Why it is acceptable to criticize smokers, but not fat people?

[ConstantErasing]

Well I think part of it is that there is a bit more in the way of genetics and other factors outside ones control that could cause obesity while the same doesn't quite hold true for smoking. Also I think possibly the fact that rampant obesity is a bit newer of a problem than smoking and we haven't quite caught up. Personally I don't think they should be above criticism but I think I would be more likely to be polite and sensitive about it because unlike with smokers I am not breathing in an unhealthy and irritating side effects on behalf of an insensitive offender.

Someones never used public transportation.

I will admit that is mostly true but I have been in Europe a fair few times and since everyone seems to smoke there some nasty incidents were bound to occur. For instance I was playing in a band giving a free concert in a park in France once (I play the tuba) and there was a really insensitive guy smoking right by the stage. Imagine trying to play a big instrument like that while breathing in smoke. Also in France there was a guy who pulled up in a sports car, parked in the middle of the narrow cobblestone street (where he was assuredly not supposed to) and proceeded to sit down and smoke in the non smoking section of the restaurant I was eating in. Totally ruined my evening and drove away the customers in no time. As much of a nuisance as fat people can be I have never met one that was that annoying or unhealthy just to be around.

 

[huser]

So you've never had a bad habit ever?

 

[deidara]

I'm not gonna get into the ethics of it and such, but at face value i believe fat people get criticized more. Because you can tell if someone is fat, but not if they are a smoker.

In terms of what is frowned upon by society, it could be that someone eating isn't a bother to anyone, however second hand smoke is a massive intrusion ad can threaten health.

 

[jessegeek]

Whilst somehow who is morbidly obese (note: not just 'fat', morbidly obese) can indirectly affect my health by increasing hospital spending on specialist equipment, they can't increase my risk of cancer, lung disorders and give me blood poisoning if I'm forced to stand near them.

If I sound bitter, maybe it's because I have a predisposed weakness to lung disorders. I've had chronic bronchitis twice in my life and lost over a fifth of my lung capacity. I'm 19 and I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, yet even walking past a smoker in the middle of summer can get me having a proper rattling cough. It it's that bad for me, what about people with cystic fibrosis?

The difference is that smokers cause people real and immediate danger of multiple illnesses, whereas the overweight do not. Also, this whole 'smoker victimisation' thing? If someone said they wanted to have the right to splash themselves in toxic waste in a public place, where flecks of it could splash on other people, not enough to significantly increase their risk of radiation poisoning and cancer (probably), we'd think they were crazy.

 

[Supertegwyn]

Also, fast food is cheap. So, if you're working and getting paid a low income, and fast food is the only feasible way to eat in terms of time and money, then it's really not fair to judge them and blame them.

However, I do say Fuck The System for making it this way.

It's not actually that cheap, in the long run it is far more expensive. You can make a meal for four for $10, where as a burger from McDonald's costs $3.00. You do the math.

OT: If people decide to smoke/eat fast food, I decide to insult them for that choice.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Didn't this thread pop up a hella long time ago then die?

And the answer is propaganda. I have smpathy for smokers. Some of my best friends smoke. If that's how they want to relax, who am I to judge. I overclock my insides with energy drinks and caffinine all the time. To paraphrase Hamlet: Everyone is going to die, but it's your preparedness for it that counts.

 

[Henkie36]

Well, you should make a difference between people who are fat ''by choiche'' and people who are fat because they have some sort of disease. That said, I do agee with you: why do I need to pay for people who don't know what the words ''healthy diet'' mean?
Now I do feel that this is also a undereducated problem. Down here in the Netherlands, people hear stuff all the time like ''Cholesterol will kill you, fat makes you unattractive etc. etc.'' Now that second on is also a problem. When a lot of people in your enviroment are fat, you become used to it and start getting fatter if you don't pay close attention to what you are eating and if you move enough.
Bottom line: fat people who are fat because of a disease should get the healthcare they deserve, and people who are fat because they can't keep their stomach in check should pay more.

 

[Caliostro]

So now you are decapitating/punching people over a matter of taste. Vegans complain about the smell of meat cooking. Some people like the smell of smoke, some dont. Some people like the smell of perfumes/cologne some dont. Some people like the smell of cleaning products/air freseners some dont. What about music you like/dont like?

So how would you like to be in the middle of a steak dinner with your date/spouse and some vegan MMA fighter punches you in the face because he didnt like the smell of your steak, cologne, or lady friend's perfume?

I suggest if you want to seem like a tough and reasonable individual, you should try growing some thicker skin under that reactionary chip you carry on your shoulder.

