I want to show you guys this vid from the /B/ Cringe thread vol. Do fat people repulse you?

[jchambers]

Where does that disability check come from?

Well the way it works, is...

A doctor renders them unfit to work due to whatever dissabilitating disease caused by their obesity, then the government has no other choice but to support them, provide tem with healthcare and all...when is the last time you seen a 400lbs homeless man?

Where does the government get the money to support these overweight people?

 

[ksteezy]

Bruh, don't come at me this ant ain't trying to pick a fight with an ant-eater...


Don't call me an ISSer bruh...

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yo Shut **** up

You are Ninja are unlike is one important way. Use your narrow set of experiences to make judgments about the entire world

The 400lb woman was homeboy's example, not mine, and there are probably tons of obese people that contribute way more to society than you.

And the government doesn't just give out disability because you're fat.

Brah I wasn't talking to you....

Anyways the government doesn't hand out disability checks because you are fat, but if a doctor says you can't work and labels you disabled you will get a check.

My apologies

I know being compared to Edwin is a sensitive subject for your so I went for the jugular. My jimmies were rustled but I gave them some got coca to settled down.

But that is no excuse Once again please accept my sincerely apologies.

-And I get what your are saying about the disablity check but there is still an extra set, not like they get fat and collect. But I see what you are sayiing

 

[the qbz]

Why is the general feeling that all fat people are lazy.....Im 350 and work as a manager , married and a kid but by no means lazy. My only problems from my last check up was elevated blood pressure due to lack of sleep and stress.....( i work 14 hour days). I just dont get why it easier to assume fat people are lazy.


all homeless people didnt choose to be homeless. some are orphans how aged out the system or mental patient who got abandoned by thier family...

idk it one thing to call some fat ... fat but to assume that they are not doing anything to change that just ........lazy

 

[jchambers]

Should I be required to hire someone as a customer service rep who has a tattoo on their forehead that says a curse word?

Now you're acting like everyone with a weight problem just walked into a cosmetic surgeon's office one day and said, "give me the Louie Anderson." 


I refuse to downplay the environmental factors that lead to obesity just to stroke my own ego and feel superior.  I didn't choose to be thin.  I've made choices that keep me in shape, sure, but I'll readily grant that momentum was on my side.  


Why assume that everyone's experience is identical to yours?  That's like
 George W. Bush saying, "oh, you didn't get into Yale?  Well, uh, maybe you just should've worked harder - like I did."

No I am not acting like they walked into a surgeons office to become fat. Everyone who is fat got that way from eating way over their daily caloric maintenance level. Being fat or thin is definitely a choice. We can go all abstract and blame every aspect of an individuals makeup on genetic or environmental factors, but at some point, human beings have to be held responsible for the things that they do. You could say that a pedophile isn't responsible for rape because they were raped when they were young and it is a continuous cycle. That doesn't excuse the behavior in my eyes. You could say that all KKK members and racists are that way because of the way that they were raised and the environment that they came up in. Should we grant them the same compassion and disregard the ignorance of their beliefs?


The George Bush quote has nothing to do with this discussion. I don't assume that everyone's experience is identical to mine at all. We aren't talking about economic or racial factors though, we are talking about people not knowing when to put the ice cream cone down. I make a conscious decision not to get facial tattoos, because I know that it could hinder my advancement in the workforce. To expect someone to make the same decision concerning their weight is not dissimilar. I do believe that a business owner should reserve the right to not hire someone who is willfully committing actions that could cost them a lot of unnecessary expenses or changes in their business model. I am sure that more people die each year from obesity related issues than from drug related ones, and it is acceptable for a business to require drug testing. The use of drugs implies laziness and poor work ethic, many people feel the same way about obesity.That is my only argument here.

 

[ksteezy]

There are exceptions to everything, that goes without saying.

Have you tried losing weight?...do you know the health risks and the fact you may not make it passed 50 if that, if you don't lose weight?

 

[ksteezy]

You know what I find unfair, more so than the outlook on obesity?...the fact that if I make the choice to not wear a seatbelt putting my own life at risk and noone else's I can get a big fat ticket.

 

[jchambers]

You know what I find unfair, more so than the outlook on obesity?...the fact that if I make the choice to not wear a seatbelt putting my own life at risk and noone else's I can get a big fat ticket.

Typical ISSer problems.

