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

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Spolin said:
PaulH said:
Spolin said:
Jegsimmons said:
and if anyone says "second hand smoke" i say, get the fuck over it. That shit is still being debated, and you have enough common sense to get the hell out of the room.
If by "still being debated" you mean there is scientific consensus that it is bad for your health, then yes.

Besides, not everyone can just "get the hell out of the room" when someone decides to light up next to them, not everyone has either the mobility to move or mental capacity to know they should move.
Scientific consensus eh?

That's funny, because what I read is that there is no significant connection between environmental tobacco smoke and mortality rates. That even if you work in a tobacco smoke heavy environment that you still only have 1/100000 of dying from tobacco smoke related causes. But what do I know? I've only read journals and studies about it.

Maybe there is some secret consensus that states, inequivocably, that tobacco smoke is out to get all of you lovely people on those oh so high horses ^_^
If what you've been reading are the "journals" and "studies" funded by the Tobacco companies to make themselves look better, then yes you may have found such claims.

However, those studies that had nothing to do with Tobacco companies have usually found some sort of significant negative connection. Heck, the very fact that inhaling passive smoke causes me to cough is pretty simple evidence that what I'm breathing in isn't terribly good for me.
I cough all the time and I don't smoke. I'm willing to bet that simply living in a city populated by millions of moving cars and other industrial locales are far more hazardous... do you then say that all people shouldn't drive cars?

And no, these studies are, quizzically, read by the people much like the US Surgeon Gen. who ironically once said that "Secondhand smoke is more dangerous than actual smoking" (Even if the report doesn't say as such, and says there is no direct or significant connection).

So no, there is no real scientific consensus. Anybody that says as such is lying to you. Sure secondhand smoke may be bad for you, but Italian studies have shown that a lit and smouldering cigarette in a completely unventilated room 60 cubic metres (So basically, picture the absolute WORST smoking environment you can... no filtration, airtight, in a place smaller than your average stuydio apartment) is no worse for you then a diesel engine left at minimum idle for a few seconds.

So there you go ... taking the cross city tunnel in Sydney everyday is worse for you than smoking occasionally.

People seem to think that lung cancer or the deleterious effects of smoking are singular and completely without any other precedent of the medical risks of living in an ever more polluted world.

Everybody knows pack a day smokers who live to 90, everybody knows healthy athletic individuals that develop cancer at 20.

But what can be definitely stated is that if you have ever worked on your motorvehicle, or diven through a city tunnel, or work in any place that oversees huge inflows of traffic, or working in your standard factory then you have inhaled toxins worse for you then even a whole bunch of cigarettes ....

So what makes you think sucking down somebody elses cigarette smoke is the thing that breaks the camel's back if they get sick?
 

Robert Ewing

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,977
0
0
I do criticize fat people. They teach a poor style of life. Same as smokers or drug users.

The only thing that lightens the fat critique is that some people can't help it. And because of this, being overweight is seen more as a disability, and therefore it has become a sensitive area for most.

After all, if you hurt peoples feelings, it's an automatic hate crime.
 

The Cheshire

New member
May 10, 2011
110
0
0
Fagotto said:
It's also kinda sad you think you should be making these decisions for the poor.
I'm not making any decisions for the poor, I am just talking about the pros and cons of taxing food. If it was up to me to make decisions for the poor or the rich, certainly some problems require more urgent solutions than there being fat people, or smokers. And hey, certainly someone is making a lot of decisions for the poor right now, none of them being beneficial to them.

However, we are talking in the context of some invasive and paternalist tax laws. Sometimes these are necessary, but don't think I'm too happy having to pay 4? for a pack of fags.

Also, more space in public transportation :D
 

Spolin

New member
Nov 22, 2010
12
0
0
PaulH said:
Spolin said:
PaulH said:
Spolin said:
Jegsimmons said:
and if anyone says "second hand smoke" i say, get the fuck over it. That shit is still being debated, and you have enough common sense to get the hell out of the room.
If by "still being debated" you mean there is scientific consensus that it is bad for your health, then yes.

