; I've been rich and eaten a diet bursting with tofu and veggies and whole grain bread.  Now that I'm poor, I eat a lot more instant "pasta" and canned stuff.  Fresh produce can cost as much as meat, and when you're poor the priority is to eat as much of what will keep you from _feeling_ hungry as you can.  When you're on the edge, quantity wins the day over quality every time.

When you're reduced to the position of filling your tank by whatever means necessary, that means lots of beans and bread.  White bread is cheaper than whole grain, with "air-bread" being cheapest of all. White rice is cheaper than brown.  Store-brand bologna is cheaper than fresh meat, and anything with a long shelf-life is _gold._ Add to that the thought that many low-income folk have a lower education level and may not know how to cook (ever notice those pictogram instructions on the side of a mac'n'cheez box?)  With such a heavy dependence of cheap sources with empty calories, it's virtually impossible _not_ to gain weight and get sickly. (Which quickly becomes a vicious cycle for many disabled folk as well.)  Sadly you'll see this phenomenon at work in soup kitchens too, where the goal is to fill as many bellies as possible.  They sometimes get donations of withered produce from farms and grocery stores, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

Nobody _wants_ to eat poorly; anyone on this kind of survival budget knows the difference, believe me.  I was thrilled when there was talk of adding a bonus to food stamp recipients in the first stimulus package, and unsurprised when it didn't happen.  Poor people don't deserve fresh broccoli if we're too lazy to get a job, right?


----------



## KempoGuy06

KempoGuy06 said:


> what is this thread about?
> 
> B


no cares to explain? i dont want to make an off topic post

B


----------



## Makalakumu

I think we go down a road we don't want to go down when it comes to trying to regulate a solution for obesity.  The choices that people make that result in obesity are very personal and happen so often that you'd basically need the state to be peering into almost every aspect of your life.  That isn't worth it for me.  Personally, I feel like the insurance companies are pushing for this and that their ultimate goal is for total monitoring.

Also, I think the profit motive behind insurance and behind schemes to make people pay based off of their health risks is immoral.  If a guy goes out surfing in a rip that is too powerful for him and I have a jet ski, I'm not going to sit back and let him die because he should have known better.  Obesity, IMO, is basically the same thing.  

I think it all comes down to what kind of society that we want to have.  I would like to have a society that has a high degree of personal freedom and one that supports helping it's citizens be more educated and more healthy.  I'd rather see progressive taxation be used as the mechanism for funding health care rather then private health insurance.  

What people do afterward is their business.  In my own personal political philosophy, education and health care provide the only social safety net that people really need.


----------



## jks9199

Ladies and Gentlemen, 
This thread is titled "*Being overweight, judging overweight, judging others generally..."*  It is not about ANY single member of MartialTalk, or their opinions.  It is a discussion of obesity and perceptions based on that.  Kindly refrain from focusing on any single member of MartialTalk, lest the posts become personal attacks (prohibited by The Rules).  If there is a member whose posting style offends you, I heartily recommend, endorse, and pretty much urge you to make use of the Ignore feature that is available via the User Profile.  (Click on the username, go to the Public Profile, select User Lists, and Add to Ignore.)

-jks9199
-Moderator


----------



## Ronin74

Just started a new thread for Health Care, being healthy and related stuff.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=74652


----------



## Steve

Flea said:


> Another excellent tangential point. Healthy food costs more. I've been on both sides of this equation; I've been rich and eaten a diet bursting with tofu and veggies and whole grain bread. Now that I'm poor, I eat a lot more instant "pasta" and canned stuff. Fresh produce can cost as much as meat, and when you're poor the priority is to eat as much of what will keep you from _feeling_ hungry as you can. When you're on the edge, quantity wins the day over quality every time.
> 
> When you're reduced to the position of filling your tank by whatever means necessary, that means lots of beans and bread. White bread is cheaper than whole grain, with "air-bread" being cheapest of all. White rice is cheaper than brown. Store-brand bologna is cheaper than fresh meat, and anything with a long shelf-life is _gold._ Add to that the thought that many low-income folk have a lower education level and may not know how to cook (ever notice those pictogram instructions on the side of a mac'n'cheez box?) With such a heavy dependence of cheap sources with empty calories, it's virtually impossible _not_ to gain weight and get sickly. (Which quickly becomes a vicious cycle for many disabled folk as well.) Sadly you'll see this phenomenon at work in soup kitchens too, where the goal is to fill as many bellies as possible. They sometimes get donations of withered produce from farms and grocery stores, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> Nobody _wants_ to eat poorly; anyone on this kind of survival budget knows the difference, believe me. I was thrilled when there was talk of adding a bonus to food stamp recipients in the first stimulus package, and unsurprised when it didn't happen. Poor people don't deserve fresh broccoli if we're too lazy to get a job, right?


