Next PC battleground

[Ed]

Well, the forces that know what is best for all are gearing up. One can tell these things, a story in the media here, an interview there. And the cause de jour?

As Obesity Rises, Health Care Indignities Multiply
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and GRANT GLICKSON

Published: November 29, 2003


When Mark Rosenthal suffered a stroke, he was too heavy and wide for a stretcher, so he made the jarring, bouncing dash to the hospital lying on an ambulance floor. The ride injured his back, and he felt as if his own weight would suffocate him. At the hospital, doctors wanted to give him an M.R.I. scan, but he could not fit into the machine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/29/nyregion/29OBES.html

I have worked in some of the busiest business areas of the country. Every building, naturally, has ramps, migit toilets, braille on doors, etc. I have over 25 years seen exactly one person who was impaired using the facilities. Of course there are more but ...

So what happens with the morbidly obese? Will they become another "protected class"? Will offices have to retool to accomodate them? Who will pay?

What ever happened to that bill or whatever in Calif. that mandated that all new houses being built be "accessable"? Anyone hear any more on that? It was a town, not the state as I recall.

Anyhoo, Watch for more on this from those fine folks that gave us smoking bans.

[Jeff Corey]

We are having a modular house completed. As it is planned as a vacation/retirement home, we designed a single level ranch with wheelchair access to all rooms. The two steps up to the front door can be easily ramped.
My in-laws are in the 80s, we have handicapped friends and we all are getting older.
It just seemed like common sense.
When his mother-in law moved in with him, one guy I know had to spend over $10K to retrofit the house for her wheel chair.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
We are having a modular house completed. As it is planned as a vacation/retirement home, we designed a single level ranch with wheelchair access to all rooms. The two steps up to the front door can be easily ramped.
My in-laws are in the 80s, we have handicapped friends and we all are getting older.
It just seemed like common sense.
When his mother-in law moved in with him, one guy I know had to spend over $10K to retrofit the house for her wheel chair.

Who knows, I might be in the same boat. My point is that there is a difference between government mandates and the way you did it.

[Jeff Corey]

That's true.
Then again,I installed seatbelts in my '57 Merc, a couple of decades before they were mandatory.

[Yahweh]

Its no longer "morbidly obese", its now "festively plump"...

[Dancing David]

I don't know, there are just as many cultural attitudes about obesity as there are about homelessness.

Political correctness would merely say that you should not mock or discriminate against someone because they are obese.

The guts of the ADA weere taken out by the Supreme Court many years ago, I don't see that extra large strechers are going to be part of the ambulance squad.

(Where I work we have a very nice man, a Viet Nam vet in fact, he is our alleged operations director, but he is so big that he can't change a light bulb and totaly incompetant. He won't be fired however because of his age, his health status or his size)

[Supercharts]

There was a case about 12 years ago in Chicago of a woman who had the longest fingernails. They were so long that they curled, cork-screw-like. The woman was on welfare. She was on welfare because she would not cut her fingernails so no one would hire her. IIRC she was on the Phil Donohue show.

[EvilYeti]

I find it interesting that it took Mr. Rosenthal crapping his hospital bed to get him to curtail his eating habits.

Maybe this will turn into the basis of the next fad diet?

Anyway, considering the lack of success of the various obesity related lawsuits I doubt there will be much reform in the future. The majority of our society recognizes obesity for what it is, a side effect of lifestyle choices, not a disability.

The most likely outcome is that hospitals will add some extra resources for the morbidly obese and the insurance companies (i.e. the rest of us) will soak up the cost. Not an ideal solution of course, but it could be worse.

[TruthSeeker]

The increased number of obese patients is causing changes to health care. There is aarticle (http://www.karlloren.com/diet/p6.htm) describing the need for modified equipment and the increased risk for worker injury caused by having to move obese patients. A google search using the terms - obese hospital equipment - will get you to several catalogues to have a look, if you are curious.

This is slightly off the PC topic, but the increasing number of obese and elderly people will mean that health care workers will face growing numbers of unwell heavy people. It creates a real burden on staff.

[Ed]

Interestingly, the PC argument could go either way:

-These poor mass-challenged people need government to step in and make their lives better

-These people are a threat to themselves (like smokers) but that is OK (Right) the problem is that they are a threat to their children (always invoke "the children").

Incidentially, if smoking is a consideration in determining insurance rates, should it not be that others that engage in risky behavior (gays, obsese people) be subject to similar tariffs?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ed

Incidentially, if smoking is a consideration in determining insurance rates, should it not be that others that engage in risky behavior (gays, obsese people) be subject to similar tariffs?

I'm well in favor of increasing the rates of those that engage in risky behavior, especially complusive over-eating. I'm not so sure about those that engage in risky sexual behavior, as there is not a way to objectively determine that with 100% certainty. Obesity, on the other hand, its impossible to miss!

Considering that obesity-related illness has now outpaced smoking illness as a top killer, I see no reason why it should be treated any differently. If compulsive tobacco smoking isn't considered a disability, then neither should compulsive overeating.

[Badger]

EvilYeti, I'm interested in how you'd recommend that morbid obesity be defined.

Would you base it on height/weight charts? Body Mass Index? Body fat measurement? Medical opinion?

Personally, I'd go with a bodyfat measurement, as I feel there are inaccuracies in the other methods.

So, ho to respond to people who claim obesity is a disease akin to alcoholism, or a genetic predetermination?

[Ed]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I'm well in favor of increasing the rates of those that engage in risky behavior, especially complusive over-eating. I'm not so sure about those that engage in risky sexual behavior, as there is not a way to objectively determine that with 100% certainty. Obesity, on the other hand, its impossible to miss!

Considering that obesity-related illness has now outpaced smoking illness as a top killer, I see no reason why it should be treated any differently. If compulsive tobacco smoking isn't considered a disability, then neither should compulsive overeating.

Well, The line is that you can't get AIDs by casual contact and that one ought to take precautions during sex. Ergo, those that come down with AIDs, ipso facto, have indulged in risky sex. What is the relative incidence in gay and hetro couples/individuals? If it is 100:1 then gayness should be the indicator of higher insurance rates.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Badger
EvilYeti, I'm interested in how you'd recommend that morbid obesity be defined.

Would you base it on height/weight charts? Body Mass Index? Body fat measurement? Medical opinion?

Personally, I'd go with a bodyfat measurement, as I feel there are inaccuracies in the other methods.

So, ho to respond to people who claim obesity is a disease akin to alcoholism, or a genetic predetermination?

The NYT quotes some sort of index 703*body weight (lbs)/Height (inches)^2. 30 is obese according to that.

Perhaps for alchohol and tobacco and other drugs there ought to be a monthly testing, not to judge mind, simply so that we can be scrupulously fair. I mean why should anyone carry the freight for someone who engages in risky behavior. The government would never think to outlaw such behevior, it would just assure fairness.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Ed


The NYT quotes some sort of index 703*body weight (lbs)/Height (inches)^2. 30 is obese according to that.