 

[RustyShackleford]

^^^^^

You're only reading what you want to see

Your example is so *** backwards. Maneuvering the work area is an essential part of the job for a waiter/waitress. If someone is too big to do so, then they can't do part of the effectively, then by all means don't hire them. That's not discrimination. Now if the overweight person could move around the work area, and is the most qualified person. If you don't hire them because they are fat, and only because they are fat, then yes.

I used regular ole desk job because that was an example I saw first hand. When I was at Capital One they needed a accountant/analyst, they put out a posting, dude sends his resume with all kinds of experienced, (Two BA, Two MAs), CPA and CFA, and all kinds of specialized skills. I was an intern so most of it was over my head. They skipped him the first two rounds of interviews, had his office already set up for him and I overhead my manager being told the highest number the could offer homeboy, it was like around $160,000. Homeboy comes in for the interview, he is huge, talking like 500 plus. Never saw him again. That's ******g discrimination

An overweight person is not going to be as mobile or swift as a fit individual.Maybe the office chairs that they use can only bear up to 300lbs? Is that a valid reason not to hire him? Maybe they didn't want to hire someone who is willfully endangering their health in a way that could potentially cost them hundreds of thousands in disability or insurance? Your example is exactly the same as mine. I guarantee that the manager never told you that he didn't hire the guy only because he is fat.

My example is not the same because in my example dude already proved he could do the job effectively.

My manager wanted to hire him, the VP vetoed it and never gave a reason. My manager was gushing about dude after the interview. The VP talked on the phone with dude for like an hour before the interview, and had a office set up in one day, even though there was another one open but for some reason the VP thought dude wouldn't like it. My manager told me that it must have been the weight because that's all the VP could talk about after the interview.

And you're grasping for straws, if a overweight person can do the do effectively and had the qualifications to do show that, then if they are the best candidate the should get the job. PERIOD. Your example might seem to work because it is a low skill job, but stuff like this happen with high skilled jobs all the time.

 

[frostythepoptart]

Why is the general feeling that all fat people are lazy.....Im 350 and work as a manager , married and a kid but by no means lazy. My only problems from my last check up was elevated blood pressure due to lack of sleep and stress.....( i work 14 hour days). I just dont get why it easier to assume fat people are lazy.


all homeless people didnt choose to be homeless. some are orphans how aged out the system or mental patient who got abandoned by thier family...

idk it one thing to call some fat ... fat but to assume that they are not doing anything to change that just ........lazy

that's cool how you can justify your blood pressure is due to everything but your weight.

The stereotype of fat people are they eat a lot,get no exercise, and are couch potatoes. If you can replace couch potato for a working man w/ a job...That doesn't exclude the eating and exercise problems that's why people think fat people are lazy.

 

[ninjahood]

Smoking which is known to be addicting

Being compared to over eating is ridiculous...

Fat people lobbying congress to stay fat so people

Will hire them and shoot up their premiums on obama care? Lulz

 

[frostythepoptart]

You know what I find unfair, more so than the outlook on obesity?...the fact that if I make the choice to not wear a seatbelt putting my own life at risk and noone else's I can get a big fat ticket.

This is just society looking out for you though it's kind of silly. It's more about the government taking their cut than anything else.

Case in point how they pick which drugs are legal. From prescription, to alcohol, to tobacco, to weed. Lots of bad out there for you, but rather than make cigarettes illegal they just enjoy their nice cut of taxes

Committing suicide is technically illegal but I doubt people are worried about breaking the law when they do it.

 

[jchambers]

^^^^^

You're only reading what you want to see

Your example is so *** backwards. Maneuvering the work area is an essential part of the job for a waiter/waitress. If someone is too big to do so, then they can't do part of the effectively, then by all means don't hire them. That's not discrimination. Now if the overweight person could move around the work area, and is the most qualified person. If you don't hire them because they are fat, and only because they are fat, then yes.

I used regular ole desk job because that was an example I saw first hand. When I was at Capital One they needed a accountant/analyst, they put out a posting, dude sends his resume with all kinds of experienced, (Two BA, Two MAs), CPA and CFA, and all kinds of specialized skills. I was an intern so most of it was over my head. They skipped him the first two rounds of interviews, had his office already set up for him and I overhead my manager being told the highest number the could offer homeboy, it was like around $160,000. Homeboy comes in for the interview, he is huge, talking like 500 plus. Never saw him again. That's ******g discrimination

An overweight person is not going to be as mobile or swift as a fit individual.Maybe the office chairs that they use can only bear up to 300lbs? Is that a valid reason not to hire him? Maybe they didn't want to hire someone who is willfully endangering their health in a way that could potentially cost them hundreds of thousands in disability or insurance? Your example is exactly the same as mine. I guarantee that the manager never told you that he didn't hire the guy only because he is fat.