Excellent points and SOME people are in this situation, where pennies really do count.

My anecdotal experience has been that most people can afford to eat healthy foods.  Few, however, can afford to eat healthy foods that are prepared by someone else.  The problem, in my experience, is convenience.  For the price of eating a value meal at McDonalds, you can eat a very healthy lunch that you've prepared yourself from fresh ingredients. Mixed greens, some chicken breast, a few tomatoes, unmolested walnuts and a little oil/vinegar and you've got a very healthy, filling lunch that cost probably less than $3.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> Mixed greens, some chicken breast, a few tomatoes, unmolested walnuts and a little oil/vinegar and you've got a very healthy, filling lunch that cost probably less than $3.



Yeah, but with the exception of the walnuts, I dislike those things.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yeah, but with the exception of the walnuts, I dislike those things.


You're hopeless!


----------



## Kacey

stevebjj said:


> Excellent points and SOME people are in this situation, where pennies really do count.
> 
> My anecdotal experience has been that most people can afford to eat healthy foods.  Few, however, can afford to eat healthy foods that are prepared by someone else.  The problem, in my experience, is convenience.  For the price of eating a value meal at McDonalds, you can eat a very healthy lunch that you've prepared yourself from fresh ingredients. Mixed greens, some chicken breast, a few tomatoes, unmolested walnuts and a little oil/vinegar and you've got a very healthy, filling lunch that cost probably less than $3.



Very good point... I have to ask, however, what is an "unmolested" walnut?


----------



## Carol

Kacey said:


> Very good point... I have to ask, however, what is an "unmolested" walnut?



Something that gets served with extra-virgin olive oil, natch.  :lfao:


----------



## Flea

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yeah, but with the exception of the walnuts, I dislike those things.



Quite so.  Everyone's body is different. I'm like you - I eat exactly what I like and don't what I don't.  :drinkbeer Personally, my body is addicted to fresh produce and I get very logy and depressed when I go without for 3-4 days.  If my body were perfectly happy on a steady diet of carbs I'd be fine.

We should get together some time for steak and potatoes ... you provide the steak, I'll bring the salad. :wink2:


----------



## Archangel M

Carol Kaur said:


> To be Devil's advocate, Arch, would you support such an actuarial decision making regardless of whether you were or were not on the beneficial side of the decision?
> 
> For example, as a LEO, you are subject to a greater-than-average risk of injury (or worse) due to motor vehicle accidents and assaults from BGs. Should your health care costs be higher than (say) an accountant, who typically faces little-to-no risk of injury on the job?
> 
> What about pricing based on education levels? Discounts on auto insurance in Massachusetts are slim-to-none, due to the unique state regulations on the industry. Yet I was able to receive a discount on my auto insurance because I have a (verifiable) Bachelor's degree. Actuarially, folks with a four year degree take less risks with their lives and property than those that don't. A quick google on health care costs and college education indicates that people with a 4 year degree (or higher) tend to have lower costs than those without.


 
Thats a good question. Of course I would argue that LEO/Firemen/Soldiers etc. are performing a public service and are in dangerous situations due to occupation and not out of lifestyle decisions. The additional cost of their jobs are already paid out by society in many cases as municipalities have to pay various costs for their services.

I know this is a thorny issue. But diet and habits like smoking and alcohol do have a "group impact" on health care expense. Im just throwing out ideas.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Archangel M said:


> I know this is a thorny issue. But diet and habits like smoking and alcohol do have a "group impact" on health care expense. Im just throwing out ideas.



