Like I said, we're going in circles. The difference between cancer, then, and obesity, is the ability to see the outward changes, and alter behavior as a result. Let's ignore that obesity is a positive feedback loop (the more overweight you become, the easier it is to become more so). The immediacy of the outcome is what you find different between obesity and "disease". That's fine in a normative sort of way, and like I said it would make it easier to detect obesity earlier and arguably treat, but that doesn't resolve everything. What you end up having to argue (based on your acceptance of differing levels of risk) is that those who are at risk of obesity must not only act normally, but act better than normally in order to prevent becoming obese. That's fine, but then why is obesity itself not a disease in the same way diabetes is a disease? You can take steps to prevent it, but the risk is always there? Why is it not like alcoholism, or cancer, ect? Why don't we divorce the two ideas: the risk of obesity from the reality of it. Why not say that the risk of obesity is a disease (even if it's under control, and even if it never "flares up" as it were), while the reality of obesity is the failure to control the disease? If I have MS, there are ways for me to lessen the episodes, and depending on the type even eliminate them for long periods of time. But I'll still have MS, whether it shows or not.Mazty said:Obesity does not happen over night. If someone can see that they are becoming obese, they should exercise a bit more & eat a bit less than someone else. Clearly they do not need to eat as much as a regular person, which should be a benefit to them financially speaking, but instead they carry on eating too much/not doing enough exercise for no reason other than they can't be bothered to change.
This is were normative words like "moderation" give us a hiccup. Moderation (in this sense) is usually used to indicate the average normal actions, or at least what is acceptable for the average person to do. The issue is that what is acceptable for the "average" person would cause obesity in a pre-disposed person. The issue is not a "lack of moderation" but a lack of taking extra steps beyond moderation. There are simply not that many cases of obese people who eat grotesquely more than "normal" people. So, let's eliminate the groups that you accept aren't a choice (other medical conditions), and the ones I don't dispute are all choice (grotesque overeating). For the vast majority in the middle, the reason they gain more weight is because they are physiologically predisposed to do so even if they act in ways similar to non-obese peers.Mazty said:My assumption is that even if someone is more susceptible to becoming fat, they could very easily change their diet and lifestyle to accommodate this. But for whatever reason, they do not. Not to mention the millions of people that comfort eat, which is about as healthy as smoking, and for the same reason. If it did not harm anyone else that would be fine, but it costs people more in taxes and many other social issues.
I have never said that obesity is always a choice. I don't always write it as repetition shouldn't be needed, but my view here is a general one. Of course people who are obese due to physical or mental conditions such as asthma do not fall into the "they can easily change their lifestyle" category. But with the rise in obesity and lack of it in the past, it is clear medical reasons are not the cause of the obesity crisis, but simply a lack of moderation.
You say that someone should adjust for their risk factors, and I agree. But that doesn't make it any less a purely medical disease. Take someone with melanoma. If he was told when he was young that he had a higher risk, but chose to sunbathe anyway, would you say "nope, you don't get any sympathy, because it's not a real medical disease, you chose the actions that gave it to you"? Or would you say "damn, that sucks. You shouldn't have sunbathed, but that still sucks." If the latter, now imagine that he *didn't* know his risk factor. You'd probably just say "god, that sucks".
Before you say "but people can't tell if they're getting cancer": a tan (much less a sunburn) is a physiological indication of damage. They can see themselves being put at risk for cancer, yet choose to do it anyway. What's the bloody difference?