EquALLity wrote:If you're obese, it could take awhile to have a healthy body weight.
With diet alone, around 3 lb per week could be possible. With exercise too, rather than extreme dietary restriction, more could be possible.
If you want to lose 100 lb of excess fat, that should take a little over six months. It doesn't take long.
EquALLity wrote:I don't think so. You can't make assumptions like that.
There's nothing to disagree with there. It's not an assumption, it's just a statistical fact.
If somebody spends 30 adult years obese, then decides to lose weight in the late 40's, and took six months to lose weight, what are the chances that a random encounter with that person while still significantly overweight were while losing weight?
One in 61. Under a 2% chance.
But most fat people never do lose weight. They live fat and they die fat. The odds, in effect, are far lower than that.
Most fat people aren't in the process of making a legitimate effort to lose weight, but rather yo-yo-ing with absurd fad diets, pills, and quick fixes because they can't be bothered to exercise some impulse control and change what they eat for real.
I have no doubt that many fat people report at any given time that they are "trying" to lose weight, but their 'attempts' are self deception, not weight loss.
Like I said before, it's not rocket science, they just have to eat fewer calories than they burn, and in order to feel good on a low calorie diet they have to start eating more nutritious foods and getting more fiber for satiation.
EquALLity wrote:Can you explain exactly why we should have the stigma on being overweight?
We don't want to encourage people to be obese. It should be viewed negatively, and that's fair: it's not healthy and it's not ethical (waste), and it's a personal choice people make to be fat every single day.
EquALLity wrote:It's not fair to assume that all overweight people you meet are wasteful.
It's a fair assumption when the legitimate diseases that cause obesity are so profoundly rare:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... n-20014834
Just as if you see somebody eating meat, it's a safe assumption that it isn't road kill that he or she found, cleaned, and cooked to eat.
In your whole life, if you criticized meat eaters and fat people every single day, you'd probably never make the mistake of criticizing somebody who was innocent. It's a very safe bet.
EquALLity wrote:Also, note the serious downsides to stigmas on being overweight (eating disorders etc.).
I understand that. But if somebody is losing weight, there is no reason such a stigma should still affect him or her. If you're losing 3-5 pounds a week, you're pretty far above any of that bullshit because you know in a few months that won't be you anymore. Psychological detachment.
EquALLity wrote:What?
I've never heard of that happening, but yeah, that could be a deterrent to being healthy.
It's pretty serious. Probably far worse than skinny people shaming them (which does drive them into depression and may result in them eating their feelings, but that's a choice too) since it's actually inhibiting change when they make a legitimate attempt.
EquALLity wrote:Why should they have to bear it? What's the point?
Because in those profoundly rare cases where somebody really is losing weight, there's no way for people to know that unless there are context clues.
I can tell you that anybody really losing weight is getting compliments around the clock from people who know them (and aren't fellow fat people shaming them) for weight loss. This (which can be identified with) combined with the detachment from the insults since that won't be them anymore soon, very likely makes it a positive experience for anybody in the process of losing weight.
EquALLity wrote:You want to stigmatize people for being wasteful, not for simply being overweight. Being wasteful is the issue; being overweight is just a consequence.
It makes sense to attack the core issue, but no more.
You can't tell when a skinny person is wasteful. If people wore that on them as badges, then it would be more helpful.
EquALLity wrote:
I think it's because being overweight is considered 'icky'.
Why do you think it's considered 'icky'?
I don't think you're substantiating this well, when there are many well known reasons. Some people may think this, but that kind of sentiment can't be upheld long without real reasons to support it.
And harming your own health isn't without moral consequence when you drag down the economy and social healthcare with your health problems.
Suicide is less harmful, but again, still wasteful and abandoning your responsibility to society.
EquALLity wrote:Whoops, I meant afford.
How much are generic thyroid medications? Are you certain these are not covered under medicare?
EquALLity wrote:But it's further reason why fat-shaming makes no sense.
No, it isn't. I don't think you fully grasp the rarity of this.
You can't give people the benefit of the doubt when the doubt is so astronomically small that it basically means you can't ever blame anybody for anything ever -- no matter how much evidence, because the evidence might be wrong.
EquALLity wrote:It's like stigmatizing all conservatives because a lot of them are crazy, and a lot of them are conservatives because they are crazy.

It's not at all like that. The correlations are several orders of magnitude removed.
EquALLity wrote:Can you link the article? Maybe it's a random article that takes the issue way too far.
You'd have to check the link, I don't know where it is, I just noted the article when I found it. The point is that everything about manspreading is taking it too far.
Not obviously, no. There's nobody to his right, and he's not touching that woman to his left (although the camera angle makes it look like it).
EquALLity wrote:That's why I'm saying it's negative. It's encouraging snobbery and superficiality.
Why is having standards bad?
EquALLity wrote:I don't think so. We have to analyze the issues, but only for the purposes of determining whether or not they matter to determine if they are examples of political correctness are going too far.
The criticism missed the other side. If it were more complete, you would have to explain why the other side is different and why it doesn't affect the evaluation.