Why it is acceptable to criticize smokers, but not fat people?
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think either deserves to be overly criticised (and BOTH of them are. Advertisements are constantly making people think that they need to be as thin as a stick to be accepted. Fat people are just criticised more subtly) but the short answer is no one got actively bullied for smoking and so they can probably take criticism better while fat people tend to be more insecure.
I take offence to the fact that reading your post it made it sound like you were sitting up there in your ivory tower looking down on all the fat people and feeling superior because you are not fat. There was a tone of superiority to your post which I didn't like, it had nothing to do with the content.Brawndo said:
There's this great quote I'm trying to think of, goes something like:
'Let he that is without sin something something.'
Probably not important.
Alot of people are saying that it isn't the fat people's fault that they're fat since there does exist rare conditions that make you morbidly obese no matter what you eat. But at the same time smoking is always the smokers fault and they can stop whenever you want.
I just want to point out that smoking is an addiction. Meaning that it is very hard to quit doing it. And that people who use the "I'ts not my fault that I'm fat, I have a rare disease." argument need to face the consequences of their own actions instead of hiding behind a medical condition. I'm sure a small percent of the world's population have a medical condition that makes them more likely to become obese, but not close to a majority of them.
I just want to point out that smoking is an addiction. Meaning that it is very hard to quit doing it. And that people who use the "I'ts not my fault that I'm fat, I have a rare disease." argument need to face the consequences of their own actions instead of hiding behind a medical condition. I'm sure a small percent of the world's population have a medical condition that makes them more likely to become obese, but not close to a majority of them.
Pretty sure that for most overweight persons it is not a choice. Smoking is totally, 100% a choice on the user part. Smoking directly harms people, while obesity does not (unless you are going to cite an extremely morbid case, which aren't incredibly common, unlike chain-smoking).
I dont mind people choosing to be fat, I do mind peoples hypocrisy in regarding this as a protected choice as opposed to any other enjoyable, yet harmful, activity.
Surely me stating you're like Fox news would make the complete opposite of someone who believes fox news no? Not quite sure where you're going with that one. However it is still different, you can't help being black, gay, female or whatever else people have prejudices towards for impossible to effect things. I mean I AM a smoker, and I still think it's okay for people to have those views towards me, mainly because I don't care, or at least not until we start having anti smoker hate crimes, slavery and violence.Yopaz said:
Smoking and being fat (except in rare cases) are choices, I'm exactly not saying we should berate people for being either of those things (and to be honest I don't care if people think less of me for smoking, I don't know them and will likely never even speak to or see them ever again, most of my friends smoke and I'm happy to sit by the window or pop outside for a fag for the benefit of the ones that don't), however I can understand why people would berate smokers and obese people for the reasons I mentioned in my first post to you, which are sort of justified. What I'm saying is racism and not liking smokers/obese is a whole different kettle of fish.
I know, I just took umbrage with his tone.McNinja said:
It's a problem I do see recurring, people just using the word 'fat' as if it covers all ends of the spectrum. I can be perfectly healthy, blood pressure fine, cholesterol normal etc, and still be overweight. I cannot smoke cigarettes and be perfectly healthy, there is no normal way to do that (weird genetics of the sort that Ozzy Osborne and Keith Richards have are the only things that allow you to do it.)
And of course, he takes no account of different body shapes either. I was once a first for my school's rugby team, and I was in the peak of my physical fitness (assuming I don't lose weight or get fit from this moment on) and I was still larger than the average gentleman. My bone structure is such that even at my fittest I will be at least square, and all my life I have found losing weight hard but gaining weight easy. So it's not always a choice.
I know my post probably came off as being angry, but really it was anger at the OP for his sweeping generalisation, not people who are making this argument genuinely and in full understanding of the facts like yourself.
It is not irrelevant to the arguments i was debunking. No one of those 9 people i quoted said anything about nicotine they were talking about cancer and death.DracoSuave said:
If you are afraid of nicotine you should try to avoid it as i said in a previous comment or talk to the smokers and ask them to remove themself or stomp the smoke, as i said we smokers aren't as bad as some of you think we are, we do try to remember when/where to smoke and when not to smoke but it isn't always that easy to remember.
And when you see all those people talking about second-hand smoke as if it was the most deadly thing in history you cannot come here and say that it is irrelevant to tell them that second-hand smoking isn't dangerous at all.
as far as i've found, any sentance that starts with "according to a recent study" innevitably means, "this is what someone with alot of money/the goverment want you to think, smokers and fat people are both killing themselves, which is fine, it's their choice, but smokers are also damaging other people, fat people aren't
But I think this is exactly what he's talking about -- you admit that it's a result of lifestyle and choice (meaning here that you do make a conscious decision to arrange your priorities in a certain way).MelasZepheos said:
I don't hear the guy crusading against "fat people," but rather calling our a marked inconsistency with how certain things are viewed. What about a guy who got started smoking earlier by an older friend or family member? What if they smoke because they're stressed or had a bad family life growing up?