Perhaps for alchohol and tobacco and other drugs there ought to be a monthly testing, not to judge mind, simply so that we can be scrupulously fair. I mean why should anyone carry the freight for someone who engages in risky behavior. The government would never think to outlaw such behevior, it would just assure fairness.

That first part is kind of a Body Mass Index thing. It is incorrect when it comes to muscular people, as it does not reflect their fitness level. Punch in stats for athletes and see what rating they get.

That's why I'd go with a bodyfat rating. Muscle is good. Fat is dangerous.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Badger

Would you base it on height/weight charts? Body Mass Index? Body fat measurement? Medical opinion?

Personally, I'd go with a bodyfat measurement, as I feel there are inaccuracies in the other methods.

The doctors agree:

Obesity is defined as an excessively high amount of body fat or adipose tissue in relation to lean body mass. (NRC p114; Stunkard p14) The amount of body fat (or adiposity) includes concern for both the distribution of fat throughout the body and the size of the adipose tissue deposits. Body fat distribution can be estimated by skinfold measures, waist-to-hip circumference ratios, or techniques such as ultrasound, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging.

It's the adipose tissue that causes the health problems,

So, ho to respond to people who claim obesity is a disease akin to alcoholism, or a genetic predetermination?

Well, at the risk of derailing the argument, I don't consider alcoholism a disease either. Doing so just provides addicts an out to rationalize their self destructive behavior (in my opinion).

The best counter to those that claim obesity is genetic in origin is to demand evidence of such. I want one documented medical case of an individual gaining weight while burning more calories than they consume. If genetics were really a proximate cause of obesity, then such examples would abound in the medical literature.

Of course, to anyone with even a moderate understanding of basic science such an individual is impossible. They would be the human equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Poor eating habits are the root cause of obesity, nothing else. Genetics may influence the outcome of overeating, of course, but in the absence of a caloric surplus no weight can be gained.

[Badger]

Well put. I agree.

[daredelvis]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

The best counter to those that claim obesity is geneticaly is to demand evidence of such. I want one documented medical case of an individual gaining weight while burning more calories than they consume. If genetics were really a proximate cause of obesity, then such examples would abound in the medical literature.


Of course, to anyone with even a moderate understanding of basic science such an individual is impossible. They would be the human equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Poor eating habits are the root cause of obesity, nothing else. Genetics may influence the outcome of overeating, of course, but in the absence of a caloric surplus no weight can be gained. [/B]

Anyone with a moderate understanding of biology would know that this is not the only way that one could have a genetic predisposition to obesity. The literature abounds with reports of genes that are linked to obesity. Try entering “obesity” and “gene” at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ . You will get about 3800 reports with that search. You can also go to http://obesitygene.pbrc.edu/ to see a map of human genes linked to obesity. It looks as though the scientific community disagrees with you on this point.

Yes one still needs to consume more calories than they burn to gain weight, but genetics likely play a role in how (fast) calories are burned, and an individual’s ability to control poor eating habits.


Daredelvis

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ed

Perhaps for alchohol and tobacco and other drugs there ought to be a monthly testing, not to judge mind, simply so that we can be scrupulously fair. I mean why should anyone carry the freight for someone who engages in risky behavior. The government would never think to outlaw such behevior, it would just assure fairness.

Here's my solution (which I've thought about at quite a bit).

It is my opinion that the best way to deal with this on a national level is to institute public policy that rewards healthy behavior and regulates and taxes unhealthy behavior.

This should be done in several parts.

1. End all meat, dairy, sugar and grain industry subsities. Aid goes to produce farmers only. I'm tired of cheap meat and sugar while having to pay through the nose for produce. It should be the other way around, a double bacon cheesburger and large coke should cost $10 and an apple a nickel.

2. Decriminalize and regulate all recreational drugs. They will taxed based relative to their addictiveness and side-effects. All drug purchases are tracked through the national healthcare system and contribute to your deductible for any treatment.

3. Additional deductibles would be incurred based on reversible physical conditions at the time of treatment, e.g. high cholesterol, obesity, etc.

My goal would be a society where an individual that eats healthy, exercises and engages in moderate (if at all) drug/alcohol use can eat for only pennies a day and is entitled to a lifetime of zero/low cost premium health care. Without bankrupting the government.

[Rose]

Ambulance stretchers are now available for larger patients, with the maximum weight capacity going from 400 to 500 pounds, as well as being wider. Of course, this makes the use of van style ambulances impractical for this kind of patient. And a patient that had to be placed on the floor of the ambulance is probably considerably heavier than 500 pounds. I've transported one such patient. And if the patient wants to complain of back pain, maybe he can apologize to the staff that had to lift and move him. The risk of back injury to them is especially high in such cases.

As an overweight person myself, I make no excuses other than laziness for my size. As pointed out earlier, less intake than output in calories=weight loss. But if the government attempts to mandate people's weight, I'll become a chocoholic outlaw I fear.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ed

Well, The line is that you can't get AIDs by casual contact and that one ought to take precautions during sex. Ergo, those that come down with AIDs, ipso facto, have indulged in risky sex. What is the relative incidence in gay and hetro couples/individuals? If it is 100:1 then gayness should be the indicator of higher insurance rates.

I don't normally discuss this in public out of fear of the PC police, but you are likely very correct. There has been a conspiracy amongst the gay community for many years to exaggerate the risk of the transmission of HIV among heterosexual individuals. The rationale being that if it was seen as a primarily "gay" disease it would not recieve the same degree of research funding. They are probably right.

HIV/AIDS is especially problematic as its incurable, the vicitims remain infectious and the treatment is very expensive and life-long. As someone whom has practiced scrupulous safe sex habits, including years of celebacy and turning down sex from many a promiscuous bombshell (sigh) I will voice my opinion that I find it highly unfair that I am forced to subsidize those that chose to lead a hedonistic lifestyle.

[Earthborn]

Anyone with a moderate understanding of biology would know that this is not the only way that one could have a genetic predisposition to obesity.EvilYeti has his head in the sand about this issue very firmly. What he basically asks for is a genetic cause that causes something without any environmental factors. The problem with that is that genes always interact with some sort of environment. There need to be environmental factors for a genetic disorder to be expressed. If we follow his demand that the genes are 'the root cause' of obesity without environmental factors, then there simply are no genetic disorders.

Genes are not destiny: no one who researches the genetic causes of obesity ever claimed they were. EvilYeti thinks however that if they are not destiny, they are not a major factor and can be safely ignored. That is false.

I have already shown him that obesity gene map several times, linked to the CDC website, and he simply ignores all the evidence.

The point is not that obese people aren't overeating. They are. The point is that other people are overeating (and don't exercise enough) too, but do not become obese (or at least to a much lesser degree than the most morbidly obese people around). The difference is what is beyond the control of the individual.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by daredelvis

Anyone with a moderate understanding of biology would know that this is not the only way that one could have a genetic predisposition to obesity. The literature abounds with reports of genes that are linked to obesity. Try entering “obesity” and “gene” at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ . You will get about 3800 reports with that search. You can also go to http://obesitygene.pbrc.edu/ to see a map of human genes linked to obesity. It looks as though the scientific community disagrees with you on this point.

