The discussion has since moved along, but I did want to do a couple of you the courtesy of a reply. This'll be my last salvo on the subject here, because it's a bit much to read through ten pages of comments in just two days!
My view is arbitrary, so what?
Arbitrariness and the judgment of a group of people is a bad combination.
You consider your views superior to others.
No, I consider my logic superior when it evidently is. I don't have a problem with making concessions or acknowledging defeat, when it happens. Just because you are among the many whose ignorance cannot withstand my critique, that does not say anything about me. It says only that you are sensitive to being criticized.
You dissect the opposing view, in such a way that hinders actual progressive thought.
A not entirely unfounded criticism, but, again, a consequence of your style of response at least as much as my style of engagement.
I think you're trying to say that I should focus more on helping you open your eyes than on invalidating your views. Personal style is a tactical choice; you may be right at the situational level. Then again, you haven't volunteered much either. You're sticking to your guns and have resorted to complaining outside the topic.
Or maybe I am just weak and don't do well with adversarial discussion.
Yes, that is my reading too.
Liking to eat is not in of itself a good reason to be fat. You can enjoy eating and also exercise sufficiently to not be fat while having a high calorie diet. To become fat because you enjoy eating is an attempt to excuse your laziness.
Your first sentence is correct theoretically but relies upon the premise that getting fat is inherently bad. You should instead be treating it neutrally, and confine your suppositions about the healthfulness of fat to the appropriate subject. If one likes to eat, then,
absent other considerations, that is a good reason to get fat. I should clarify that “get fat” need not be the intention here. It need only be a consequence. That is an important distinction.
You are quite right about the fact that eating in moderation and increasing one's physical activity can temper fat accumulation. But these are extraneous; they are steps to be taken if avoiding fat gain is one's intention. That intention cannot be assumed.
Indeed, this can be a self defeating excuse for gaining excessive fat, as obesity correlates with an increased risk of type II diabetes.
It is irresponsible to imply causation when the evidence suggests correlation only. This kind of obfuscation is part of the reason why people have such a skewed attitude toward fat and fatness.
Further, the level of physical fitness of a healthy, nonfat adult human being can hardly be called extreme. It is the default physical fitness for a human.
You misunderstood me. I meant that the presence of excess body fat can only inherently preclude the most extreme degrees of fitness. In other words, it is quite within the realm of possibility to be fit and fat in all but the highest degrees of fitness. To wit, you shan't find obese people winning the gold medal for swimming or marathon running.
There is a long range between accepting where one's body is at and self-loathing. Not everyone who seeks to change their body does so out of some tragic sense of self-loathing. Some simply want a different body, and set out to achieve it. This is equally applicable to people who seek to gain fat and those who seek to lose it. Further, setting goals for oneself and achieving them is also a good thing for ones mental state.
This is a non-sequitur. I had pointed out that some people feel better about themselves when they are in a given weight range, even if it is high. What you wrote here does not pertain to that. I never wrote that people can't feel comfortable unless they are fat, and I never would.
You call giving up on a task because it isn't easy maturity. I take it as a sign of maturity that one is willing to take on a long and difficult task to achieve a desired goal.
You beg the question. Even if a person does not desire to be fat, that does not mean that they desire
not to be fat. Thus, they may not be “giving up” anything to accept themselves at their given weight.
This seems like an after the fact justification for someone who is or desires to be fat. Why should fatness in of itself symbolize anything? There are a myriad of reasons, both good, bad, and out of a persons control why a person might be fat. What good is done by assigning arbitrary qualities, distinct from the fatness itself or its consequences, when fatness can be arrived at through opposing means?
You are dismissing, in this line of thinking, all that which is not explicitly literal—a brazen absurdity.
My concern is this: This society (and here I'm specifically refering to the United States) has a vast overweight and obese population. Obesity has health consequences.
You speak incorrectly here; you speak knowledgeably but your knowledge is faulty. To remedy your ignorance you should investigate the subject further—and, I entreat, with a more inquisitive ethic. You are better than to need to seek out validation. Accept my challenge, and you will find yourself where I have ended up, understanding that the medical literature on the unhealthfulness of fatness inherently is far more ambiguous and conflicting in its findings than is popularly believed. I have not argued that being fat is healthy, because the literature does not support that either. What it seems to suggest, to me, in my scientific opinion, is that “fat” is not the villain here, but rather that it is one supporting player in a much bigger drama of physiology, sociology, and biochemistry, or, perhaps, that it is not a villain at all, but merely associates with villains.
We as a society should be more concerned with why our society has such a high rate of obesity, what the consequences of this are at a social level, and we can be done to mitigate any negative consequences.
No. We must first determine whether obesity is anything as unhealthy as it is thought to be. However, why bother? That is a classic example of unethical scientific thinking. What we should be concerned with is why the nation has the health problems that it does. If, in answering “why,” we end up on the subject of obesity, then that is where inquiry becomes warranted.
Josh, I must ask you how was my statement about not being fat "inflating" the neurosis on the subject?
Making disclaimers about belonging or not belonging to a group when discussion that group judgmentally (favorably, unfavorably, or impartially), introduces an inherent bias into the process which is unnecessary and counterproductive. Why? Because it has no significance, yet its mention implies significance, and significance is often perceived by others. For instance, I support gay rights. But if I were to end my arguments by pointing out that I am straight, that could be misinterpreted. For instance, somebody might take it to mean that I support gay rights but am nevertheless homophobic. “Why should it matter if I'm gay or straight?” they might rightly ask.
The same applies no matter the group in question; in this case, fat people.