So do engaging in homosexual acts between men.  Not saying they can't be 'gay' but choosing to engage in gay sex is voluntary.

And I agree - thorny issue. Once you start down that road, you never know where to stop.

Consider things like organ transplants - for people who 'did it to themselves'.  Like new livers for heavy drinkers, etc.  As I understand it, there have already been horror stories in countries with socialized medicine where people have been turned down for life-saving surgery because of issues surrounding how they treat their own bodies.  The idea being that people who take care of their bodies 'deserve it more' when it comes to organ replacement, etc.

I'm not saying there isn't some sense in the argument, but it does get tangled quickly.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> So do engaging in homosexual acts between men. Not saying they can't be 'gay' but choosing to engage in gay sex is voluntary.
> 
> And I agree - thorny issue. Once you start down that road, you never know where to stop.
> 
> Consider things like organ transplants - for people who 'did it to themselves'. Like new livers for heavy drinkers, etc. As I understand it, there have already been horror stories in countries with socialized medicine where people have been turned down for life-saving surgery because of issues surrounding how they treat their own bodies. The idea being that people who take care of their bodies 'deserve it more' when it comes to organ replacement, etc.
> 
> I'm not saying there isn't some sense in the argument, but it does get tangled quickly.


Okay... I really, really don't want to go here... but you've brought the homosexual thing up a couple of times.  Homosexuality, including the act, has very little impact upon our health costs.  PROMISCUITY and unsafe lifestyles, gay or straight, can lead to real problems including rampant STDs, some curable and some not.


----------



## Flea

stevebjj said:


> Okay... I really, really don't want to go here... but you've brought the homosexual thing up a couple of times.  Homosexuality, including the act, has very little impact upon our health costs.  PROMISCUITY and unsafe lifestyles, gay or straight, can lead to real problems including rampant STDs, some curable and some not.



Time for a new thread!! lol


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> Okay... I really, really don't want to go here... but you've brought the homosexual thing up a couple of times.  Homosexuality, including the act, has very little impact upon our health costs.  PROMISCUITY and unsafe lifestyles, gay or straight, can lead to real problems including rampant STDs, some curable and some not.



Not anti-gay - I have no problem with it.  I was referring strictly to risk factors.  I think you can place being overweight in the same category - people who are generally at higher risk within that group for health problems.  Not all overweight people are actually going to have heart problems.  Not all gay men are going to contract diseases such as HIV.  But the risk factors are higher.

If that is too squicky to discuss, no problem.  My apologies.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not anti-gay - I have no problem with it. I was referring strictly to risk factors. I think you can place being overweight in the same category - people who are generally at higher risk within that group for health problems. Not all overweight people are actually going to have heart problems. Not all gay men are going to contract diseases such as HIV. But the risk factors are higher.
> 
> If that is too squicky to discuss, no problem. My apologies.


Very different things.  Promiscuous gay men who engage in high risk behaviors are at higher risk for diseases such as HIV.  Monogamous gay men have no higher risk than anyone else.  Just as promiscuous straight men have a much higher risk of disease than a monogamous straight man.  

And it's not the squicky factor.  It's the potential baggage... like drugs, politics and religion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> Very different things.  Promiscuous gay men who engage in high risk behaviors are at higher risk for diseases such as HIV.  Monogamous gay men have no higher risk than anyone else.  Just as promiscuous straight men have a much higher risk of disease than a monogamous straight man.
> 
> And it's not the squicky factor.  It's the potential baggage... like drugs, politics and religion.



There is always potential baggage, but that's part of the problem - we can talk about people being overweight as their group risk factor, but we cannot lump gay men in together based on the same considerations.  Insurance actuarial tables don't take into account what individuals do - a monogamous gay man versus a non-monogamous one, for example.  Risk is assigned based on membership in the group one is calculating risk for.  

That's what they do for overweight people - they do not say well, this one has a family history or that one has a genetic predisposition.  Being fat is enough to be considered in the group for risk factors.