Ahhhh, death by reference.

Are you aware that research into the genetics of human behavior is still in its infancy and that it is WAY to early to make the type of sweeping conclusions you have?
Or that whilst we can't control our genetic makeup we CAN control our own behavior? Or perhaps that biologists might not be well versed on the psychology of addiction? Or that the current obesity epidemic is largely a DOMESTIC problem, meaning somehow only Americans have the fat gene?

Yes one still needs to consume more calories than they burn to gain weight, but genetics likely play a role in how (fast) calories are burned, and an individual’s ability to control poor eating habits.


And again, at the root of all obesity you will find poor eating habits, regardless of genetic makeup. Sure a lucky few have a defective metabolism and won't gain weight even when gorging on junk food, but the are the execption, not the rule. Its a perfectly natural, and historically an evolutionary advantage, to crave rich foods and desire to put on weight. The problem is there are no longer seasonal shortages to force the loss of the excess pounds. Its up to the individual to regulate their own intake.

So what's the solution? To sit around eating ring-dings and drinking Dr. Pepper because your fate has already been sealed by an unfortunate twist of double-helix?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Earthborn
EvilYeti has his head in the sand about this issue very firmly.

Earthborn is emotionally invested in this debate and is unable to debate it in a rational manner.

Genes are not destiny: no one who researches the genetic causes of obesity ever claimed they were. EvilYeti thinks however that if they are not destiny, they are not a major factor and can be safely ignored. That is false.

You can't do anything about your genetic makeup. You are, however, responsible for your own actions. If the obese eat less and exercise more the can safely ignore the entire field of genetics. Or ar you claiming otherwise?

I have already shown him that obesity gene map several times, linked to the CDC website, and he simply ignores all the evidence.

Pointing out the obesity gene map is irrelevant to someone interested in losing weight is not the same as ignoring. Quote all the studies you want, it wont change your diet or your waistline.

The point is not that obese people aren't overeating. They are. The point is that other people are overeating (and don't exercise enough) too, but do not become obese (or at least to a much lesser degree than the most morbidly obese people around). The difference is what is beyond the control of the individual.

Really now? Obese people are no more than mindless automatons that gobble up donuts like some kind of demented humanoid Pac-Man? Will they consume food until they explode? Eat garbage and raw sewage if nothing else is available? All logical outcomes if consumption were really and truly "beyond the control of the individual".

Look at the fellow in the linked story, for example. He chose to stop eating at one point, overcoming any genetic predisposition to overconsume via sheer will. Why? Merely personal choice, he would rather go hungry than wallow in his own feces (good decision IMHO). A pity of course, but a mess completely of his own making. His desire to feed his hunger was simply greater than his desire to maintain a healthy weight.

P.S. Kudos to Rose for having the courage to take responsibility for her own actions. My hats off to ya, kiddo!

[Ed]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

It's the adipose tissue that causes the health problems,
[B]

Of course, to anyone with even a moderate understanding of basic science such an individual is impossible. They would be the human equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Poor eating habits are the root cause of obesity, nothing else. Genetics may influence the outcome of overeating, of course, but in the absence of a caloric surplus no weight can be gained.


As someone said "there were no obese people in concentration camps"

Sad but true.

The unfortunate thing now is that the media tends to reflect stories about fat being beautiful.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ed

The unfortunate thing now is that the media tends to reflect stories about fat being beautiful.

Or even worse, the junk science mythology that Your Fat is not Your Fault (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874779448/ref%3Dase%5F0/102-7658891-2726511) .

[Ed]

Originally posted by Earthborn


The point is not that obese people aren't overeating. They are. The point is that other people are overeating (and don't exercise enough) too, but do not become obese (or at least to a much lesser degree than the most morbidly obese people around). The difference is what is beyond the control of the individual.

I really don't get the point here. Where does personal responsibility come in?

I have know a number of people who had one or more drunks as parents ... they don't drink

People w/ a history of heart disease in their family .. they don't smoke and they exercise

Cancer ... diet

Clumsiness ... no sports

You get the idea. So if a fattie knows with a capitol "K" that for equal food intake compared to a "normal" person they will get fat what do they do? Sob that life isn't fair and keep eating? And what then is my, and society's, responsibility?

I submit absolutely nothing.

Same with a sex fiend gay guy that pleads that he is a "sexaholic". Except that guy should be put away.

[Earthborn]

If the obese eat less and exercise more the can safely ignore the entire field of genetics. Or ar you claiming otherwise?Yes, I am claiming otherwise. They cannot safely ignore genetics, because it causes them to require much more exercise and restraint to eat than is expected of other people, who can safely overeat.

If they ignore their genetic make-up, it would mean that they can eat just as much or exercise just as little as other people. Instead they must keep their genetic make-up in their mind constantly if they want to weigh less than they would otherwise.Obese people are no more than mindless automatons that gobble up donuts like some kind of demented humanoid Pac-Man?Would they be obese if they had the level of self-control (a much higher level than is expected of the average person) you demand of them? I think not.

Humans are not mindless automatons, but this does not mean they have unlimited self-control. There is a limit to how much people can control their own behaviour, and you demand a higher level of control of obese people (and of people who have illnesses that limit their self-control even further, such as addictions) than you demand of others. You also tend to insult and shame people for not having enough self-control, instead of trying to encourage people's small steps into the right direction. That is unfair and counterproductive.He chose to stop eating at one point, overcoming any genetic predisposition to overconsume via sheer will. Why? Merely personal choice, he would rather go hungry than wallow in his own feces (good decision IMHO).I wonder how successfull he would have been with someone like you around him crushing his self-confidence whenever he tried to do anything positive with his life.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Ed
Sob that life isn't fair and keep eating?Obviously not if this person is responsible.And what then is my, and society's, responsibility?The person who has the genetic predisposition has the responsibility to limit their diet as well as they can. Society's responsibility is to make sure that people don't feel bad about themselves and have the self-confidence to fulfill their responsibilities. We should try to design society in such a way that morbidly obese people can participate in as much activities as other people as is possible and to encourage them in a positive way to do something about their weight.

Making activities accessible to them will probably already have an effect on how much exercise they get. Making the world more accesible for them will after all make it easier for them to leave the home and do something.Same with a sex fiend gay guy that pleads that he is a "sexaholic". Except that guy should be put away.Or encouraged (in a positive way) to learn to control his sexual behaviour.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Yes, I am claiming otherwise. They cannot safely ignore genetics, because it causes them to require much more exercise and restraint to eat than is expected of other people, who can safely overeat.

I don't believe you. I've encountered very, very few people that are able to compulsively overeat and not gain weight, especially once they are past their teenage years. When you actually MEASURE the caloric intake of the obese, rather than just asking them, you find they are eating much more than average people.

