"Fat is the new gay"

orestes wrote: »

Not really, it's pretty straight-forward stuff and it's an interesting idea. The idea that society needs a common enemy or "other" is hardly new and if obesity is genetic to a certain degree then it is an interesting arguement, but the problem with their approach is arguing that obesity is not unhealthy or a disease and completey disregarding the overwhelming science that shows it is and then comparing it to old ideas of homosexuality that weren't backed up by scientific evidence at all.

Basically: We used to think being gay was a disease and was bad for you and could be cured and we were wrong, now we say the same thing about being obese, so we are wrong about that too.

It's the disregard for science that is the problem with the arguement, not the comparison to social-stigma of race or sexuality.

But I'm sure you see that being overweight will always be worse for your health regardless of whether it is genetic or not.

In some cases being overweight is genetic, and from what I've read their enzyme that controls hunger stays more or less around the middle of the scale between being hungry and full, whereas an average person's enzyme count would rise substantially when they were hungry and then fall sharply when they were satisfied. They didn't have that massive variation of change like the genetically obese person had.

I'm not sure if that's how it works in all cases of obese people who are like that for genetic reasons, I'm sure it's more complex and varies a lot more then that, but in those cases they still weren't eating healthy and no matter what that weight wasn't healthy for them -regardless of it being genetic or not.

They should've treated it like any genetic disorder like diabetes where you'd actively monitor your diet. They should strive to eat very healthily. Even if they still had weight on them, they're still eating healthily instead of eating junk which many do as they were drawn to the fat rich foods because of their genetic make up.

In my eyes if you have such a condiction you should push yourself to stay away from those foods for your own good, similar in a way to how people who have a higher chance of developing lung cancer should avoid smoking for their own good.

People think that because it's genetic it's some scape goat, but it's not really the case. Obese people who are like that for genetic reasons should work with their body and realise they need to keep it more in-check because they're more susceptible to weight related illnesses like diabetes and heart disease then the average person.

I realise this must sound very hypocritical for me of all people to say "no it can be cured, it is an illness" :P (I don't believe it's an illness, though) But it's something that very well could be cured with medication in future.

In the case that I saw where obesity was brought about because of a faulty enzyme controlling hunger, then something may be developed in future that could help to regulate it normally, like the medication that's available to help regulate and over, or under active thyroid gland.

In the past homosexuality was seen as bad for you and that it could be cured, but sexuality is far, far more complex than obesity when you're talking about the processes behind it. Obesity is still bad for you and carries substantial health risks, that won't change because we have the facts. We actually could be able to keep obesity under control with medication that helped regulate a defective hunger enzyme so it could be 'cured' some time in future.

Anyway, I'm getting waaaaaaayyy off course, and I apologise, but as you said there's more far more science behind this than people would think and I could go deeper into it.

TLDR; Genetic obesity is a real thing, but that shouldn't be seen as some get out of jail free card for all obese people -who may just be obese for dietary reasons, where they gorge themselves without any control with the excuse that they seemingly can't help it.
They should work with their bodies and strive to be healthier for their own sake, especially if they're more inclined to have unhealthier lives because of their genes.

I worry a bit that genetic obesity will be used as an excuse not to try to be healthier because they can't help it and so give up and not bother.

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

That's overweight but not obese.

It's not far off the clinical definition of obesity, but 196lbs for that height is very overweight. I've seen men who were 6'4 and muscular who were a lot lighter than that.

I think that's the problem, just because it's not quite the definition of obesity that it's grand then and you're just a bit over weight. I've met lads who did think like this and it's quite bad.

orestes wrote: »

Hey, I'm just explaining what the article said, I didn't say I agree with it

I agree with you completely, their entire arguement is based on ignoring all science that states obesity is unhealthy, which is ridiculous given the amount of information that indicates that it is unhealthy imo. The problem is that it makes any arguement against their position incorrect by default, so anything that you say that disagrees with it is instantly fatphobic. That's why I said earlier that the disregard for science is the problem with the position.

Oh ok. I'm just getting confused in the crossfire here

dark crystal wrote: »

It's no one else's business what anyone eats. You stick to your diet and let everyone else worry about their own.

Judgements like this heaped on people over their body size never fails to amaze me. Why on earth would you wish shame on someone just because of how they look ffs?

Well someone ate all the chocolate goldgrains and left none for me .............and methinks I know who did it

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I'm over weight but seriously it's rediculous to equate a lifestyle choice to something that isn't as choice in any way, shape or form. If I was gay I would be seriously offended. What a load of complete and utter ****e.

That's terribly homophobic. To suggest that the gays do be getting seriously offended over trivial matters.

I'm sure there are loads of fat gays who don't get offended



:-P

It's grand, boards has the answer to our obesity problem!. Fear not fellow fatties! :pac:

dark crystal wrote: »

But you could argue that's exactly the same line they threw at the gay community during the early 80's when HIV and AIDS first started appearing in the western world.

Many people may choose a lifestyle that others may disapprove of. By all means, educate them on the risks, encourage them to be healthier if you feel you must, but to sit in judgement of them, belittle them and infer they should feel ashamed of themselves is totally wrong.

Nowhere near as wrong as arguing that being gay means you are at risk of developing HIV.

mcwinning wrote: »

This article sums up all that is wrong with free speech. Any idiot can publish an article with no evidence behind what they say, manipulate and cherry pick 'science' that suits them and present it as fact, thus influencing other idiots. The more moral indignation the better.

That isn't freedom of speech, it's burden of proof. The article has put forward a theory with their arguements to support it, the responsibility is on the people who oppose it to prove it to be incorrect.

dark crystal wrote: »

I wasn't arguing that at all. I was comparing the judgement heaped on one group to the judgement heaped on another.

Your comparison makes no sense though.

Being gay does not effect your health. Being obese does effect your health.

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Being obese is.

If you want to compare the two then you have to reconcile at least one of those two contradictions before a comparison can be made. Otherwise you're basically comparing apples and oranges and any conclusions you try to make are useless.