PC Principal V: What The Fuck Am I Reading

[Gredival]

Is it that thing where you adhere to a very narrow legal definition rather than a principle and then you show him that goddamn XKCD comic and act like a smug cunt?

No it's that thing where people think that platforms should be required to help facilitate and amplify a person's defamation and slander that is inciting active harassment and threats.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[tenkiki]

You can do anything, but not everything.

It takes effort to stay in shape. While biology does work against some people more than others (see the scientific study regarding people who lose dramatic amounts of weight and their bodies literally working against them trying to put the weight back on), everyone could have a desirable physique with enough dedication to diet and exercise.

But it's hard. And some people can't or won't pay the opportunity cost. Whether it's because obligations from work, family, etc. are too demanding or because in your limited free time you make the active decision that you'd rather be rewarded by the pleasure of video games, TV, etc.

It is a choice and people who make that choice should acknowledge that and not duck responsibility. But at the same time fat shaming as a third party judgment on that choice is crappy. I'm fairly sure that 9 times out of 10 I'm going to enjoy the company of someone who spends two hours a day reading than Chad bro pumping iron.

Obviously it's not physically appealing to be fat, but we're supposed to be evolved enough to judge people on more important merits than physical attractiveness. Unless you are in a line of work where your attractiveness is important (model, actor/actress) or your fitness is a literal job qualification (athlete, military, etc.), your partner is really the only one who should care how much flab you have.

Don't forget any medical personnel that has to interact with you, even worse if there's direct physical interaction/lifting involved. All of my medical friends share stories where it ranges from there wouldn't be any complications if they just lost weight to horrible, disgusting hygienic issues. Most have resigned trying to encourage weight loss and just prescribe a ton of meds, which my pharmacy friends balk at.

Personally, while I am getting in shape for reasons other than health and weight loss, it felt damn good to hear the doctor tell me there were no problems found in my annual physical. I would always hear about prehypertension or my values being on the border of the acceptable range or slightly past it, and it always worried me growing up.

[Gredival]

Don't forget any medical personnel that has to interact with you, even worse if there's direct physical interaction/lifting involved. All of my medical friends share stories where it ranges from there wouldn't be any complications if they just lost weight to horrible, disgusting hygienic issues. Most have resigned trying to encourage weight loss and just prescribe a ton of meds, which my pharmacy friends balk at.

Personally, while I am getting in shape for reasons other than health and weight loss, it felt damn good to hear the doctor tell me there were no problems found in my annual physical. I would always hear about prehypertension or my values being on the border of the acceptable range or slightly past it, and it always worried me growing up.

I think your health issues are by default your own responsibility, albeit insofar as it can affect the rest of your loved ones beyond your partner I agree that other people have incentive for you to want to be healthy.

As far as medical staff, I think it's trickier. I have no doubt things can be gross and unpleasant, but I think the obligation is on medical staff to treat the persons who need treatment and that the difficulties in doing that are part of the job.

I think the bigger issue is in respect to things like insurance. If we ever progressed to a point where we got over "MUH FREEDOM MUH SOCIALISM" and covered people's medical expenses by default, there's a decent argument that since everyone is subsidizing everyone, there's a big economic incentive in society to promote healthy lifestyles -- healthy eating as well as moderating unhealthy behaviors such as smoking. There's a conflict of freedom and health there that's difficult to navigate. Would we be fine with insurance companies charging smokers more? Fat people more? What about the evidence that it's harder for some people to not be fat?

[dasva]

What about public spaces? Nothing worse than fat people smell on a bus!

As far as the medical stuff don't people with large risk factors like say smoking increase insurance already?

[Gredival]

What about public spaces? Nothing worse than fat people smell on a bus!

I'm of the opinion that it's fair game to charge someone for double seats on a plane and such. If someone fits in a single seat, getting stuck next to the heavy guy is just the opposite dice roll of getting seated next to the single super model.

As far as the medical stuff don't people with large risk factors like say smoking increase insurance already?

They do, but philosophically speaking they pay more premiums to compensate for the fact they are a higher risk factor. That's legitimate when it comes to smoking, which is your choice.