Would they be obese if they had the level of self-control (a much higher level than is expected of the average person) you demand of them? I think not.

How do you know this? I'm on a diet now and I LOVE fatty, sugary foods. How are you so sure my cravings are less than those of the chronically obese? Or that I somehow have better self control? As ed/god said, doesnt choice have SOME role to play?

I wonder how successfull he would have been with someone like you around him crushing his self-confidence whenever he tried to do anything positive with his life.

You know what? I really don't care. When there are starving children in poverty stricken countries, I have no pity left for gluttons in the land of plenty that stuff their fat faces until they are too bloated to use the toilet. What more could I do to crush his confidence than he did to himself by wallowing in his own filth? Don't you find that disgusting?

You will find that if someone is making an effort to better themselves I am supportive, or (as in the case of Rose) adult enough to accept responsibility for their actions.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Or even worse, the junk science mythology that Your Fat is not Your Fault (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874779448/ref%3Dase%5F0/102-7658891-2726511) . Even worse still, this 'junk science' book gives the exact same dietary advice you always do:Your strategy is not to diet--she explains why various diets don't work--but to fix the way your body processes calories. That means avoiding high-glycemic foods (grains, processed foods, starches, high-sugar fruit) and balancing protein (30 percent), carbohydrates (40 percent), and fat (30 percent).

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Even worse still, this 'junk science' book gives the exact same dietary advice you always do:

If someone eats high-glycemic foods, whose fault is it? Mine? Yours? Planet-X's? THATS the junk science! Your hands, your mouth, your responsibility for what you stuff in it.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


There has been a conspiracy amongst the gay community for many years to exaggerate the risk of the transmission of HIV among heterosexual individuals.

Not to fight but there is a substantial body of women infected with HIV in hetero relationships, the numbers are alarming and seemed to have stabalized.

HIV is not a gay disease, the women who get it from thier partners get it from unprotected anal sex or rough vaginal sex. In africa there is this thing they do called 'dry sex' that greatly increases the chances of tearing the vaginal wall.

There is a risk to women because they have the penetrative form of intercourse more often than men.



On the other topic:

It is quite right to say that obesity and alcoholism are not diseases in the traditional sense, the magic phrase is 'biopsychosocial' and believe me, there are the type two alcoholics who have a definite biological issue with alcohol. Obesity has many causes, over eating is one of them, but sedentary lifestyle is more important.

The problem with some of us is not that we over eat but that our bodies create fat very well. If I do over eat then my body makes fat very efficiently. This is a great survival trait in the pre industrial age.

Put me under strees and I am likely to overeat.

[Earthborn]

When you actually MEASURE the caloric intake of the obese, rather than just asking them, you find they are eating much more than average people.I'm not disputing that this is often true. However, while average people can safely overeat a little bit, people with a predisposition to severe obesity can't! Check the CDC webpage I have linked to many times in other threads, again: obesity can be caused by a small energy surplus over a large period of time.Or that I somehow have better self control?Well, do you control yourself? If so, isn't that enough proof that you have more self-control than someone who doesn't? I think it is.As ed/god said, doesnt choice have SOME role to play?Probably, although I am not going to debate the nature of Free Will here and I am only taking the behaviouristic approach: some people control themselves better than others, and there are influences that can alter how well people are able to control themselves. We should try to make use of those influences to influence their choices.You know what? I really don't care.That's exactly what the problem is. You demand that people make certain choices, but you do not care about what you can do to encourage them to make those choices.What more could I do to crush his confidence than he did to himself by wallowing in his own filth?You think that you cannot shame him more than that because what he did to himself is more shamefull. You make the mistake in thinking that only the most shamefull thing has an effect. This is not true.Don't you find that disgusting?Yes, I do. I even think that is so disgusting that I don't see any reason to shame that person even further.You will find that if someone is making an effort to better themselves I am supportiveI have found that you weren't in RSLancaster's case. He's making an effort to better himself, and you were not supportive.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
If someone eats high-glycemic foods, whose fault is it?I think it is completely irrelevant whose fault it is. What is relevant is what can be done to stop it. If telling people, that it isn't their fault, but they can do something about it, is the most effective way to deal with it, then that's what we should be doing.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I think it is completely irrelevant whose fault it is. What is relevant is what can be done to stop it. If telling people, that it isn't their fault, but they can do something about it, is the most effective way to deal with it, then that's what we should be doing.

That's a good logic process. Let's do the same with criminals, because after all a search on google revealed that some think a 'criminal gene' exists, we must not blame Bob for robbing Tom's apartment, but tell him it's not his fault and we as society should be dealing with his problem and not he.

[Earthborn]

Alright, Grammatron. I'll bite.because after all a search on google revealed that some think a 'criminal gene' existsThere is of course a difference that a criminal gene is not proven to exist, and would be hard to find as criminal behaviour is not so easily defined, while obesity is definable and a plethora of genes have been found that cause it.we must not blame Bob for robbing Tom's apartment, but tell him it's not his fault and we as society should be dealing with his problem and not he.Suppose scientific evidence shows that it would be a more effective way to deal with crime than blaming him and telling him it is his fault. Wouldn't it be perfectly logical to do that instead?

Personally I would indeed largely ignore whether the crime Bob commited was solely to blame on him or whether his genes or upbringing brought him to do it. For as long as Bob is still likely to commit crimes, it would be better to isolate him from areas where he can commit them (put him in prison), and to try to find effective ways of making him much less likely to commit crime and would concentrate on that.

It may not be what people want to do with criminals, as they may have other reasons to put them in prison (retaliation) but it is in no way illogical.

(I don't think many people would want to retaliate against people for being fat, so this is again something that shows that your analogy doesn't quite hold)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Alright, Grammatron. I'll bite.There is of course a difference that a criminal gene is not proven to exist, and would be hard to find as criminal behaviour is not so easily defined, while obesity is definable and a plethora of genes have been found that cause it.Suppose scientific evidence shows that it would be a more effective way to deal with crime than blaming him and telling him it is his fault. Wouldn't it be perfectly logical to do that instead?

Personally I would indeed largely ignore whether the crime Bob commited was solely to blame on him or whether his genes or upbringing brought him to do it. For as long as Bob is still likely to commit crimes, it would be better to isolate him from areas where he can commit them (put him in prison), and to try to find effective ways of making him much less likely to commit crime and would concentrate on that.

It may not be what people want to do with criminals, as they may have other reasons to put them in prison (retaliation) but it is in no way illogical.

(I don't think many people would want to retaliate against people for being fat, so this is again something that shows that your analogy doesn't quite hold)

Two ways in which you are incorrect; First of all, there are substantial evidence that such a gene does exist link (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/2002/11/criminal_genes/) .

Second, the analogy would be to force the fat person not to eat by putting them in isolation and forcing a diet on them just like you put a criminal in jail and force them to comply with law.

