Fat Shaming.

[BarrelsOfDouche]

Eh...gluttony...

On one hand, I agree with the fact that it's "not glands"...it's instinct. Instinct beaten into the skulls of your great, great, great, great, great, great, etc. ancestors.

Perhaps not even that far back. Ever see those dead sexy photos of people in the 1930s?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/17/be/bf/17bebfeecd8fd112560f75c9e04f2417.jpg

Their weight loss technique secrets? F***ING STARVING TO DEATH.

Today, we're privileged enough to chose what we want off the shelf and complain about it. For the longest time, gluttony was a survival instinct. You could argue that the script has been flipped, but you don't just do away with thousands of years of conditioning in four decades. Difficulty losing weight is nature's way of saying "DUDE, wtf are you doing? I worked hard to make you fat. How else are you going to survive the winter?!"

Nature gives 0 f**ks about you fitting into your bikini.

 

[chikusho]

No, there is no need for discrimination, simple lack of ability to perform will do. Obese people (note that simply being fat is not same as obese. obese people have problems moving around, let alone working) are unable to do many of works that they may be able to do if they were not obese. same thing with, say, alcoholics. they cannot both be alcoholic and work as a driver.

Most people can't do most jobs for an incalculable number of reasons. People who can't do math can't become accountants. Would you say that people who can't do math are less able to contribute to society? What about math experts who don't know architecture, are they less able to contribute to society?
Also, alcoholics can be drivers just fine as long as they are not drunk on the job.

 

[Strazdas]

No, there is no need for discrimination, simple lack of ability to perform will do. Obese people (note that simply being fat is not same as obese. obese people have problems moving around, let alone working) are unable to do many of works that they may be able to do if they were not obese. same thing with, say, alcoholics. they cannot both be alcoholic and work as a driver.

Most people can't do most jobs for an incalculable number of reasons. People who can't do math can't become accountants. Would you say that people who can't do math are less able to contribute to society? What about math experts who don't know architecture, are they less able to contribute to society?
Also, alcoholics can be drivers just fine as long as they are not drunk on the job.

people who cant do math pretty much doesnt exist. primary school takes care of that. And yes, due to specialization we controbute to society differently, however most are still able to do the basic tasks, especially manual labour. something obese people cannot do. there is no need to speculate though, we have actual studies [http://www.eng.vt.edu/news/maury-nussbaum-participates-study-effect-obesity-workplace] regarding this. Buffalo study found that obese people were less productive, more likely to get injured, and needed longer breaks than their normal weight counterparts; notably, their endurance times were 40% shorter. A 2010 King?s College, London study [http://www.livescience.com/6819-obese-employees-sick-leave.html] showed obese staff took, on average, four more sick days a year. And fat has a price: according to NICE, obesity would cost a company with 1,000 staff £126,000 a year.

Also no, acoholics dont just "not drink on the job". they are alcoholics because they cannot control their drinking.

 

[chikusho]

people who cant do math pretty much doesnt exist.

Math literacy is a sliding scale. People who can't do math on a professional level are plentiful. I'm one of them, in fact.

And yes, due to specialization we controbute to society differently

Right. So there's no problem here.

there is no need to speculate though, we have actual studies [http://www.eng.vt.edu/news/maury-nussbaum-participates-study-effect-obesity-workplace] regarding this.

How fortunate then that the job market and economy is not entirely reliant on hand-grip endurance related jobs. Also, something else that reduces productivity: sports injuries. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3268498/] Especially if its hand and wrist [http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224888438_Economic_Impact_of_Hand_and_Wrist_Injuries_Health-Care_Costs_and_Productivity_Costs_in_a_Population-Based_Study] related injuries. Now, sports activity is most definitely an individual choice. Why should the rest of us pay for people who willingly engage in sports, and rack up health-care costs and costs in loss of productivity when they are injured?

A 2010 King?s College, London study [http://www.livescience.com/6819-obese-employees-sick-leave.html] showed obese staff took, on average, four more sick days a year. And fat has a price: according to NICE, obesity would cost a company with 1,000 staff ?126,000 a year.

According to that link, they don't know why obese staff take more sick days. Here's a possible contributing factor: fat shaming. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23585429] Workplace bullying [http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/financial-impacts-of-workplace-bullying.aspx] is a productivity killer by itself. But it can also lead to depression [http://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/implementation/topics/depression.html], which is closely linked to insomnia [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/07/30/the-average-worker-loses-11-days-of-productivity-each-year-due-to-insomnia-and-companies-are-taking-notice/], two even larger productivity killers. Also, fat shaming even works to increase the obesity problem [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070048].