My example is not the same because in my example dude already proved he could do the job effectively.

My manager wanted to hire him, the VP vetoed it and never gave a reason. My manager was gushing about dude after the interview. The VP talked on the phone with dude for like an hour before the interview, and had a office set up in one day, even though there was another one open but for some reason the VP thought dude wouldn't like it. My manager told me that it must have been the weight because that's all the VP could talk about after the interview.

And you're grasping for straws, if a overweight person can do the do effectively and had the qualifications to do show that, then if they are the best candidate the should get the job. PERIOD. Your example might seem to work because it is a low skill job, but stuff like this happen with high skilled jobs all the time.

Nah, you are grasping for straws in an attempt to validate your view on the matter. You don't even know why that guy wasn't hired anyways. Should I also be required to hire someone with pink hair and facial tattoos and piercings if they are the most qualified person for the job? So you think that it is OK to discriminate when it comes to low skill jobs, but not high skilled jobs? What if I tell someone that I can't hire them to be a personal trainer because they are out of shape? Should they be allowed to sue me for discrimination?

 

[il prescelto]

View media item 385656


"Underdog, put that on a t-shirt!"


Like I didn't already catch his last seven self-repping clone accounts?  


I think you're overestimating some of these guys.  Ever see that Simpsons episode where Bart keeps reaching for the electrified cupcake?  

And... wait for it... 

"every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command.  It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of society, which he has in view.  But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to society."   "By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."  

I'm surprised you haven't covered that yet.  Well, stick with it.  It's another limited conclusion that's been grossly extrapolated to justify "greed is good."  You'll love it.

Really?  "Blacks are inferior" was a moral issue?  So, your philosophy class never covered Aristotle and the concept of the "natural slave," I take it?  


Valladolid debate?  No?   


You understand that eugenics was a "utility argument", correct? 


Yeah, see this is why I'm not doing this with you.  


By the way, Hitler scapegoated Jewish citizens largely (though not exclusively) for economic reasons.  He sought to end what he saw as a "conspiratorial" Jewish dominance of the media and the economy.  If you see Nazism as uniquely or predominantly moral/religious and are oblivious to its interpretations (or misinterpretations) of Darwinism and Nietzschean philosophy (e.g. the "will to power"), then I find your position simplistic beyond belief.


Again, this is why I don't want to have this conversation.  It's venturing off on a worthless tangent because you've become infatuated with something you just picked up and now believe it explains everything. 


Seriously, I even got the year right?  


The term "sophomoric" is so named for a reason.  


You're not taking those statements in the proper context.  Nobody's saying that it's the same.  There's just been some sidetracking by individuals who seem to feel that ALL employment discrimination is somehow justifiable, because morality is, like, an illusion, dude.


Now you're acting like everyone with a weight problem just walked into a cosmetic surgeon's office one day and said, "give me the Louie Anderson." 


I refuse to downplay the environmental factors that lead to obesity just to stroke my own ego and feel superior.  I didn't choose to be thin.  I've made choices that keep me in shape, sure, but I'll readily grant that momentum was on my side.  


Why assume that everyone's experience is identical to yours?  That's like
 George W. Bush saying, "oh, you didn't get into Yale?  Well, uh, maybe you just should've worked harder - like I did."



I'm not posting pictures.  My privacy is very important to me.  Some of my previous posts, particularly those about diet or fitness, could give you a clue - but it's irrelevant here.  I've posted quite a bit over the years on the issue of gay rights for example.  I find the whole "oh, he thinks LGBT people are human beings, that means he's GAAAAAAYYY" stuff infantile.


I've stated that I don't know what it's like to be heavy to situate my opinion, not because I'm so insecure that I'm desperate to ensure that nobody thinks I'm "a big dude."  



Seriously?  Where've you been?  Oh, yeah... ISS.  


It's cool.  My post history is publicly accessible.  If you don't always go into the same threads I do, that wouldn't shock me. 

Of course I've covered that, not sure why you posted the quote though. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that game theoretic models can exist even without assuming the existence of society. Last time I checked, two people wasn't a market.