Of course, I am not advocating locking people up for being fat. However, in both cases it is obvious each person (fat and criminal) came to a conclusion that it would be easier for them to eat unhealthy tasty food or to rob people instead of having a job.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
First of all, there are substantial evidence that such a gene does exist link (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/2002/11/criminal_genes/) .The problem with that notion is of course that such a gene only causes a specific type of behaviour. Whether it is criminal behaviour is defined by the law, and may not be the same in every country, or under all circumstances.

Obesity is easier to define: a specific body mass index, or a specific fat percentage.Second, the analogy would be to force the fat person not to eat by putting them in isolation and forcing a diet on them just like you put a criminal in jail and force them to comply with law.There is a difference though: the overeating obese person does not pose a risk to other people, and thus does not need to be isolated. Forcing a diet on them would be effective, but it would be hard to force anyone if this person is not isolated and under complete control.However, in both cases it is obvious each person (fat and criminal) came to a conclusion that it would be easier for them to eat unhealthy tasty food or to rob people instead of having a job.Yes, but that is one of the very few similarities.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I'm going to weigh in on this one (no pun intended) because of a personal issue here.

Understand, what I am about to discuss is, as far as I know, a VAST minority of people.

My entire life, my weight has had rapid and huge fluctuations where (without changing any eating or exercize habits) I have gained or lost roughly 100 pounds in a year. I recently found out it was because of a serious imbalance in my thyroid. What that means is there are times THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN that I am classified as morbidly obese, and other times, again, through no fault of my own, where I am classified as severly underweight. When I am at one of these extremes, people generalize me as someone who has an eating disorder of some kind. The thing is, while most likely a minority, people like me are the reason others need to keep an open mind about those with weight issues.

Are there people who are overweight because they eat a dozen donuts every day? Sure. They may not be able to control that urge. I don't have that answer, but I will not give them a hard time about it, since there are times I may be as overweight as they are. Are there those who will eat huge amounts of food, only to force themselves to vomit to stay skinny? Again, of course there are, but, again, I will not give them trouble because there are times I am as thin as they are. Personally, I think they probably have as little choice in their eating habits as I have in my glandular issue. (and yes, I am taking meds, but it remains to be seen how they work.)

[Lisa]

Okay, I'll weigh in too. (couldn't resist)

As my dad says, "our side of the house are all built like the sides of houses". He's not kidding. Good grief, to get a good picture of my Aunt Fern I'd probably have to contact the folks at LandSat.
I can gain weight by just thinking about the fridge. Thinking about my relatives does a lot to keep me on a diet.

I had a piece of pie for dessert at Thanksgiving dinner. That was the first piece of pie I'd had since last xmas.
The last doughnut I consumed was at TAM in Ft Lauderdale. (and if LV doesn't have a Krispy Kreme, I'm gonna have some serious issues)
I do a lot of baking around the holidays, and give 95% of it away.

I could still stand to lose a few pounds, but with a little common sense and moderation, I won't end up looking like Aunt Fern. (don't get me started on cousin Kara)

[Dancing David]

Hmmm, There are better ways to motivate people than shame when it comes to compulsive strees based behaviors, lets be grateful that the blamers aren't in the bussiness of changing behaviors.

I would not say that the PC thing to do would be to accomodate people who are obese but to force people to see things my way ! (Thats right, you have to see things my way! Ageter all that is what you blamers are doing!0

the funny thing about this is that ihave known many an obese person in my time:
1. Some come from families that are filled with anorexia, which is an obsession about body image. But every one praises those people.
2. Some come from families that practise severe abuse of thier children, but hey lets blame an overwieght adult who was traumatised as a child!

The real problem is that there is a culture that glories in being thin and thinks that it knows what is best for every one in the world.

lay off the fat people folks, alcohol is much more dangerous and much more prevalent, are you going to reinstate prohibition?
Guns kill as many people as obesity in the uSA , are we going to regulate gunns, no?

revel in freedom and diversity, I call you on your prejudice!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dancing David

revel in freedom and diversity, I call you on your prejudice!

Ah, yes, but the question is "do fat people enable their fat children?"

Aside from the crying and obvious need for large government grants to study this potential problem, we must think of the children.

Earthborn, your point and direction seems to be that society bears ultimate responsibility. If not, tell me what the responsibility of an obese person is? Both to himself and to society.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Dancing David

lay off the fat people folks, alcohol is much more dangerous and much more prevalent, are you going to reinstate prohibition?
Guns kill as many people as obesity in the uSA , are we going to regulate gunns, no?

revel in freedom and diversity, I call you on your prejudice!

Obesity causes an estimated 300,000 premature deaths annually.

I've seen alcohol estimated at 100,000 and guns fatalities at 30-40k. Are you just making these numbers up?

Given that according to the CDC over half of americans are obese at this point, how can you say our culture glorifies being thin?

[EvilYeti]

I think what's interesting about this debate is that its really about how best to mitigate self-destructive behavior.

EB seem's to take the leftist European view that good behavior should be ignored (it being its own reward of course) and bad behavior should be tolerated, encouraged and even rewarded in the hope that this will create a positive environment for change.

I disagree completely and totally.

My position is that good behavior should be encouraged and rewarded and bad behavior should be discouraged and punished. Its simple human nature that people will do what they want, unfortunately most americans would rather sit on their fat asses eating donuts than eat right and exercise. There is really not alot you or I can do for individuals that make such choices.

What we CAN do, however, is create an environment where at least those that work to better themselves reap rewards and those that do not are penalized. It's really all you can do.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Ed
Earthborn, your point and direction seems to be that society bears ultimate
responsibility. If not, tell me what the responsibility of an obese person is?
Both to himself and to society.

One Very Fat Virus (http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/07/28/fat.virus.ap/)

P.S. Man, reading this forum is like travelling back in a time machine! :p

[Ed]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I think what's interesting about this debate is that its really about how best to mitigate self-destructive behavior.

EB seem's to take the leftist European view that good behavior should be ignored (it being its own reward of course) and bad behavior should be tolerated, encouraged and even rewarded in the hope that this will create a positive environment for change.

.