Even if we take the ridiculous and cold-hearted "obese people cost more" argument at face value, harassment and bullying (up to and including fat shaming) is a much bigger problem than being obese. And shaming, harassing, bullying and discriminating against people is an individual choice, one might argue even more so than "being obese" is (especially since obesity is classified as a disease). So, then the question becomes, why should the rest of us have to pay for the care of people who are creating this situation?

And, of course, you can't answer that because the entire economic argument is still bullshit.

Also no, acoholics dont just "not drink on the job". they are alcoholics because they cannot control their drinking.

An alcoholic is not necessarily a person who's drunk all the time. Also, you can be drunk all the time without being an alcoholic.

 

[Mechamorph]

This is brilliant. I recommend that the organization behind this expand their operations to the continental Americas. Perhaps they can start small in Mexico City, New York and the state of Texas. Go ahead and tell people how much they disgust you with a chipper smile and press that card into their hands with pride. After all for the latter two, you're in the United States of America! Home of the brave! Land of the free! Freedom of speech is guaranteed and obviously nothing terrible will happen to you as you exercising your rights by telling people that they are even lower than pigs!*

* Disclaimer: Following this advice might lead to small amounts of weight gain due to an infusion of lead particles. Don't worry though, the blood loss will make up for it and you'll remain your usual svelte self you champion of healthiness you! In fact if such an occurrence, as unlikely as it is, comes to pass you might be looking at a severe weight loss in the near future! Bonus!

 

[Zen Bard]

The only fat shaming I have a problem with is when I'm going for a walk (whether to get somewhere or to get some exercise), I feel really apprehensive about it now because people will shout derogatory things or throw things out the window at me while they're driving past.

Said apprehension makes it very hard for me to want to leave the house, which kinda compounds the weight problem.

Don't let the bastards get you down!

Any time I see an overweight person going for a walk, riding a bike or at the gym, I think "Props to you for taking steps towards a healthier lifestyle!".

So good for you! Don't let the actions of a few narrow minded idiots stop you from doing what you want to do.

(Note: this is intended to be an encouraging compliment. But I'm sure it'll offend someone because you know...it's The Escapist)

 

[Barbas]

(Note: this is intended to be an encouraging compliment. But I'm sure it'll offend someone because you know...it's The Escapist)

You...uh, crisco white male bastard, I've never been so pissed off in all my days! Why, I oughta smack you with my rake as a point of honour.

OT: Well, basically, I think Mr Lahey said it best:


...If they want help, obviously. Basically, hey, be nice.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

That's where you're wrong. It's actually quite the oppossite. The lifetime cost of health care is higher for healthy people than for obese people/smokers for the simple reason that obese people and smokers have a shorter lifespan. Healthy people have a higher chance of reaching an age where their bodies start to break down due to old age and they can't take care of themselves any longer. Providing health care for these people over a longer period of time is much more expensive as a result...

Anyway... First off, if an obese person is less likely to be employed, that's not a problem with obesity. That's a problem with discrimination.

Do you have a link for these numbers? Because at least in the US, they've found that even with shorter lifespans, the obese have much higher lifetime medical bills than the non-obese.
http://khn.org/morning-breakout/dr00052683/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/05/15/New-Lifetime-Estimate-Obesity-Costs-92235-person

I think it's also worth noting that attempting to justify something with "well it's ok because they'll die sooner!" is pretty macabre logic.

Also, as for your second point...kind of. Again, in the US, since employers frequently provide health plans for their employees, hiring individuals who are more likely to suffer from the many diseases and issues that come along with obesity can raise the healthcare costs for the entire company (something companies spend a ton of $$$ on).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140513152933.htm

Further, studies have shown that, statistically, obese employees take more sick days, are injured more often, and are more likely to file disability claims than non-obese employees
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=412250
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00521.x/abstract;jsessionid=0D508F791E9553771F7B3858E36FB383.f02t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+5th+December+from+10%3A00-14%3A00+GMT+%2F+05%3A00-09%3A00+EST+%2F+18%3A00-22%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.+Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

 

[Saulkar]

I wonder what these people will say to someone with polycystic ovary syndrome, many of whom (but not all) suffer obesity because their body turns sugar immediately into fat without giving them any energy lest they take pills (like metformin I think), maintain an absurdly strict diet, and use what energy they have to workout. Depending on the severity of the disease they could swing anywhere from maintaining a healthy weight to just preventing obesity.

 

[Zen Bard]

(Note: this is intended to be an encouraging compliment. But I'm sure it'll offend someone because you know...it's The Escapist)

You...uh, crisco white male bastard...

Ha! Only two out of three of those are correct! (And it's not the first one!)