PS. Maybe you could define "throwing it in your face". Because it seemed to me that just "walking by a person who is smoking or a smoking area" was enough to set you off.

You missed the point completely.

If a bar allows smokers, that's fine, I just consider it shitty and don't go there. But that's their choice, and mine. If someone smokes in their house all day, that's fine, that's their problem. I'm just not going there. Likewise if a vegan doesn't like the smell of steak, he shouldn't go to a restaurant where they serve steak. If you make it a rule that in your house it's ok to fart in people's faces, that's your problem. I just won't go there.

The problem is when people make it YOUR problem. If I go to a vegan restaurant and whip out a cooked steak. If you're walking down the street and people start spraying a cologne you hate in your face. If I'm sitting around in a bench waiting for my train and some guy walked right up to me and takes out his cigarette so that the smoke is hitting me. YES, in these situations I would advocate a swift and vicious kick to the teeth, in the same manner that I wouldn't advocate you walking up to someone and hitting them for no reason, but if someone walks up to you and hits you, then I wouldn't be against a retaliatory response.

 

[Mau95]

Anyone notice that there seem to be a lot of fat people that are also poor? Or is it just me?

 

[PatrickXD]

I don't understand fat people. I don't understand smokers. Smokers hurt my health and fat people hurt my wallet, but both aid the survival of the human race long term by lowering the population.
So I wish a short life to those guys, each and every one.

 

[Korbo]

Why is it racist to have a show without any black people, but it isn't racist to have a show with no white people? Some groups get more protection from discrimination than others, is the answer.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Fat people don't see their being fat as a choice because they won't do what's necessary to lose some weight. Plus fat is a subjective term.

Smokers are using poison and poison others around them without their consent. Fat people aren't stealing OUR food or anything.

Second hand smoke doesn't actually do anything cancerous like some want you to believe. All of those things stay in the smoker's lungs

"There is good observational evidence that smoke-free legislation reduces the number of hospital admissions for heart disease.[72] In 2009 two studies in the United States confirmed the effectiveness of public smoking bans in preventing heart attacks. The first study, done at the University of California, San Francisco and funded by the National Cancer Institute, found a 15 percent decline in heart-attack hospitalizations in the first year after smoke-free legislation was passed, and 36 percent after three years.[73] The second study, done at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, showed similar results.[74] Overall, women, nonsmokers, and people under age 60 had the most heart attack risk reduction. Many of those benefiting were hospitality and entertainment industry workers.[75]"

Google this shit. There isnt some stupid "anti smoker" conspiricy. It just does ok? "It all stays in the smokers lungs" has ZERO biological fact behind it. The fact that these carcinogens are released both from the smoking end of the ciggarette and from you breathing out is fact. Sorry but it just is.

So a gas goes in and 100% of it gets coated onto the lungs creating a 100% to 0% concentration gradient, and then this clean air goes right out again does it? Nothing moves across this MASSIVE concentration gradiant back into the air? Or not onto the lungs at all? Thats just lunacy. By concentration gradiant logic 50% gets coated and 50% does not.

Why do people still talk about second hand smoke like its a myth. So much evidence. So much. And scientific logic. Strange thing here, most of these people who "debunk" it are not biologists and are smokers. Hmmm. I see a pattern here.

 

[generalvash]

Fat people don't see their being fat as a choice because they won't do what's necessary to lose some weight. Plus fat is a subjective term.

Smokers are using poison and poison others around them without their consent. Fat people aren't stealing OUR food or anything.

Second hand smoke doesn't actually do anything cancerous like some want you to believe. All of those things stay in the smoker's lungs

"There is good observational evidence that smoke-free legislation reduces the number of hospital admissions for heart disease.[72] In 2009 two studies in the United States confirmed the effectiveness of public smoking bans in preventing heart attacks. The first study, done at the University of California, San Francisco and funded by the National Cancer Institute, found a 15 percent decline in heart-attack hospitalizations in the first year after smoke-free legislation was passed, and 36 percent after three years.[73] The second study, done at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, showed similar results.[74] Overall, women, nonsmokers, and people under age 60 had the most heart attack risk reduction. Many of those benefiting were hospitality and entertainment industry workers.[75]"

. . .

observational evidence

. . .