The idea isn't that secondhand smoke doesn't have some impact on others. The idea isn't that "fatness" directly impacts my quality of life. The idea is that neither group of people should be a protected group. Rather than focusing on excuses, the attention should be focused on solutions -- and if folks don't want to do those things, that's fine, just like someone who doesn't want to use the myriad ways available to help quit smoking.
"Choice" isn't the same as "responsibility." Someone doesn't have to admit they "chose to be fat," but they can at least recognize they made critical, contributing decisions that led to gaining and keeping the extra weight. And if that doesn't bother them, it shouldn't bother anyone else... unless it starts to put a burden on the increasingly-public medical system.
(By the way, US health insurance companies have started going after smokers by forcing them to get the lower-coverage plans. I have to submit to nicotine testing for my insurance.)
LoL you think Its not ok to make fun of fat people? Smokers dont get 1/10 of the shit the average fat person gets. You wanna know why its not ok to go up and start giving a fat guy advice on his diet? Because 100,000 other people have already and your not telling him anything he doesn't already know. At which point your not being productive your just putting him down to make yourself feel better.
As for smoking I dont know anyone who really puts someone down for smoking. They might ask you to put it out and not smoke next to them but I wouldn't call that unreasonable would you?
Either way you look at it being super overweight or a smoker is bad for you and will do you harm. We know this they know this and why should your tax dollars be used to help them? Because its a thing called basic human empathy. We dont like the idea of putting people on the street or letting them die because they chose to live their life differently to you. Are you seriously telling me you'd let thousands of people die to save 2c on your tax? really?
P.S. being fat isn't protected its just normal enough that you look like an ass insulting people for it.
As for smoking I dont know anyone who really puts someone down for smoking. They might ask you to put it out and not smoke next to them but I wouldn't call that unreasonable would you?
Either way you look at it being super overweight or a smoker is bad for you and will do you harm. We know this they know this and why should your tax dollars be used to help them? Because its a thing called basic human empathy. We dont like the idea of putting people on the street or letting them die because they chose to live their life differently to you. Are you seriously telling me you'd let thousands of people die to save 2c on your tax? really?
P.S. being fat isn't protected its just normal enough that you look like an ass insulting people for it.
Ha. Thus speaks a thin person.z121231211 said:
I used to play rugby for my high school on the first team. I was in the best shape I've ever been, and I was still overweight. I was going to training nightly (and this was hard bloody training) I was going to the gym on weekends, I was eating healthily and I was playing matches as well. Sure it wasn't exactly professional level but they worked us bloody hard because we were supposed to be the best rugby players in the school.
I was still overweight though. Because my bone structure is such that even if I didn't have any fat on me I'd be square shaped, and ever since I was young it has been so much easier for me to put on weight than it is to lose it.
Also, I mentioned running outside, it depends on the sort of work you do because I know that even though I work perhaps a 8-9 hour day for five days a week I get home exhausted because of the nature of the work, and given the choice between doing something I enjoy and doing yet more stuff I hate I'll take enjoyment thanks. Enjoyment is not eating for sure, but enjoyment is also not exercise.
And as to your point about eating less, tried it, didn't work. I ate 1500 calories a day for a term in university and hardly lost anything. Nowadays I eat somewhere between 1800 and 2000 and am not losing anything. However, when I eat healthily, suddenly I do lose weight, but eating healthily is more expensive.
Most smokers I know are, in fact, considerate about public smoking near me. They ask if I mind, and generally I say 'No I do not' because I don't mind when asked politely.Nisselue said:
There is an etiquette to it for a reason... but a lot of smokers I don't know don't share that etiquette, which is a problem of manners.
For the record: A smoker does not need to ask in his own home, nor do I expect him to.
While you've brought up a few studies that say it doesn't, other organizations and studies, including the World Health Organization, disagree strongly.
Second hand smoke DOES contain carcinogens, including benzopyrene, formaldahyde, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia--these ARE proven carcinogens, and they can be proven to be in second-hand smoke faster than you can say 'mass spectrometer.'
As well, the study you DO mention, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Enstrom_and_Kabat was a case study, not actual research. The American Cancer Society, whose data was used, criticized this study for being neither reliable nor independant.
Oh, also, funded by Phillip Morris, and other tobacco companies.
As for the WHO study you claim; WHO has gone on record saying their findings were misrepresented, and, in fact: "When all the evidence, including the important new data reported in this issue of the Journal, is assessed, the inescapable scientific conclusion is that ETS is a low-level lung carcinogen"
FACT CHECKING IS HARD
Hey look, it's someone who's logical!Dastardly said:
Sorry, they're a rare find in this thread.
I agree with this point so hard. I know I probably could lose weight if I wanted to, but I don't want to because the effort required is just too high for so little reward. I'm entirely healthy, I'm entirely happy, and I have no need to lose weight.
What Mr Brawndo is doing is criticising all fat people, tarring us all with the same brush. His first post implies not only that being overweight is a choice, but that being overweight automatically makes you a drain on the health service.
You can read the other posts I've made to hear my thoughts about just how much of a choice it is or isn't (short story, I have always been overweight even when eating healthily and exercising every day, just not as overweight) But it was the tone oof superiority in his first post that made me oppose him.
I don't disagree with any of the points he's making (sort of, mostly) I disagree with him as a person.