Ah rakes, my old foe. We meet again...and again.

And again...

 

[chikusho]

Do you have a link for these numbers?

Link was posted earlier in the thread by someone quoting me.

Because at least in the US, they've found that even with shorter lifespans, the obese have much higher lifetime medical bills than the non-obese.
http://khn.org/morning-breakout/dr00052683/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/05/15/New-Lifetime-Estimate-Obesity-Costs-92235-person

Four things to consider here. First, the U.S. medical system is well and truly fucked.
Secondly, since U.S. residents to a horrifying degree have to pay for their own health care, not only does it lessen the problem (since if people are mostly paying for themselves, they are not really a burden) it might also mean that a lot of people (both obese and of healthy weight) might not either seek or receive the health care that they need, which ultimately might affect the statistics.
Thirdly, two bigger causes of reduced work productivity (and cost) are insomnia and depression (see my previous post).
Finally, in the thefiscaltimes.com article they are combining several figures that don't seem to be factoring in the cause of those costs. As stated, indirect costs like work productivity could have other causes (insomnia/depression for instance). And a failure in health education can't really be blamed on the people suffering from obesity.

I think it's also worth noting that attempting to justify something with "well it's ok because they'll die sooner!" is pretty macabre logic.

I'm not saying it's good to be obese because obese people die sooner. I'm saying that the economic argument is bullshit (as well as being cold-hearted, dehumanizing, counter-productive and cruel).

Further, studies have shown that, statistically, obese employees take more sick days, are injured more often, and are more likely to file disability claims than non-obese employees
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=412250
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00521.x/abstract;jsessionid=0D508F791E9553771F7B3858E36FB383.f02t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+5th+December+from+10%3A00-14%3A00+GMT+%2F+05%3A00-09%3A00+EST+%2F+18%3A00-22%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.+Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

This seems legit. No argument here at this time.

 

[maninahat]

Its rude, but is it any ruder than to expect everyone else to pay for the medical costs from her lifestyle choices through the NHS. The NHS is spending at least ?5.1 billion a year on costs associated with weight. I'm a middle aged man and I don't claim to be a muscle bound adonis but I still have the same waist size that I did 20 years ago. It just takes a little self discipline, it's not food is heroin.

Firstly, the NHS is for everyone, regardless of how they choose to live their life. No one actually wants to get sick and become hospitalized, regardless of what they do. You might as well have a go at extreme sports enthusiasts for risking breaking their limbs, or Indian people for having a statistically higher chance of gaining diabetes during their lifetime?

Secondly Food, especially fast food, has actually been compared to heroin in terms of addiction. Considering alcohol is one of the biggest contributors to weight gain too, then yes, actual addictive drugs are in part to blame for wight gain.

Thirdly, "a little discipline" is a stretch. I've ate like a pig all my life, often going for months without any kind of physical activity, and yet I have never been fat (by any real stretch of the imagination, anyway). I can't then have a go at fat people for being lazy, when I've almost certainly been far lazier and simply had the fortune to not show any outward signs of it. Now I go to the gym, I do see plenty of fat people making a serious effort to lose weight, and for a lot of them it is going to be a huge uphill battle. Firstly because of the aforementioned addictive nature of food. Second because for some people, exercise can be seemingly ineffectual even after months of effort. Thirdly because any weight lost through dieting and exercise can very easily be put back on straight away from the moment the dieting and exercise lapse. Fourthly, because your outward appearance can be influenced by a whole bevy of things beyond your diet and activity, so you could easily be wasting your time.

 

[Lightknight]

It should be mentioned that the results are based on current healthcare costs in the Netherlands and that it does not account for things like productivity differences or money paid into the system.

Not sure of the relevance. Older people seldom pay more money into the system anyways. The logic that people who die young save everyone money is fairly sound. Do you have a reason to believe that obese people work less than healthy people when the vast majority of wealth is produced by white collar labor rather than blue collar work? Sounds like you're just leaning on a stereotype that fat people are inherently lazy when most likely they just aren't as physically active or just eat more than they burn off. Not hard to do in today's caloric filled world.

By most metrics, obese people die of relatively cheap problems. Heart disease, stroke, etc. These are frequently singular events with things like diabetes being the exception. Healthy people often face a variety of long-term ailments in old age that can often require a hefty bill be paid. From mental disorders to cancers to other forms of geriatric care that can last a very long time.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It should be mentioned that the results are based on current healthcare costs in the Netherlands and that it does not account for things like productivity differences or money paid into the system.