It seems like a rather morally bankrupt position that one can never judge.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

One Very Fat Virus (http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/07/28/fat.virus.ap/)

P.S. Man, reading this forum is like travelling back in a time machine! :p

The only really unique things were Icanseedemons, Bigfig, and Paul Bethke, everything else have been variations on a theme.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
EB seem's to take the leftist European view that good behavior should be ignored (it being its own reward of course) and bad behavior should be tolerated, encouraged and even rewarded in the hope that this will create a positive environment for change.Where did you get that idea? My position is and always has been that good behaviour should be encouraged and even rewarded, and it should be encouraged and rewarded even if it is only a small step in the right direction. My position is also that bad behaviour that does not harm others, or people themselves too severely, should be largely ignored. Only if the bad behaviour is very harmful to others or too severely harms the person themselves is force justified to prevent this person from acting it out.I disagree completely and totally.Well, obviously you are going to disagree with a strawman of your own making.My position is that good behavior should be encouraged and rewarded and bad behavior should be discouraged and punished.Except you are not encouraging good behaviour. All you do is crush people's confidence and say that if someone takes small steps in the right direction it isn't enough and they should be ashamed that they aren't doing more. I refer specifically to your behaviour towards RSLancaster.What we CAN do, however, is create an environment where at least those that work to better themselves reap rewards and those that do not are penalized. It's really all you can do.I disagree. There is more you can do: create an environment that doesn't exclude or discriminate against people for being obese, making sure they can participate in activities, to get them 'off their fat asses' so to speak. To do that you need to make society accessible to them as much as possible.Originally posted by Ed
Earthborn, your point and direction seems to be that society bears ultimate
responsibility. If not, tell me what the responsibility of an obese person is?
Both to himself and to society.I have already told you: "The person who has the genetic predisposition has the responsibility to limit their diet as well as they can. Society's responsibility is to make sure that people don't feel bad about themselves and have the self-confidence to fulfill their responsibilities." If there is anything about that statement you don't understand, feel free to ask.

Yes, I believe that society bears the ultimate responsibility. Please note that I make a clear distinction between whose responsibility to better something is and whose fault it is that it went wrong. In my mind, the two things are not connected. When someone creates a mess of something, it is his fault, but that does not mean s/he is the person who should clean the mess up. That responsibility lies with the person best suited to clean it up. In case of a fire it is not the arsonist's responsibility to put the fire out, it is the fire fighter's. Society's reponsibility is to make sure there are fire fighters and to prevent the arsonist from doing it again.

In the case of people who became obese by their own behaviour, one could say that it is all their own fault. Society's responsibility is then to make sure there are people helping this person to change the behaviour. Since many of these people eat more when they feel miserable, shaming them is not an effective way to change their behaviour. Boosting their confidence is.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ed


Ah, yes, but the question is "do fat people enable their fat children?"

Aside from the crying and obvious need for large government grants to study this potential problem, we must think of the children.

Earthborn, your point and direction seems to be that society bears ultimate responsibility. If not, tell me what the responsibility of an obese person is? Both to himself and to society.

Quite right!

I would just argue that the people who are gravely obese tend to already have a shame based compulsive disorder, so adding to thier shame will not help.

Helping thier children, like increasing funds for schools and midnight basket ball as well, I would hope.

[Tmy]

If Amerians and their kids are tyoo fat why are we always complaining about the skinny healthy body image put forth by Hollywood. Shoudlnt we encourage these images in order inspire these fatasses.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Obesity causes an estimated 300,000 premature deaths annually.

I've seen alcohol estimated at 100,000 and guns fatalities at 30-40k. Are you just making these numbers up?

Given that according to the CDC over half of americans are obese at this point, how can you say our culture glorifies being thin?

I agree with your point , just not certain beliefs.

I am sorry if you felt I was quaoting hard numbers I was making the following point:

Set of behaviors (A) causes a certain numbers of deaths each year, and there are very large lobbies to protect those 'freedoms' as much as any.

I would put obesity in the same category as smoking, alcohol and anorexia, in that the primary harm is to an individual.

But driving while drunk, commiting crimes and driving over the speed limit involve other individuals.

It was an argument by comparison, I was comparing obesity to other dearly heald free behaviors.

I can't prove to you who our culture glorifies, but I would say that if you look at who our cultural icans are, you might find that they are thin.

[Dancing David]

general comment:
In fourteen years of counseling and my own life experience i have found that the vast majority of compulsive behaviors(those not a product of OCD) are shame based to a large extent.

The reason that i would say that they are shame based is that they are denial based, an alcoholic or some obese people spend most of thier day in denial about a lot of things. There is the deial of personal accountability and the denial of the pain that motivates the addiction, there is denial here and there is denial there.

Most of the denial is bsed upon either past trauma or based upon shame.

The most efective tools I encountered in woking with compulsive behaviors was while I working with adults living with a persistant and severe mental illness to give up substance abuse, this model is a relapse prevention model.

One of the keys of the model is that the counselor helps the client to identify thier behaviors with denial, so they can engage in the relapse prevention plan. Shame is a great motivator for denial, one of the attitudes that helps people not relapse is a suppotive non-judgemental enviroment. You still confront people genetly with thier behaviors but not the shame.

Believe me, is shame and guilt and comparing yourself to other people was enough to help someone beat an addiction, then there would be no addiction.

A- Diction: or against speech, most addicts know very well the negative consequences of thier behaviors, Addiction means that you already have tried to quit repeatedly, most addicts have life histories where they would like very much to avoid the shame that they generate through thier behaviors.

But that is where helping addicts is interesting, you have to win thier trust and confront them with thier behaviors without adding to thier shame and guilt.

Shame and guilt are part of the motivators for addiction.


So it is fine to have your personal beilef that there is something inherently and morally wrong with addicts, but when it happens to your friends or family or goodness forfend, your self: rememebr that compassion(empathy not sympathy) and gentleness will help. Shame just makes the fire hotter.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Only if the bad behaviour is very harmful to others or too severely harms the person themselves is force justified to prevent this person from acting it out.

Who decides that? It is now PC to abuse smokers, yet, I submit that a promicuous homosexual represents a danger far greater to himself or society than any smoker. If gay men had uniformly bagged it and not directed public health policy with their concerns of being outed AIDs here in the US would not be the issue that it is.


There is more you can do: create an environment that doesn't exclude or discriminate against people for being obese, making sure they can participate in activities, to get them 'off their fat asses' so to speak.

Fair enough. I don't think, however, that Government should be in the "attitiude adjustment" business.


To do that you need to make society accessible to them as much as possible.

I don't understand what this means in practicle terms

Society's responsibility is to make sure that people don't feel bad about themselves and have the self-confidence to fulfill their responsibilities." If there is anything about that statement you don't understand, feel free to ask.

Okey dokey. What in the wide world of sports does that mean aside from it being a feel good platitude?

In the case of people who became obese by their own behaviour, one could say that it is all their own fault.

Unless there is some clear finding that shows that certain people will gain weight regardless of food intake, I am one of the people who would say that

Society's responsibility is then to make sure there are people helping this person to change the behaviour.

Agree, within limits

Since many of these people eat more when they feel miserable, shaming them is not an effective way to change their behaviour. Boosting their confidence is.


Feeling miserable is not license to do anything. Feeling miserable on occasion is part of the human condition. If it is a chronic "feeling miserable" then there is something else afoot.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Dancing David

So it is fine to have your personal beilef that there is something inherently and morally wrong with addicts, but when it happens to your friends or family or goodness forfend, your self: rememebr that compassion(empathy not sympathy) and gentleness will help. Shame just makes the fire hotter.

If your "method" proved any better at treating addiction than anyone elses you would be a very rich man. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you are not. Since your method fails the dogfood test the model behind it must be flawed, sorry.