Eugenics was a "utility argument" to fight a "moral cause", for the most part. Had there been no moral aspect, there would have been no utility argument, since there's no evidence to support the argument in the first place. Same for every other example you cite (including the "natural slave", which you'll be happy to know I did cover).

Well, Hitler did have to convince the public, didn't he? I won't deny he made those arguments, but that doesn't mean that those arguments and beliefs were the primary reason behind his actions.

I just assumed you read my past posts and figured it out. It's not like you don't do that with other members on here just to throw shots.

"Yeah, see this is why I'm not doing this with you. "

What are you not doing, exactly? You see, if I had to guess, I would say that you meant you were going to stop posting. But since that's not the case, I'm not really sure what you're talking about.



And I still don't know why YOU care so much.

 

[sir charles]

Only steez would ask not to be called an ISSer, when in fact he was an ISSer for like, 2 years. 

 

[the qbz]

In the gym three time a week for an hour and a half. Yeah my weight it another factor in my blood pressure I admit that couch potatoe not me ....lazy not me ...... eat three square meals a day not me ... one meal a day yeah but lazy couch potatoe collecting a check not me... I font speak for all but just saying my story
420 to 350 to still working

 

[ksteezy]

So all these things which are pretty much choices we make which put our lives at risk, using drugs, not wearing a damb seatbelt, etc are punishable ad frowned upon, but over eating and gaining twice your suggested weight which probably puts your life more at risk is tabooed to frown upon.....it's so fun to be active and lose weight man, why do people accept defeat so easily??...I want to meet the first exfat person to say they'd go back to weighing 350lbs....when tht day comes ill be more open minded about it.

 

[ksteezy]

Hell even smoking is not permitted in a lot of venues, noone is screaming foul there.

 

[il prescelto]

View media item 385656

The term "sophomoric" is so named for a reason.  


You're not taking those statements in the proper context.  Nobody's saying that it's the same.  There's just been some sidetracking by individuals who seem to feel that ALL employment discrimination is somehow justifiable, because morality is, like, an illusion, dude.

A grown man bullying a college kid online on his own website.

For someone who advocates treating people "with perspective, compassion, humility, and a welcoming attitude", you sure are setting a great example!
Way to go, Meth!

 

[jchambers]

So all these things which are pretty much choices we make which put our lives at risk, using drugs, not wearing a damb seatbelt, etc are punishable ad frowned upon, but over eating and gaining twice your suggested weight which probably puts your life more at risk is tabooed to frown upon.....it's so fun to be active and lose weight man, why do people accept defeat so easily??...I want to meet the first exfat person to say they'd go back to weighing 350lbs....when tht day comes ill be more open minded about it.

I'm not saying that they should be forced to exercise. I'm not going to teach my kids to make fun of fat people, but I'm definitely not going to tell them to eat whatever they want and accept their fatness due to a lack of culpability . They should spend all of that time and effort on becoming more healthy and educating people on the dangers of obesity and the proper way to eat healthy, not the necessity of accepting something that could lower the quality of their lives.

 

[RustyShackleford]

^^^^^

You're only reading what you want to see

Your example is so *** backwards. Maneuvering the work area is an essential part of the job for a waiter/waitress. If someone is too big to do so, then they can't do part of the effectively, then by all means don't hire them. That's not discrimination. Now if the overweight person could move around the work area, and is the most qualified person. If you don't hire them because they are fat, and only because they are fat, then yes.

I used regular ole desk job because that was an example I saw first hand. When I was at Capital One they needed a accountant/analyst, they put out a posting, dude sends his resume with all kinds of experienced, (Two BA, Two MAs), CPA and CFA, and all kinds of specialized skills. I was an intern so most of it was over my head. They skipped him the first two rounds of interviews, had his office already set up for him and I overhead my manager being told the highest number the could offer homeboy, it was like around $160,000. Homeboy comes in for the interview, he is huge, talking like 500 plus. Never saw him again. That's ******g discrimination

An overweight person is not going to be as mobile or swift as a fit individual.Maybe the office chairs that they use can only bear up to 300lbs? Is that a valid reason not to hire him? Maybe they didn't want to hire someone who is willfully endangering their health in a way that could potentially cost them hundreds of thousands in disability or insurance? Your example is exactly the same as mine. I guarantee that the manager never told you that he didn't hire the guy only because he is fat.