It's more problematic when you are charging someone more for being a cancer risk when that's genetic.

In the case of weight, the problem is blurred. If they are genetically pre-disposed to being fat that's a whole different matter from from, charging them more for living a sedentary lifestyle. You might have someone that puts more effort into living well that just ends up weighing more than someone with a fast metabolism that doesn't put any effort into it at all. Is it fair to charge the first person more than the second?

[dasva]

Is it fair to charge the first person more than the second?

Yes.

[Yabby]

In the case of weight, the problem is blurred. If they are genetically pre-disposed to being fat that's a whole different matter from from, charging them more for living a sedentary lifestyle. You might have someone that puts more effort into living well that just ends up weighing more than someone with a fast metabolism that doesn't put any effort into it at all. Is it fair to charge the first person more than the second?

The problem is people use this as their excuse for being fat. My wife had a really bad thyroid condition. Even with it, she was able to lose weight, but with the calories she was eating and her working out with me, i knew she should be losing it a lot faster (She was doing many a pound every 2 to 3 weeks, when she should have been doing almost a pound a week easy). Once she got medicated, that weight is just falling off of her.

I can't tell you how often we get talked at by other overweight/fat people about how we "Made it" and that we are lucky our genetics allowed it (My entire family is fat, both sides). They act like they have these issues when in reality it impacts less than 1 or 2 percent of fat people.

Don't get me started on trying to help them see the issues with their diet, the lies people tell themselves and the tricks they use to justify their eating habits is amazing.

So to answer your question, yes it is, because 99% of the time they are not pre-disposed to being fat. They are fat because they enjoy eating food more than they enjoy being healthy.

[Gredival]

The problem is people use this as their excuse for being fat. My wife had a really bad thyroid condition. Even with it, she was able to lose weight, but with the calories she was eating and her working out with me, i knew she should be losing it a lot faster (She was doing many a pound every 2 to 3 weeks, when she should have been doing almost a pound a week easy). Once she got medicated, that weight is just falling off of her.

My first post on this subject acknowledged that biology can make it harder, but that with *enough* effort everyone could lose weight. The fact that it is harder for some people definitely enters into the equation though.

It's just like buying a new TV. Buying a new body might be worth an hour work out a day and eating healthy. Is it worth three? Four? Five plus never getting to eat anything you like?

Some people are lucky that being fit is easy. These people are overwhelmingly more likely to be fit.

Don't get me started on trying to help them see the issues with their diet, the lies people tell themselves and the tricks they use to justify their eating habits is amazing.

So to answer your question, yes it is, because 99% of the time they are not pre-disposed to being fat. They are fat because they enjoy eating food more than they enjoy being healthy.

Goes hand in hand with what I said about people taking responsibility for their choices. Own up to the fact that there are more important things to you than being fit.

I think that it's absolutely fair for someone to admit they get way more pleasure out of getting to play Overwatch for 10hrs a week than using your limited daily free time at the gym being miserable.

At the same time, we should acknowledge that, for the most part, shaming them for that is a really shitty thing to do.

The research I've seen says it's more than 1%, but to me it doesn't really matter.

Yes.

Then logically it's fair to charge someone more for having genetic cancer risks and such. You're penalizing people for their risk factors, but risk factors aren't necessarily 1 to 1 with lifestyle. Being born with the fat gene is the same as being born with a genetic defect in your ticker or a disposition for cancer.

[Zetanio]

Please point me to the fat gene.

[Andalusian girls]

ARL6, BBIP1, BBS1, BBS10, BBS12, BBS2, BBS4, BBS5, BBS7, BBS9, CCDC28B, CEP290, IFT27, LZTFL1, MKKS, MKS1, SDCCAG8, TMEM67, TRIM32, TTC8, WDPCP

[Yabby]

My first post on this subject acknowledged that biology can make it harder, but that with *enough* effort everyone could lose weight. The fact that it is harder for some people definitely enters into the equation though.

It's just like buying a new TV. Buying a new body might be worth an hour work out a day and eating healthy. Is it worth three? Four? Five plus never getting to eat anything you like?

Some people are lucky that being fit is easy. These people are overwhelmingly more likely to be fit.