I think you are on the right track with regards to denial, the problem is that its merely a coping mechanism for some other more deep-seated psychological problem. In the case of obesity, I think the root of it is often simple narcissism. Our culture breeds a false sense of entitlement as children that blossoms into full blown self-destructive behavior as adults. The perpetually fat feel that they should be allowed to gorge themselves without restraint and its up to the rest of the world to change to accomodate them. After all, they are "special".

The only solution for these people is to break down their psyche to the point that their personality can be re-built with a more realisitic world-view.

Shame, fear, humiliation, disgust, etc. can all be very effective motivators to this end. Check out the example in the story provided above, the guy quit eating cold turkey for five days. Now THATS results!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


If your "method" proved any better at treating addiction than anyone elses you would be a very rich man. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you are not. Since your method fails the dogfood test the model behind it must be flawed, sorry.

I think you are on the right track with regards to denial, the problem is that its merely a coping mechanism for some other more deep-seated psychological problem. In the case of obesity, I think the root of it is often simple narcissism. Our culture breeds a false sense of entitlement as children that blossoms into full blown self-destructive behavior as adults. The perpetually fat feel that they should be allowed to gorge themselves without restraint and its up to the rest of the world to change to accomodate them. After all, they are "special".

The only solution for these people is to break down their psyche to the point that their personality can be re-built with a more realisitic world-view.

Shame, fear, humiliation, disgust, etc. can all be very effective motivators to this end. Check out the example in the story provided above, the guy quit eating cold turkey for five days. Now THATS results!

I don't care what you do for a living Evil Furball (hey I hope that isn't you in the Pop Tarts commercial!) but I am real glad you aren't an addictions counselor, maybe you should be a minister.

But breaking peoples psyches is not going to work in most cases, thier psyches have already taken repeated blows from thier compulsive destructive behaviors.(duh, your method is the traditional one that didn't help these people already)

You can't mass merchandise recovery, it takes a lot of patience on the part of the counselor, and that is a big problem in the addictions field, many of thier treatment models are shame based and not very effective.

The point to using the relapse prevention model is that it focuses on behavior(you avoid all the motive crap) and it assumes that the support system will be there when the person decides they are in trouble, which means they can't associate you with thier shame. Your method is more likely to cause them to not turn to you for help in the future.

The perpetually fat feel that they should be allowed to gorge themselves without restraint and its up to the rest of the world to change to accomodate them.
This is just crap and not even worthy of your hyberbolic standards, most overwieght people want to be accepted for who they are not allowed to destroy themselves. Did you right speechs for Nixon too? What crap.

Tell you what EY, go become a counselor and use this model
to break down their psyche to the point that their personality can be re-built with a more realisitic world-view.

And in fourteen years we will see how many of your clients come and buy your dog food. Hmmm.


If your "method" proved any better at treating addiction than anyone elses you would be a very rich man. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you are not. Since your method fails the dogfood test the model behind it must be flawed, sorry.


Hey Yeti, this is one of many competeing models and it's the one I find to be most effective. But most counselors have egos like yours and they would rather shame and blame and harm thier client's than help them.
I am not out to be rich, Jack Trimpey already wrote the book Rational Recovery and relapse prevention is a common model.

Have you done ANY work in relapse prevention, have you ever DONE counseling, have you ever helped people in your life.

Tell you what divide your friends (assuming that you have more than two) and split then into two random groups, when they have probelems, apply your shame based method on one half and a supportive, honest(part of the relapse prevention model) and relapse prevention based model on the other half.

See which helps your friends,

The truth is that all addiction treatments prior to rational recovery were shame based and they are only about thirty percemt effective.

You just spout whatever conventional crap you were raised on and then say it is true. A true sceptic would ask why I feel the way I do and do some research, you just trot out old musty cultural crap.

Do some research on which methods have a longer term effect.

Don't quit your day job, you would make a pitiful couselor.


So Mister Wizard, how would you test for this old fashioned chestnut? Any research to back it up? This is psychodynamic crap that should have died when Skinner buried Freud, focus on behavior dude!
In the case of obesity, I think the root of it is often simple narcissism. Our culture breeds a false sense of entitlement as children that blossoms into full blown self-destructive behavior as adults.


When you sell your brand of dog food and have any sucsess at all i will be the first to say you were right but i won't because you are so wrong that you are two centuries off the mark.

Lets try treating schizophrenia by dunking shall we ?

[Earthborn]

It is now PC to abuse smokers, yet, I submit that a promicuous homosexual represents a danger far greater to himself or society than any smoker.Smokers and promiscuous homosexuals... What a strange comparison.

I don't know who poses the greatest risk, but I do know that promiscuous homosexuals generally pose only a risk to consenting others, while smokers often infringe on people's right to fresh air without even asking.I don't think, however, that Government should be in the "attitiude adjustment" business.It already is in many ways. And many people don't even think it is wrong for the government to try to influence people's behaviours with methods that are hardly effective, like the threat of punishment.

Also 'society' is not only the government. It includes everybody. If you don't want the government to do it, maybe you don't mind that someone else does?I don't understand what this means in practicle termsIt's really not so hard to understand. If you design a new bus, put in a few extra wide seats. Make the scales a doctor uses to weigh his patients measure a bit more weight.

RSLancaster told in his story about his life as an obese guy that he was annoyed at the fact that at amusement parks he waited in line for an hour or so only to be told at the end that he was too heavy. Of course it would be very difficult to design rollercoasters to accomodate people of his posture (and he wouldn't really want to experience 3 times his body weight anyway), but it would be nice if there was a little sign at the beginning of the line informing people how heavy people can be... so he wouldn't have waited an hour and look for something else to do.

In many cases it doesn't even take much to make people's life easier. Simple things often work well. I am sure you can think of many similar solutions to problems obese people might have.Okey dokey. What in the wide world of sports does that mean aside from it being a feel good platitude?Pretty much what it says: don't make people feel bad. Don't insult them, don't shame them, don't discriminate against them... If you need an employee don't turn people down for being fat. If an obese person hardly ate for a month in the hope of losing weight but you don't know that and you meet this person when they buy a single item of junk food... don't shout them down to tell them how week s/he is and how disgusting you think s/he is...

You know, simple stuff: being nice to eachother. Feel good platitude? Sure, but sound advice nonetheless...Feeling miserable is not license to do anything. Feeling miserable on occasion is part of the human condition. If it is a chronic "feeling miserable" then there is something else afoot.Agreed. But the fact that someone is feeling miserable because of their own actions is also not a license to make someone even more miserable. It also is no reason not to help someone feel better if you can.

[slimshady2357]

EvilYeti, you seem to have a deep need to humiliate and shame obese people, were you punished or strictly governed by an obese person when young? A parent? A teacher?