My example is not the same because in my example dude already proved he could do the job effectively.

My manager wanted to hire him, the VP vetoed it and never gave a reason. My manager was gushing about dude after the interview. The VP talked on the phone with dude for like an hour before the interview, and had a office set up in one day, even though there was another one open but for some reason the VP thought dude wouldn't like it. My manager told me that it must have been the weight because that's all the VP could talk about after the interview.

And you're grasping for straws, if a overweight person can do the do effectively and had the qualifications to do show that, then if they are the best candidate the should get the job. PERIOD. Your example might seem to work because it is a low skill job, but stuff like this happen with high skilled jobs all the time.

Nah, you are grasping for straws in an attempt to validate your view on the matter. You don't even know why that guy wasn't hired anyways. Should I also be required to hire someone with pink hair and facial tattoos and piercings if they are the most qualified person for the job? So you think that it is OK to discriminate when it comes to low skill jobs, but not high skilled jobs? What if I tell someone that I can't hire them to be a personal trainer because they are out of shape? Should they be allowed to sue me for discrimination?

Consider this scenario:
Some is qualified and can do the job just as good as the next guy. They get hired just because they are overweight. Not because they can't do the job, not because the compnay has to make accommodations. You're fat, no job for you

I say that's not cool, and you're doing mental gymnastics to say it is.

I realize that being obese sign a negative signal, one that should be consider by any potential employer. But there are certain situation where an overweight person has proven he can do a certain job better than any other candidate and gets passed up just because they are fat. You continue being cool with that, and I'll continue thinking that that's ****** up

I'm done trying to play hide and seek with your logic

 

[water]

Posting to read later

 

[jchambers]

^^^^^

You're only reading what you want to see

Your example is so *** backwards. Maneuvering the work area is an essential part of the job for a waiter/waitress. If someone is too big to do so, then they can't do part of the effectively, then by all means don't hire them. That's not discrimination. Now if the overweight person could move around the work area, and is the most qualified person. If you don't hire them because they are fat, and only because they are fat, then yes.

I used regular ole desk job because that was an example I saw first hand. When I was at Capital One they needed a accountant/analyst, they put out a posting, dude sends his resume with all kinds of experienced, (Two BA, Two MAs), CPA and CFA, and all kinds of specialized skills. I was an intern so most of it was over my head. They skipped him the first two rounds of interviews, had his office already set up for him and I overhead my manager being told the highest number the could offer homeboy, it was like around $160,000. Homeboy comes in for the interview, he is huge, talking like 500 plus. Never saw him again. That's ******g discrimination

An overweight person is not going to be as mobile or swift as a fit individual.Maybe the office chairs that they use can only bear up to 300lbs? Is that a valid reason not to hire him? Maybe they didn't want to hire someone who is willfully endangering their health in a way that could potentially cost them hundreds of thousands in disability or insurance? Your example is exactly the same as mine. I guarantee that the manager never told you that he didn't hire the guy only because he is fat.

My example is not the same because in my example dude already proved he could do the job effectively.

My manager wanted to hire him, the VP vetoed it and never gave a reason. My manager was gushing about dude after the interview. The VP talked on the phone with dude for like an hour before the interview, and had a office set up in one day, even though there was another one open but for some reason the VP thought dude wouldn't like it. My manager told me that it must have been the weight because that's all the VP could talk about after the interview.

And you're grasping for straws, if a overweight person can do the do effectively and had the qualifications to do show that, then if they are the best candidate the should get the job. PERIOD. Your example might seem to work because it is a low skill job, but stuff like this happen with high skilled jobs all the time.

Nah, you are grasping for straws in an attempt to validate your view on the matter. You don't even know why that guy wasn't hired anyways. Should I also be required to hire someone with pink hair and facial tattoos and piercings if they are the most qualified person for the job? So you think that it is OK to discriminate when it comes to low skill jobs, but not high skilled jobs? What if I tell someone that I can't hire them to be a personal trainer because they are out of shape? Should they be allowed to sue me for discrimination?

Consider this scenario:
Some is qualified and can do the job just as good as the next guy. They get hired just because they are overweight. Not because they can't do the job, not because the compnay has to make accommodations. You're fat, no job for you

I say that's not cool, and you're doing mental gymnastics to say it is.