Besides, not everyone can just "get the hell out of the room" when someone decides to light up next to them, not everyone has either the mobility to move or mental capacity to know they should move.
Scientific consensus eh?

That's funny, because what I read is that there is no significant connection between environmental tobacco smoke and mortality rates. That even if you work in a tobacco smoke heavy environment that you still only have 1/100000 of dying from tobacco smoke related causes. But what do I know? I've only read journals and studies about it.

Maybe there is some secret consensus that states, inequivocably, that tobacco smoke is out to get all of you lovely people on those oh so high horses ^_^
If what you've been reading are the "journals" and "studies" funded by the Tobacco companies to make themselves look better, then yes you may have found such claims.

However, those studies that had nothing to do with Tobacco companies have usually found some sort of significant negative connection. Heck, the very fact that inhaling passive smoke causes me to cough is pretty simple evidence that what I'm breathing in isn't terribly good for me.
I cough all the time and I don't smoke. I'm willing to bet that simply living in a city populated by millions of moving cars and other industrial locales are far more hazardous... do you then say that all people shouldn't drive cars?

And no, these studies are, quizzically, read by the people much like the US Surgeon Gen. who ironically once said that "Secondhand smoke is more dangerous than actual smoking" (Even if the report doesn't say as such, and says there is no direct or significant connection).

So no, there is no real scientific consensus. Anybody that says as such is lying to you. Sure secondhand smoke may be bad for you, but Italian studies have shown that a lit and smouldering cigarette in a completely unventilated room 60 cubic metres (So basically, picture the absolute WORST smoking environment you can... no filtration, airtight, in a place smaller than your average stuydio apartment) is no worse for you then a diesel engine left at minimum idle for a few seconds.

So there you go ... taking the cross city tunnel in Sydney everyday is worse for you then smoking.

People seem to think that lung cancer or the deleterious effects of smoking are singular and completely without any other precedent of the medical risks of living in an ever more polluted world.

Everybody knows pack a day smokers who live to 90, everybody knows healthy athletic individuals that develop cancer at 20.

But what can be definitely stated is that if you have ever worked on your motorvehicle, or diven through a city tunnel, or work in any place that oversees huge inflows of traffic, or working in your standard factory then you have inhaled intoxicants worse for you then even a whole bunch of cigarettes ....

So what makes you think sucking down somebody elses cigarette smoke is the thing that breaks the camel's back if they get sick?
I meant as a direct result of inhaling the smoke, that should be pretty clear from what I said.

Consensus simply means widely agreed upon, not unanimous.

Here's the thing, automobiles serve an important function in society, transporting people and goods. What exactly does smoking do for society that makes it as important as automobiles?

There are always anomalies, anyone learned in science can tell you as much. That's why you don't base your conclusions on a single case. I bet that I could find a person who wouldn't die from being hit by a Bus, but that doesn't mean that getting hit by a Bus is not dangerous.
 

RUINER ACTUAL

New member
Oct 29, 2009
1,835
0
0
Brawndo said:
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.
Good argument and info. I agree. I often wonder this. The government doesn't care if people get fat really. Human brains are wired to seek food that is salty, sweet, or fatty, because these are not commonly found in nature. And with the high avaliability of these tastes, obesity is on the rise. I really have no idea what's with the anti-smoking thing. I'm going with they want to make more money.
 

The Cheshire

New member
May 10, 2011
110
0
0
Fagotto said:
The Cheshire said:
Fagotto said:
It's also kinda sad you think you should be making these decisions for the poor.
I'm not making any decisions for the poor, I am just talking about the pros and cons of taxing food.
To try to influence the decisions of poor people =|

And hey, certainly someone is making a lot of decisions for the poor right now, none of them being beneficial to them.
That doesn't justify anything.
Well, since this is only the debate of a hypothetical situation, I think poor British fat people have nothing to fear of my evil-doings. As far as "making decisions for people" goes, most laws are basically that, making decisions for people. Extra tax on fat food follows the same logic as extra tax for smoking: your decisions affecting your health also affect the collective. You can decide to avoid both and live a healthy life and save some money! :D

But I don't avoid smoking. I love smoking! And I pay my taxes for it.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Spolin said:
I meant as a direct result of inhaling the smoke, that should be pretty clear from what I said.