Just curious :)

Adam

[BillyTK]

I've not been paying much attention to this thread, but I noticed these doozies:

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I think you are on the right track with regards to denial, the problem is that its merely a coping mechanism for some other more deep-seated psychological problem. In the case of obesity, I think the root of it is often simple narcissism.
My emphasis

*Sighs* Freudianism is just s-o-o 19th century. And unscientific.

The only solution for these people is to break down their psyche to the point that their personality can be re-built with a more realisitic world-view.
Not Freudianism then, um... the army?

Shame, fear, humiliation, disgust, etc. can all be very effective motivators to this end.
Oh right, the Catholic church then! By the way, I think "inhibitors" might be the word you're looking for here.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Dancing David

When you sell your brand of dog food and have any sucsess at all i will be the first to say you were right but i won't because you are so wrong that you are two centuries off the mark.


My, bit testy aren't we? I thought you social workers were supposed to be patient.

If you have evidence your method has a statistically signifigant effect, other than your own say-so, please point it out to me. I'm willing to bet the actual relapse rates amongst your clients are no different than any other treatment.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
EvilYeti, you seem to have a deep need to humiliate and shame obese people, were you punished or strictly governed by an obese person when young? A parent? A teacher?

Just curious :)


Hi Adam,

Are you obese? Just curious.

Coming from a family of intelligent, hard-working individuals obesity was not an issue in my childhood. It must be genetic. :rolleyes:

There is no deep need, merely consistency of position. I feel the same way about the obese as I do about drug addicts, alcoholics, sex fiends and chain smokers. They are lazy, weak people who are a burden on society. Their behavior is self-centered and shameful. If you feel the need to hold their hand while they eat themselves into the grave, go right ahead. Just drop the smug sense of self-superiority, your attitude kills people.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Not Freudianism then, um... the army?

How many enlisted people are morbidly obese?

Oh right, the Catholic church then! By the way, I think "inhibitors" might be the word you're looking for here.

Whatever, as long as it works.

I always get a chuckle when a post-modernist crawls out from under a rock. What an excellent philosophy, be wrong about everything then redefine "wrong" to be "right".

Didn't you learn anything from Sokal?

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Hi Adam,

Are you obese? Just curious.

Overweight, certainly. Obese? I don't know the qualifications really, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'm about 6'0 exactly and weigh about 250lbs.

Coming from a family of intelligent, hard-working individuals obesity was not an issue in my childhood. It must be genetic. :rolleyes:

It's possible to say the least. You give the impression that you don't believe any behaviour is influenced by genetics, is that your position?

There is no deep need, merely consistency of position.


Ok, it merely seems that way when I read your posts. I get the feeling you would personally like to be there when an obese person is humiliated or shamed.

I feel the same way about the obese as I do about drug addicts, alcoholics, sex fiends and chain smokers. They are lazy, weak people who are a burden on society. Their behavior is self-centered and shameful.

Yes, it's quotes like these that give me that impression, thank you fro providing yet another one.

If you feel the need to hold their hand while they eat themselves into the grave, go right ahead.

No thank you, I have no such need :)

Just drop the smug sense of self-superiority, your attitude kills people.

Do you have proof of that? Or is that more BS you're spewing?

How about you drop your smug sense of self-superiority, your attitude kills people.

I'll be happy to provide the evidence for that when you pony up your evidence ;)

Adam

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by slimshady2357

It's possible to say the least. You give the impression that you don't believe any behaviour is influenced by genetics, is that your position?

Influenced, yes. Dictated? No.

Ok, it merely seems that way when I read your posts. I get the feeling you would personally like to be there when an obese person is humiliated or shamed.

I take no pleasure in the suffering of others.

Do you have proof of that? Or is that more BS you're spewing?

Hmmmm, how about obesity is at record levels in this country and now one of the top contributors to premature death? And that by rewarding it with the label of a disability you are actually encouraging it?
What's your theory of the cause of the record number of overweight americans? Spontaneous genetic mutation at a national level, within one generation?

How about you drop your smug sense of self-superiority, your attitude kills people.

I can't help it if I'm smarter than everyone else. :D

I'll be happy to provide the evidence for that when you pony up your evidence ;)


Just did, what do you have?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


My, bit testy aren't we? I thought you social workers were supposed to be patient.

If you have evidence your method has a statistically signifigant effect, other than your own say-so, please point it out to me. I'm willing to bet the actual relapse rates amongst your clients are no different than any other treatment.

I did state that it was a personal; preference, and the no shame bsed policy does not mean that you can't confront your clients after they have joined the group or established raport.

The goal of the relapse prevention is to create a longterm buy-in for the client, I suggest reading some of the literature, there are many factions to chose from, AA and the traditionalists, Rational recovery, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and SOS, the feminists and the Sixteen Steps and then in a category by themselves the Christian Counselors.

I ahve a good reason to believe that taking the shame of of addictions counseling is a good thing, most addicts have already reached bottom repeatedly and have already had many shame filled moments, it is one of the motivators of denial.

Again I really focus on small behavioral changes that can lead to giving up addiction.

We had a pretty decent sucsess rate with the group, we were able to get people to attend about 80% of the time, which when you consider the nature of PSMI and substance abuse is pretty decent.

No really good statistic in any of the substance abuse literature.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by EvilYeti



There is no deep need, merely consistency of position. I feel the same way about the obese as I do about drug addicts, alcoholics, sex fiends and chain smokers. They are lazy, weak people who are a burden on society. Their behavior is self-centered and shameful. If you feel the need to hold their hand while they eat themselves into the grave, go right ahead. Just drop the smug sense of self-superiority, your attitude kills people.

As does you shame and blame, again most of these people already feel shame, and if you want to help them kick the habit you have to short circut the shame because that is part of what keeps them in denial.

And hold thier hands while they self destruct, goodness no! And I don'y believe that drug addicts and alocholics should revieve disability, that was nuts,

I am merely pointing out that the shame based models of addiction treatment are not very effective, if they were then alcoholics would quit the first time they woke up in jail and didn'y know why they were there.

If you want to believe that these people are lazy , fine with me. I just advise you to be nice to your friends and family and yourself if it ever happens to you. You can be nice and behavioraly based and not shame them, then they might thank you, you never know.

But hey, if you want to shame people I will defend your right to do so,

Do you think anorexia is an illness or a charcter defect?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
How many enlisted people are morbidly obese?
No idea... this is relevant to what exactly?

Whatever, as long as it works.
That's the point, it doesn't.

I always get a chuckle when a post-modernist crawls out from under a rock. What an excellent philosophy, be wrong about everything then redefine "wrong" to be "right".
Et tu, cock. What a sad little ad hom, but par for the course. And oh! the irony, coming from someone who could say the following with any degree of sincerity:
I feel the same way about the obese as I do about drug addicts, alcoholics, sex fiends and chain smokers. They are lazy, weak people who are a burden on society. Their behavior is self-centered and shameful. If you feel the need to hold their hand while they eat themselves into the grave, go right ahead.

Didn't you learn anything from Sokal?
Yeah, he wrote a great book on logical argument for beginners. You really ought to read it sometime.