If it helps, let's try old people.  As a risk factor, being old increases the risk that you'll get sick.  Should the old pay more for health insurance?  Surely there are old people who take good care of themselves, have good genes, have a family history of longevity - but based strictly on age-related tables of risk, they are 'higher risk'.

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating these things - I do not want health insurance rates determined by a person's sexual orientation or behavior, or by their age or race, etc.  My point is merely that if we open the door to increased costs based on membership in a higher-risk group, that door can swing wider than we intended it to.  It's not such a far trip from making fatties pay more to making wrinklies pay more or making gays pay more, etc.


----------



## BrandonLucas

My gripe is still with insurance itself.  I don't think it's something that everyone should have to have.  If the cost of medical care wasn't so outrageously expensive, there wouldn't be a need for insurance at all.

But, since there is a need for medical insurance, I don't think the price of insurance should be related to health factors.  Anything can be a health factor:  if you drive for a living, then you are at a greater risk of having a wreck and dying...if you have a job that requires you to stay on your feet, that puts you in greater risk having leg and back issues....etc, etc, etc.

Where would the line be drawn?  

If your health is going to be determined to be a factor in your insurance coverage and price, then insurance companies should provide a free checkup 4 times a year to determine if the client is still in good enough health to keep the same premiums.  And even then, just because someone isn't deemed to be "healthy" by a doctor doesn't mean that they should pay any more than anyone else for insurance coverage.

The fact that someone is less healthy is enough of a cost in and of itself...frequent trips to the doctor/hospital is going to cost them money, and the insurance companies aren't going to be put out from the cost any more than anyone else would be.  But then, that all goes back to medical costs being so friggin' expensive.


----------



## Steve

BrandonLucas, you're such a socialist! 

Bill, are you mixing together life insurance rates and health insurance rates?

In the former, rates are based upon a lot of risk categories.  In the latter (and I may be mistaken on this) aren't anti-discrimination policies a part of the picture?  Gender is a protected category, as is age and in many places sexual orientation.  But being fat is fair game in most areas of the country.


----------



## BrandonLucas

stevebjj said:


> BrandonLucas, you're such a socialist!
> 
> Bill, are you mixing together life insurance rates and health insurance rates?
> 
> In the former, rates are based upon a lot of risk categories. In the latter (and I may be mistaken on this) aren't anti-discrimination policies a part of the picture? Gender is a protected category, as is age and in many places sexual orientation. But being fat is fair game in most areas of the country.


 
Why, thank you sir!!

Seriously, though, how is being fat measured by an insurance company?  Do they go by BMI?  Do they require a doctor's description?  

I'm not sure just being fat should have anything to do with it...it should be overall health that is the factor.


----------



## Steve

Kacey said:


> Very good point... I have to ask, however, what is an "unmolested" walnut?


  I meant raw walnuts.  Very good for you.  When I make salads for lunch, I try to put some kind of nut on there.  My favorites are raw walnuts, pine nuts, and pecans.  If you buy them in the bulk food section, they're not very expensive.  

I also get dried cranberries quite a bit, as well, also available in bulk. 

I pay more for the "ready to eat" greens, because at lunch I don't want to fart around with washing and chopping lettuce and such, but even that's like $2 for a big container that lasts 2 or 3 days.

The chicken I tend to get for lunch is from Costco.  For ~$9 they have a container of grilled chicken breast that's fully cook and ready to eat that lasts almost 2 weeks.


----------



## Steve

BrandonLucas said:


> Why, thank you sir!!
> 
> Seriously, though, how is being fat measured by an insurance company? Do they go by BMI? Do they require a doctor's description?
> 
> I'm not sure just being fat should have anything to do with it...it should be overall health that is the factor.


For life insurance policies, particularly whole life policies that will accrue value over time, it's not uncommon to be required to take a physical.  

Health insurance is a different animal.