Consensus simply means widely agreed upon, not unanimous.

Here's the thing, automobiles serve an important function in society, transporting people and goods. What exactly does smoking do for society that makes it as important as automobiles?

There are always anomalies, anyone learned in science can tell you as much. That's why you don't base your conclusions on a single case. I bet that I could find a person who wouldn't die from being hit by a Bus, but that doesn't mean that getting hit by a Bus is not dangerous.
It's bad for you ... there's no advantageous benefit to smoking, tis true. But a cheeseburger is probably worse. Or some beer battered fries.

But stop prresenting your singular view on things that it is some horrible 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse coming to reap souls. You have no fucking clue, as does every other scientist. So saying that scientific consensus says that secondhand smoke is dangerous is a sensationalist thing to say.

It's bad for you, add it to the million and 1 other things that are ... but is it bad enough that you must infringe upon the rights of others to smoke a perfectly legal substance simply because you don't like it?

I don't like cars ... I think people should drive motorcycles. They are, afterall, more efficient vehicles, they are easier to park and take less room AND they cause less fatalities to -others- (though more often does the rider die than any other motorvehicle) ....

I can prove this, but at the same time would it be right for me to mandate every single person not drive a car? Or not allowed to drive a car in places heavily populated by people?

Say what you like, just don't be surprised when people who know the literature can tell you that secondhand smoke is negligible a risk at best, and there are far more important things to complain about when it comes to things like nutrition or pollution.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
Latinidiot said:
FoolKiller said:
Personally I agree with you. The question is where and how would you draw the line. Smoking is an easy one.

But here is a better question for you. What do you do for someone who is fat because they had a poor upbringing? Do they not require and deserve help losing/dealing with the weight?
And people with parents who smoke? They are looked down upon as any other smoker. they had almost no choice, not more than people with bad upbringing in the food department. the main point is that the situation as it is now is not fair to the smokers.
Actually, I completely disagree with that. Both my parents smoked and I got one of them to quit, although that isn't the point.

It is different because you don't have to smoke to survive. You need to eat though. Bad eating habits can essentially be forced upon a kid. The kid needs to eat well before they can reason or have any memory or knowledge of nutrition. On the other hand people don't start smoking till they can make a decision. Maybe a poor decision based on other influences, but still a decision. I haven't seen parents tell their kids that they have to smoke. In fact, most parents that smoke try to keep their kids from starting.

In this way, I think that early adoption is more left up to the smoker than the unhealthy eater. And as such, I think they do deserve the flack for it.
 

funguy2121

New member
Oct 20, 2009
3,407
0
0
Brawndo said:
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.
There are plenty of people who are fat because of hyperthyroidism or simple slower metabolism. It requires a lot of hard work for the average person to stay thin.

Now, had you said "overeaters," or "people who shamelessly gorge themselves in public and order a rack of ribs, a burger and fries for their appetizer," then I'd agree 100%. These people need to be ridiculed, for their own good.
 

Electric Alpaca

What's on the menu?
May 2, 2011
388
0
0
Mallefunction said:
Pretty much this. Although we definitely need to regulate fast food and unhealthy food more than we are right now. The fact that lobbyists were able to CONVINCE congress that pizza is a vegetable just because it has some tomato sauce (which is a goddamn fruit by the way, not a vegetable) is insane. Push these fuckers out of Washington and I can promise that we will start seeing real change in peoples' diets.
I couldn't disagree more.

It shouldn't be up to the government to tell people what they should and shouldn't eat. If someone wishes to eat pizza for all three meals every day then let them.

I also don't see the reasoning behind punishing everyone just because a few can't control themselves.

Letting the government step in and dictate what you eat is the start of a very slippery slide.
 