Not sure of the relevance. Older people seldom pay more money into the system anyways. The logic that people who die young save everyone money is fairly sound. Do you have a reason to believe that obese people work less than healthy people when the vast majority of wealth is produced by white collar labor rather than blue collar work? Sounds like you're just leaning on a stereotype that fat people are inherently lazy when most likely they just aren't as physically active or just eat more than they burn off. Not hard to do in today's caloric filled world.

By most metrics, obese people die of relatively cheap problems. Heart disease, stroke, etc. These are frequently singular events with things like diabetes being the exception. Healthy people often face a variety of long-term ailments in old age that can often require a hefty bill be paid. From mental disorders to cancers to other forms of geriatric care that can last a very long time.

I'm just quoting the study linked.

In this case, the model does not take into account varying degrees of obesity, which are likely to affect lifetime health-care costs, nor indirect costs of obesity such as reduced productivity.

 

[Lightknight]

It should be mentioned that the results are based on current healthcare costs in the Netherlands and that it does not account for things like productivity differences or money paid into the system.

Not sure of the relevance. Older people seldom pay more money into the system anyways. The logic that people who die young save everyone money is fairly sound. Do you have a reason to believe that obese people work less than healthy people when the vast majority of wealth is produced by white collar labor rather than blue collar work? Sounds like you're just leaning on a stereotype that fat people are inherently lazy when most likely they just aren't as physically active or just eat more than they burn off. Not hard to do in today's caloric filled world.

By most metrics, obese people die of relatively cheap problems. Heart disease, stroke, etc. These are frequently singular events with things like diabetes being the exception. Healthy people often face a variety of long-term ailments in old age that can often require a hefty bill be paid. From mental disorders to cancers to other forms of geriatric care that can last a very long time.

I'm just quoting the study linked.

In this case, the model does not take into account varying degrees of obesity, which are likely to affect lifetime health-care costs, nor indirect costs of obesity such as reduced productivity.

Well, what do you think? Are older people more likely to be paying more into the healthcare system considering they are frequently unemployed/retired at the time?

Likewise, do you feel like obese people are actually less productive as the authors tried to indicate? Maybe the authors also want to point out that fat Mexican statistics may not count the loss of productivity due to them taking a siesta midday while the author is going on about statistics they've apparently derived from the cusp of his/her ass?

Fat people work in all sectors. They are blue and white collar workers and clearly work hard enough to remain employed. It is a bullshit stereotype the author is introducing like it's supposed to be an assumed fact. Maybe if the author got his thumb out of his/her ass they could also wonder about the loss of productivity due to being too old to work for a couple decades in the healthy individuals that live far longer?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It should be mentioned that the results are based on current healthcare costs in the Netherlands and that it does not account for things like productivity differences or money paid into the system.

Not sure of the relevance. Older people seldom pay more money into the system anyways. The logic that people who die young save everyone money is fairly sound. Do you have a reason to believe that obese people work less than healthy people when the vast majority of wealth is produced by white collar labor rather than blue collar work? Sounds like you're just leaning on a stereotype that fat people are inherently lazy when most likely they just aren't as physically active or just eat more than they burn off. Not hard to do in today's caloric filled world.

By most metrics, obese people die of relatively cheap problems. Heart disease, stroke, etc. These are frequently singular events with things like diabetes being the exception. Healthy people often face a variety of long-term ailments in old age that can often require a hefty bill be paid. From mental disorders to cancers to other forms of geriatric care that can last a very long time.

I'm just quoting the study linked.

In this case, the model does not take into account varying degrees of obesity, which are likely to affect lifetime health-care costs, nor indirect costs of obesity such as reduced productivity.

Well, what do you think? Are older people more likely to be paying more into the healthcare system considering they are frequently unemployed/retired at the time?

Likewise, do you feel like obese people are actually less productive as the authors tried to indicate? Maybe the authors also want to point out that fat Mexican statistics may not count the loss of productivity due to them taking a siesta midday while the author is going on about statistics from the cusp of his/her ass?

Fat people work in all sectors. They are blue and white collar works and clearly work hard enough to remain employed. It is a bullshit stereotype the author is introducing like it's supposed to be an assumed fact. Maybe if the author got his thumb out of his/her ass they could also wonder about the loss of productivity due to being too old to work for a couple decades in the healthy individuals that live far longer?

Erm, it's the study you linked through the Forbes article. It's part of a disclaimer when giving their information. I'm not all that qualified to talk on productivity since it's not something I keep track of, but it was part of the article. I can say with more conviction that the study is true specifically for the Netherlands and their healthcare costs may not translate across borders.

 

[Lightknight]

It should be mentioned that the results are based on current healthcare costs in the Netherlands and that it does not account for things like productivity differences or money paid into the system.