I realize that being obese sign a negative signal, one that should be consider by any potential employer. But there are certain situation where an overweight person has proven he can do a certain job better than any other candidate and gets passed up just because they are fat. You continue being cool with that, and I'll continue thinking that that's ****** up

I'm done trying to play hide and seek with your logic

I see that you haven't addressed any of my previous questions.


"I realize that being obese sign a negative signal, one that should be consider by any potential employer."


If you realize that, then discrimination based on weight should be acceptable to you. Why are you still arguing?

Let's rephrase it like this:

"I realize that having facial tattoos sign a negative signal, one that should be consider by any potential employer."


So I should be allowed to turn someone down for having a facial tattoo, right? I am arguing that being fat is a choice, just like having visible tattoos. You should be allowed to use your discretion when hiring someone who has made a choice that you disagree with or that might inhibit their ability to perform the job. You should not be allowed to discriminate against someone for something that is inherent to their being and cannot be changed, because that leads to oppression and inequality and is detrimental to society. Discrimination based on attributes that are chosen by the potential employee, lead to a change in the behavior and/or the potential employee seeking employment elsewhere. You already stated that you are cool with discrimination as it applies to low skill jobs.

 

[Methodical Management]

Quote: We can go all abstract and blame every aspect of an individuals makeup on genetic or environmental factors, but at some point, human beings have to be held responsible for the things that they do. You could say that a pedophile isn't responsible for rape because they were raped when they were young and it is a continuous cycle.

Let me get this straight:  a minute ago, you were yelling at me for supposedly comparing weight with race.  (I only raised the issue of whether people accepted discrimination of any sort as the employer's prerogative.)  

Now, you're comparing overweight people with rapists and klasnmen?  Okay. 

The argument by extension here is just nonsensical now.  

Bottom line is that you think it's fine to discriminate against or perhaps even insult/demean people struggling with obesity because they "deserve it."   I don't agree.   

If your motivation is to promote health, then promote health.  I don't see why we need to just absolutely stomp on and abuse people who don't meet your standard of fitness.   That's been my primary point here.  The lengths people have gone to in order to justify "fat bashing" are nothing short of extraordinary.  I'm honestly stunned.  

Eugenics was a "utility argument" to fight a "moral cause", for the most part. Had there been no moral aspect, there would have been no utility argument, since there's no evidence to support the argument in the first place. Same for every other example you cite (including the "natural slave", which you'll be happy to know I did cover).

You don't know what you're talking about.  At all.  Do you know anything about Galton?  

This has nothing to do with the subject matter anymore, it's just about you being contrary and blowing smoke.  I feel like your posts should all be printed in Courier New.  

Of course I've covered that, not sure why you posted the quote though. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that game theoretic models can exist even without assuming the existence of society. Last time I checked, two people wasn't a market.

Except that we were TALKING about a society.  This is ridiculous.  You sit through one lecture and suddenly you think you understand how the entire world works.  

When I say "I'm not doing this" what I mean is that I'm not going to be the one to debate you about the limitations of your brand new hobby horse.  It isn't new.  It doesn't have the explanatory power you seem to think it does.  Your understanding of it lacks depth and nuance.  There are so many flawed assumptions packed into this I wouldn't even know where to start.  Keep thinking that everything revolves around the ability of the individual to perfectly maximize his/her "utility function."  What that REALLY has to do with the subject at hand is anyone's guess at this point. 

You're not putting anything into context, just spewing out a bunch of slogans and generalizations.  That might dazzle people who've never encountered the subject matter, but it's just a colossal waste of everyone's time, because the only way to counter it is to go into it in GREAT detail and the only person who really wants to do that less than I do is you, because it requires you to demonstrate mastery of something you just learned a few weeks ago, probably in a microecon class.

Let's do both of us a favor and let it go.  It was silly to attack my position on the grounds that "morality is dumb" to begin with, but perhaps I should've just let it slide.  I had NO desire to venture this far out in the weeds with you.  To say it's been unproductive is a massive understatement.  

 

[sir charles]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

CALL ME A CHEARLEADER! I DARE YOU!

But I agree, why make fun of people because they are fat? Especially when your "goal" is to promote health. That's just discouraging. If I were fat, and someone started saying I repulsed them if probably kill myself. No exaggeration. It's so much easier to say obesity is unhealthy, here's a few facts why, maybe add a pie chart. Add some facts that would show obesity takes years off your life, and how debilitating it is. That would help a lot more than just being like "You're fat! HA HA! Get skinny."