Jinjiro

Fresh Prince of Darkness
Apr 20, 2008
244
0
0
CODE-D said:
Jinjiro said:
CODE-D said:
*snip*
Yeah thats why I stopped eating like a fatty when I grew up, didnt affect my friends bad habits and they didnt affect my eating healthy when we ate together so what you say holds no merit to me.
However smoking is way more addictive and hazardous and a parent who smokes in front of their kids(especially in a closed environment) is way more hazardous.
Being a little overweight due to eating habits is way better than being an everyday smoker.

BUT!!! I doubt the initial thought of this thread was families, it had to do more with public strangers. So again, being near a fat guy whos eating like a slob may actually deter you from eating more whereas theres nothin you can do about a smoker if theyre breathing their obnoxious smelly cancer fumes your way.

Also you brought up obese, thats the extreme. Whats the extreme of smoking, highly progressed cancer and irreversible damage to cardiovascular system, loss of taste and numb other sense and overall bad feeling until you get your next fix.
so whats your choice
Get some perspective.

You might have gotten over bad eating habits when you grew up, but the fact is that a lot of people don't, even when informed of the health risks, same as smokers. Childhood obesity is extremely detrimental to growth, and probably in more ways than just on a physical level, and parents ARE directly responsible for this - if the parents eat shit food, that can imprint the child with the impression that the food is what they should be eating. Schools putting junk food on the menu doesn't help either.

Also, stating that smoking is way more hazardous is a complete lie. Obesity and related conditions are now killing very similar amounts of people a year to tobacco. Smoking is also on the decline, whereas obesity levels are still rising. Whichever way you swing it, both are terrible habits; whether passed on by families, peer pressure or addiction to nicotine or the comfort of junk food. Neither should be welcomed or encouraged, and I don't think criticism is the way to go about it either. Passing on knowledge is our species' most powerful tool, so we need to find better ways to teach people about healthy eating and the dangers of tobacco smoke, rather than just point fingers at people and say 'You Should Do This!' - people get defensive about themselves when criticized, and become more stubborn, not more receptive.
 

Spolin

New member
Nov 22, 2010
12
0
0
PaulH said:
Spolin said:
I meant as a direct result of inhaling the smoke, that should be pretty clear from what I said.

Consensus simply means widely agreed upon, not unanimous.

Here's the thing, automobiles serve an important function in society, transporting people and goods. What exactly does smoking do for society that makes it as important as automobiles?

There are always anomalies, anyone learned in science can tell you as much. That's why you don't base your conclusions on a single case. I bet that I could find a person who wouldn't die from being hit by a Bus, but that doesn't mean that getting hit by a Bus is not dangerous.
It's bad for you ... there's no advantageous benefit to smoking, tis true. But a cheeseburger is probably worse. Or some beer battered fries.

But stop prresenting your singular view on things that it is some horrible 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse coming to reap souls. You have no fucking clue, as does every other scientist. So saying that scientific consensus says that secondhand smoke is dangerous is a sensationalist thing to say.

It's bad for you, add it to the million and 1 other things that are ... but is it bad enough that you must infringe upon the rights of others to smoke a perfectly legal substance simply because you don't like it?

I don't like cars ... I think people should drive motorcycles. They are, afterall, more efficient vehicles, they are easier to park and take less room AND they cause less fatalities to -others- (though more often does the rider die than any other motorvehicle) ....

I can prove this, but at the same time would it be right for me to mandate every single person not drive a car? Or not allowed to drive a car in places heavily populated by people?

Say what you like, just don't be surprised when people who know the literature can tell you that secondhand smoke is negligible a risk at best, and there are far more important things to complain about when it comes to things like nutrition or pollution.
I never said that passive smoke is some sort of instantly fatal Miasma. Simply it is not good for you to a significant enough degree that having to involuntarily inhale shouldn't be happening if I just want to go eat at a nice restaurant without having to scour a whole city for the few places that don't allow smoking.

Also, I question its legality, so that really doesn't change my position.

Motorcycles can't do things like carry couches or large dressers or large amounts of building materials (at least not safely). Your parallel needs some work.
 

AnotherAvatar

New member
Sep 18, 2011
491
0
0
I think being fat should be just as culturally unacceptable, and don't think it isn't.