Not sure of the relevance. Older people seldom pay more money into the system anyways. The logic that people who die young save everyone money is fairly sound. Do you have a reason to believe that obese people work less than healthy people when the vast majority of wealth is produced by white collar labor rather than blue collar work? Sounds like you're just leaning on a stereotype that fat people are inherently lazy when most likely they just aren't as physically active or just eat more than they burn off. Not hard to do in today's caloric filled world.

By most metrics, obese people die of relatively cheap problems. Heart disease, stroke, etc. These are frequently singular events with things like diabetes being the exception. Healthy people often face a variety of long-term ailments in old age that can often require a hefty bill be paid. From mental disorders to cancers to other forms of geriatric care that can last a very long time.

I'm just quoting the study linked.

In this case, the model does not take into account varying degrees of obesity, which are likely to affect lifetime health-care costs, nor indirect costs of obesity such as reduced productivity.

Well, what do you think? Are older people more likely to be paying more into the healthcare system considering they are frequently unemployed/retired at the time?

Likewise, do you feel like obese people are actually less productive as the authors tried to indicate? Maybe the authors also want to point out that fat Mexican statistics may not count the loss of productivity due to them taking a siesta midday while the author is going on about statistics from the cusp of his/her ass?

Fat people work in all sectors. They are blue and white collar works and clearly work hard enough to remain employed. It is a bullshit stereotype the author is introducing like it's supposed to be an assumed fact. Maybe if the author got his thumb out of his/her ass they could also wonder about the loss of productivity due to being too old to work for a couple decades in the healthy individuals that live far longer?

Erm, it's the study you linked through the Forbes article. It's part of a disclaimer when giving their information. I'm not all that qualified to talk on productivity since it's not something I keep track of, but it was part of the article. I can say with more conviction that the study is true specifically for the Netherlands and their healthcare costs may not translate across borders.

Right, just because someone conducts a valid study on the numbers does not mean that their opinions or conclusions are necessarily correct. All the author did was give possible explanations for why the numbers showed healthy people costing us much more but the author was in full hypothesis mode rather than basing the hypothesis off of anything real.

By the numbers, obese people die young and die from less complicated illnesses and healthy people die old and with more costly procedures. The why of it isn't necessarily relevant.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It should be mentioned that the results are based on current healthcare costs in the Netherlands and that it does not account for things like productivity differences or money paid into the system.

Not sure of the relevance. Older people seldom pay more money into the system anyways. The logic that people who die young save everyone money is fairly sound. Do you have a reason to believe that obese people work less than healthy people when the vast majority of wealth is produced by white collar labor rather than blue collar work? Sounds like you're just leaning on a stereotype that fat people are inherently lazy when most likely they just aren't as physically active or just eat more than they burn off. Not hard to do in today's caloric filled world.

By most metrics, obese people die of relatively cheap problems. Heart disease, stroke, etc. These are frequently singular events with things like diabetes being the exception. Healthy people often face a variety of long-term ailments in old age that can often require a hefty bill be paid. From mental disorders to cancers to other forms of geriatric care that can last a very long time.

I'm just quoting the study linked.

In this case, the model does not take into account varying degrees of obesity, which are likely to affect lifetime health-care costs, nor indirect costs of obesity such as reduced productivity.

Well, what do you think? Are older people more likely to be paying more into the healthcare system considering they are frequently unemployed/retired at the time?

Likewise, do you feel like obese people are actually less productive as the authors tried to indicate? Maybe the authors also want to point out that fat Mexican statistics may not count the loss of productivity due to them taking a siesta midday while the author is going on about statistics from the cusp of his/her ass?

Fat people work in all sectors. They are blue and white collar works and clearly work hard enough to remain employed. It is a bullshit stereotype the author is introducing like it's supposed to be an assumed fact. Maybe if the author got his thumb out of his/her ass they could also wonder about the loss of productivity due to being too old to work for a couple decades in the healthy individuals that live far longer?

Erm, it's the study you linked through the Forbes article. It's part of a disclaimer when giving their information. I'm not all that qualified to talk on productivity since it's not something I keep track of, but it was part of the article. I can say with more conviction that the study is true specifically for the Netherlands and their healthcare costs may not translate across borders.

Right, just because someone conducts a valid study on the numbers does not mean that their opinions or conclusions are necessarily correct. All the author did was give possible explanations for why the numbers showed healthy people costing us much more but the author was in full hypothesis mode rather than basing the hypothesis off of anything real.

By the numbers, obese people die young and die from less complicated illnesses and healthy people die old and with more costly procedures. The why of it isn't necessarily relevant.

Well they thought it was worth mentioning so I thought it was worth mentioning. Maybe they know numbers neither of us do?