----------



## Kacey

stevebjj said:


> I meant raw walnuts.  Very good for you.  When I make salads for lunch, I try to put some kind of nut on there.  My favorites are raw walnuts, pine nuts, and pecans.  If you buy them in the bulk food section, they're not very expensive.
> 
> I also get dried cranberries quite a bit, as well, also available in bulk.
> 
> I pay more for the "ready to eat" greens, because at lunch I don't want to fart around with washing and chopping lettuce and such, but even that's like $2 for a big container that lasts 2 or 3 days.
> 
> The chicken I tend to get for lunch is from Costco.  For ~$9 they have a container of grilled chicken breast that's fully cook and ready to eat that lasts almost 2 weeks.



Thanks... "raw" makes much more sense to me than "unmolested" - I was starting to think perhaps you ate them with the shells intact.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> BrandonLucas, you're such a socialist!
> 
> Bill, are you mixing together life insurance rates and health insurance rates?
> 
> In the former, rates are based upon a lot of risk categories.  In the latter (and I may be mistaken on this) aren't anti-discrimination policies a part of the picture?  Gender is a protected category, as is age and in many places sexual orientation.  But being fat is fair game in most areas of the country.



I am mixing them together for *comparison* purposes, yes.  I was attempting to point out that health insurance is a big fat pool of insured risk - life insurance does use actuarial tables to assign people to risk groups (fat, cancer in family, etc, etc).

Point was that if we're going to ask fatties to pay more for health insurance (or alternatively, to require them to become healthier in order to have health insurance), then we place obesity into a special risk group for health insurance - just as is now done with life insurance.  And if you're going to do THAT, then you have to be fair and consider all the risk groups.  Like old people. etc.

I do realize that currently, life insurance and health insurance are not run the same ways.


----------



## Sukerkin

I'm not sure that stating that Health Care costs are inflated means someone is a Socialist? Nor is there anything wrong with that in the first place.

One noted reason why Health Care costs so much is purely economic and centred in the States with it's Insurance-lead pricing (sorry, chaps, this is your fault (again )). 

In any market, prices rise when the effective demand for something ('wants' backed by cash) excedes the available supply. The insurance companies, by dint of absorbing premiums from many, represent an inflationary pressure in a specific niche and drive up prices as suppliers perceive that pretty much any level of renumeration they demand will get paid. 

It is actually in those suppliers interests to keep supply at a level below that demanded so that they can continue to reap the financial rewards (being blind to the death and suffering that results from this decision).

As much medical research is carried out in the USA, that inflationary pressure on the goods and services of health care is exported around the globe to those nations that make use of the fruits of such research. Nothing wrong with that in principle except that the price of these goods and services is artificially high thanks to the insurance companies.

Unrelated EDIT:  I thought the turn of phrase "unmolested walnut" was an excellent one .


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am mixing them together for *comparison* purposes, yes. I was attempting to point out that health insurance is a big fat pool of insured risk - life insurance does use actuarial tables to assign people to risk groups (fat, cancer in family, etc, etc).
> 
> Point was that if we're going to ask fatties to pay more for health insurance (or alternatively, to require them to become healthier in order to have health insurance), then we place obesity into a special risk group for health insurance - just as is now done with life insurance. And if you're going to do THAT, then you have to be fair and consider all the risk groups. Like old people. etc.
> 
> I do realize that currently, life insurance and health insurance are not run the same ways.


 Makes sense to me and I think that's wrong.  I'm in favor of single payer health coverage.  If we want to completely de-socialized health care, the insurance companies would be free to insure only the healthiest people... or do as life insurance companies do and charge based upon perceived risk.  I'm with you that we shouldn't consider these things.  I think everyone should have access to healthcare.  Let's stop monkeying around and just do it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

stevebjj said:


> For life insurance policies, particularly whole life policies that will accrue value over time, it's not uncommon to be required to take a physical.



Actually, I had to fill out a questionnaire for my requested additional life insurance through my employer (term life) and they refused to let me purchase the maximum insurance because a) I'm fat and b) they accessed my health care records from a previous doctor, and it showed I took anti-depressants (yes, I tried a freebie pack for 3 weeks, didn't like them, quit using them).  So I was denied on those basis.



> Health insurance is a different animal.