Let's look at it this way, because ads and regulations don't really determine much in the circles I hang out with: Fat people get laid less, and are usually ostracized from groups for their weight, and to me that's really punishment enough, and it clearly shows that there are still social punishments even if it's not made a legal or commercial matter (possibly because the opposite opinion IS a commercial matter that's pushed on us every time we see a fast food commercial which seem to be shot shockingly close to porn for food).

Obesity is a problem, and an unacceptable one in a country where there are people starving in the streets, however obesity has a lot to do with the foods available and America loves it's greasy, fattening foods.

By the way, it is ironic that this post went up during thanksgiving break, where every 'normal' American is bound to gain an inch or two on their waist line.
 

TheFloBros

New member
Aug 18, 2010
167
0
0
Brawndo said:
Strain42 said:
Smokers chose to be smokers. It's their own fault no matter what the case except in those rare circumstances where someone was tied to a chair and forced to smoke...and I can't imagine that happens very often.
I don't smoke, but almost all of my family friends who do claim they started because their parents smoked, or because of intense peer pressure. To me this sounds a lot like a fat person claiming he eats a lot because he is stressed at work, or because her home environment makes her feel depressed.

Although there may be environmental influences, choosing to light up and choosing to go to McDonald's are the same thing in my book. If anything, I empathize more with smokers because science shows that nicotine addiction is much stronger than any psychological addiction to food.

FoolKiller said:
But here is a better question for you. What do you do for someone who is fat because they had a poor upbringing? Do they not require and deserve help losing/dealing with the weight?
I am all for helping people lose weight. I don't propose a campaign of making fun of fat people. But in order to be helped, you have to admit that you have a problem and be willing to change. This means some overweight and obese people need to stop acting like they are a protected class of citizens like racial minorities, and parents of fat children need to stop getting upset when the school nurse tells their children they need to stop drinking soda and start exercising.
There aren't just psychological addictions with food, people can actually get physically addicted to food. Our bodies are hardwired to always want fat and sugar, because they're harder to find in nature and natural diets, but when people manufacture it, its easier to get so people get addicted. Fat and sugar, in some cases, are more addictive than crack and other drugs.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Spolin said:
I never said that passive smoke is some sort of instantly fatal Miasma. Simply it is not good for you to a significant enough degree that having to involuntarily inhale shouldn't be happening if I just want to go eat at a nice restaurant without having to scour a whole city for the few places that don't allow smoking.

Also, I question its legality, so that really doesn't change my position.

Motorcycles can't do things like carry couches or large dressers or large amounts of building materials (at least not safely). Your parallel needs some work.
1: Right, because people who drive cars always carry dressers, lounges and couches? No, the parallel works because the grand majority who drive cars do so because they don't want to drive another type of vehicle or take public transport (whether accessible or not where they live).

Or are you going to try and argue that the majority of people who drive their cars to work do so because they might just have to transport large furniture back home?

2: no ... there is no significant causality between poor lung health or heart disease and secondhand smoke. It's not a question of degrees. See before the smoking ban in Australia there was smoking and non smoking areas... and things were fantastic. Nobody but arseholes complained, and they made only the tiny fraction of people.

There was places where a smoker could smoke and eat. And place where non-smokers could non-smoke and eat. It was up to the business to decide ... (you know, like in a true democracy and free market)

3: So ... you would inflict upon another's right to smoke because you don't like it? Well aren't you a special little cupcake. You know that freedom and liberty is about not excluding people because you don't like them?

There is no significant connection between ETS and lung cancer ... therefore you'd like the law to state that people aren't allowed to use a legal product they paid for because you personally don't like it.

(hint hint: Yes, people like you complained ... and made it law even as pubs and clubs said "Hold on a tick, this is our business and we should reserve the right to have smokers or not." ... but that's okay, evidently the law is about allowing people to think the world revolves around them ^_^)
 

Mau95

Senior Member
Nov 11, 2011
347
0
21
Anyone ever see that South Park episode with Rob Reiner and his anti-smoking group?
All hail the mighty fat tax!!