Huh, It's kinda funny when you cite stuff at me, calling it observational. See, observational is actually making note of a correlation, which, those worth their salt know does NOT mean causation. I could easily note a correlation between the existence of snow during the winter of the mid to lower Texas area in the past four calendar years, and the declining state of the Greek Economy, but just because these two things correlate DOES NOT mean that one caused the other or vice versa. Second Hand smoke (or Passive Smoke) does not currently have substantial scientific backing. It is currently listed as a matter of scientific consensus at best (scientific consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is NOT by itself a scientific argument, and it is NOT part of the scientific method; the standards through which worthwhile knowledge is achieved). If you feel it necessary to cite things then fine; Penn & Teller's Bullshit: Season 1 Episode 5. Don't complain that it's a show hosted by magicians, these guys research their material more than any major news station (CNN, BBC, MSNBC, Fox, etc.). Did you consider that the smoking bans MIGHT (and that's being generous) have impacted regular smokers from lighting up? Therefore reducing their risk of Cardiac Arrest?

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

I don't know how it is the UK and Australia, but in the United States, smokers have developed a pariah-like status over the years. There are all kinds of anti-smoking campaigns, city ordinances not allowing smoking within X number of feet from a building, etc. But at the same time in the US, it is politically incorrect to criticize those who are overweight and obese. Some might argue: "Second hand smoke harms other people, but it's my choice to eat what I want and this doesn't harm other people."

However, it DOES harm other people, just not in the same way as second-hand smoke. According to a recent study, annual spending on obesity-related diseases is expected to rise by 13-16% in the US by 2030, leading to 2.6% increase in national health spending. Total medical costs associated with treatment of preventable diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and coronary heart disease are estimated to increase by $48-66 billion a year.

That means as a fit person, my taxes will be higher and my insurance premiums will go up to fund increased health care costs associated with an increase in obesity. Also, children with fat parents are less likely to have access to healthy foods and are more likely to be overweight themselves. Other people ARE harmed by you being overweight.

But instead of a nationwide effort to promote healthy eating, there is a culture in the United States of being fat and proud of it. Facebook groups promoting concepts like "big women are beautiful" have millions of followers, and criticism of fat people is called "hate speech". Clearly some overweight people don't want to feel guilty about their behavior choices, so they try to make others feel guilty or embarrassed for criticizing them.

Let make this perfectly clear: being fat should not be a protected class like race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. Unlike those categories, being fat is almost always a choice. Only a small percentage of people are overweight because of a legitimate medical condition like hyperthyroidism. And sure, eating disorders with psychological roots exist, but let's be honest: most fat people are fat because of poor food choices and because they lack the willpower and motivation to exercise regularly. They just don't like to be called out on it.

because being fat is an appearance issue, and smoking is not.

Or did you want a justification?

 

[akeldama1984]

coming from a fat person i'm tired of people trying to justify being fat and making it seem as if its a normal lifestyle and their is no need to change it.

but the main difference between smoking and being fat is once you put down your last cig you are done. yes it can be rough but you are no longer a smoker. Being fat you have to eat to live. It would be like telling a smoker he has to have a puff of a cig 3 times a day but that's it, and there is a fridge full of cigs you could smoke but you shouldn't.

Even once you decide to change your eating habits and work out it can be a long, stressful, and strenuous process depending on how much you have to lose.

 

[Batou667]

Also, fast food is cheap. So, if you're working and getting paid a low income, and fast food is the only feasible way to eat in terms of time and money, then it's really not fair to judge them and blame them.

Fast food is cheap, but only in relation to other restaurants or prepared food.

Compared to buying the ingredients and cooking meals for yourself, fast food is very poor - both in terms of expense and nutritional content.

 

[Tekkawarrior]

...

Nobody wants to be fat, however most people who start smoking want to be smokers. So there is a greater element of culpability I think.

Your point is invalid sir.

Being fat is a result of eating. Getting cancer is a result of smoking.

Smokers don't want to smoke = Fat people don't want to eat.
Eaters don't want to get fat = Smokers don't want to get cancer.

Which is false, fat people love to eat.

 

[Continuity]

...

Nobody wants to be fat, however most people who start smoking want to be smokers. So there is a greater element of culpability I think.

Your point is invalid sir.

Being fat is a result of eating. Getting cancer is a result of smoking.

Smokers don't want to smoke = Fat people don't want to eat.
Eaters don't want to get fat = Smokers don't want to get cancer.

Which is false, fat people love to eat.

You're right, but I think I'm in the right area. Try this: Everyone eats so everyone can understand overeating and sympathise to an extent, however smoking is a choice, nobody has to smoke yet everyone has to eat. So if you choose to smoke you have greater culpability than someone who is forced to eat (we all are to survive) and looses control of their intake.