Right.  The statement has been made that fat people's health is everybody's business because they 'cost more' in terms of health insurance claims, and that healthy people resent paying for their health problems.  The supposed cure for that is a) fatties get rated higher for health insurance premiums or b) society has a right to demand that fatties get healthier.

As long as health insurance is the way it is - one big pool - then I don't think society has any right to lay claim to the way I treat my body.  Too bad it costs society more - it's a socialized program that does not (currently) discriminate based on risk factors.

Now, if you are buying individual health insurance policies, I believe the rules are different.  But I'm not at all sure how that works.


----------



## Steve

Sukerkin said:


> I'm not sure that stating that Health Care costs are inflated means someone is a Socialist? Nor is there anything wrong with that in the first place.


Tongue in cheek, sukerkin. Currently, anyone who says anything that smacks of fairness or equality is a socialist. 





> One noted reason why Health Care costs so much is purely economic and centred in the States with it's Insurance-lead pricing (sorry, chaps, this is your fault (again )).


Absolutely. Shame on us for spending more per capita than any other developed nation on health care and getting less out of it based upon almost every conceivable criteria.





> Unrelated EDIT: I thought the turn of phrase "unmolested walnut" was an excellent one .


Thank you!  It stems from the Jack Lelane philosophy on diet: If man made it, don't eat it. Or, as I read it: Keep your hands off my food.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually, I had to fill out a questionnaire for my requested additional life insurance through my employer (term life) and they refused to let me purchase the maximum insurance because a) I'm fat and b) they accessed my health care records from a previous doctor, and it showed I took anti-depressants (yes, I tried a freebie pack for 3 weeks, didn't like them, quit using them). So I was denied on those basis.


Again, though, we're talking life insurance.  Typically, you get one freebie with an employer.  That's why it's advisable for anyone starting a new job to sign up for the maximum insurance you can get up front.  It's a term policy, but is often all of the life insurance a person has.  And once you've signed up, the company is legally allowed to require physicals or what have you if you attempt to increase your coverage (after that initial period).   It's not unheard of, though, for companies to offer the opportunity to increase coverage, no questions asked, from time to time, so keep your eyes out for that.





> Right. The statement has been made that fat people's health is everybody's business because they 'cost more' in terms of health insurance claims, and that healthy people resent paying for their health problems. The supposed cure for that is a) fatties get rated higher for health insurance premiums or b) society has a right to demand that fatties get healthier.


I understand.  I'm with you on this one.





> As long as health insurance is the way it is - one big pool - then I don't think society has any right to lay claim to the way I treat my body. Too bad it costs society more - it's a socialized program that does not (currently) discriminate based on risk factors.


Nope, I agree.  Banning a fat, juicy steak is like banning marijuana.  Although, as a friend, I would nag you if I thought it would help.  

I do want to say, though, that there's a difference between the discussion that we're having now regarding choices of what to eat and the industry and government responsibility to ensure that the food we eat is safe.  





> Now, if you are buying individual health insurance policies, I believe the rules are different. But I'm not at all sure how that works.


Never done that, either.


----------



## Cryozombie

I was considering the Miller Light Diet.

96 Calories a Can, with only 3.2 carbs per.

On a 2000 Calorie diet,

Thats ALMOST 21 cans a day I can have and maintain a healthy Caloric intake... and with only 64 carbs a day.

Hooray Beer!


----------



## Jade Tigress

Cryozombie said:


> I was considering the Miller Light Diet.
> 
> 96 Calories a Can, with only 3.2 carbs per.
> 
> On a 2000 Calorie diet,
> 
> Thats ALMOST 21 cans a day I can have and maintain a healthy Caloric intake... and with only 64 carbs a day.
> 
> Hooray Beer!



:lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu

Cryozombie said:


> I was considering the Miller Light Diet.
> 
> 96 Calories a Can, with only 3.2 carbs per.
> 
> On a 2000 Calorie diet,
> 
> Thats ALMOST 21 cans a day I can have and maintain a healthy Caloric intake... and with only 64 carbs a day.
> 
> Hooray Beer!



There's a lot of skinny homeless drunks in Kapi'olani Park that survive on that diet!


----------