Yes, there are people who are overwhelmingly more likely to be fit based on biology, but that is just as rare as people who are the other way around. If you see someone who is fit, they more likely than not, worked hard to be that way.

Goes hand in hand with what I said about people taking responsibility for their choices. Own up to the fact that there are more important things to you than being fit.

Being fit is one thing, being a fat fuck is another (This is coming from someone who was a fat fuck the majority of their life). This isn't black and white, there is a huge range and some people sit at the wrong end by choice.

I think that it's absolutely fair for someone to admit they get way more pleasure out of getting to play Overwatch for 10hrs a week than using your limited daily free time at the gym being miserable.

You don't have to give up your free time to go to the gym. Not being fat is 95% diet based. If you want to sit at home all day and play games, that is fine, just don't eat like you are a powerlifter and you won't get fat.

At the same time, we should acknowledge that, for the most part, shaming them for that is a really shitty thing to do.

Shaming is one thing, but making someone accountable is another. Let me be clear, i'm talking about a baseline of health. It is REALLY easy to just be normal. You don't have to hit the gym, you don't have to run 5k's, you don't have to give up hours of your day, you just have to eat based on your activity level. If you go out with friends and have beers and eat a lot of food, but you don't want to work it off, then just eat less for a few days to make up for it.

I'm not even saying punish people that are overweight by 30 to 50 pounds, but once you enter the obese area.... you are making a choice now.

The research I've seen says it's more than 1%, but to me it doesn't really matter.



Then logically it's fair to charge someone more for having genetic cancer risks and such. You're penalizing people for their risk factors, but risk factors aren't necessarily 1 to 1 with lifestyle. Being born with the fat gene is the same as being born with a genetic defect in your ticker or a disposition for cancer.

Fat gene....

Like i said before, some people (rarely, rarer than you think) do gain weight easier, but there are steps that can be taken to help that.

[Yabby]

ARL6, BBIP1, BBS1, BBS10, BBS12, BBS2, BBS4, BBS5, BBS7, BBS9, CCDC28B, CEP290, IFT27, LZTFL1, MKKS, MKS1, SDCCAG8, TMEM67, TRIM32, TTC8, WDPCP

I randomly picked one out of the list.

The MKKS gene provides instructions for making a protein that plays an important role in the formation of the limbs, heart, and reproductive system. The structure of this protein suggests that it may act as a chaperonin, which is a protein that helps fold other proteins. Proteins must be folded into the correct 3-dimensional shape to perform their usual functions in the body. Abnormally folded proteins can also interfere with the functions of normal proteins.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MKKS#

Com'on man....

[Dotsudoku]

You didn't look at your own link very hard

[Zetanio]

ARL6, BBIP1, BBS1, BBS10, BBS12, BBS2, BBS4, BBS5, BBS7, BBS9, CCDC28B, CEP290, IFT27, LZTFL1, MKKS, MKS1, SDCCAG8, TMEM67, TRIM32, TTC8, WDPCP

See this just seems like a bunch of window dressing.


https://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

Obesity has doubled in less than 20 years.

Genetics is a fucking cop out for about 90% of the population.

[Yabby]

Correct me then, please. I don't see the word fat anywhere on that page. Just because something is used to build the body, doesn't make it a fat gene

[Dotsudoku]

Related health conditions homie

[Andalusian girls]

easy lad it was mostly a snarky joke for my geneticist pals, mutations in those genes have been linked to Bardet-Biedl syndrome which is an exceptionally rare ciliopathic autosomal recessive disorder that manifests as obesity (among other fun ailments like what the kids used to call mental retardation).

but as with most jokes there is a bit of truth, as with alcoholism and mental disorders and being able to dunk there are genetic predispositions. given the complicated relationship between genotype and phenotype pointing to anything as a the "the gene" is problematic*, and regardless a simple logical exercise (American obesity rates have nearly tripled since 1990 so unless there's some Godzilla business going on it isn't genetics) shows the majority of obesity is caused by environment and behavior. biology is not destiny (except in the rare cases it is), but i think Gred was just making the point that for some people keeping the weight off is a lot easier than for others, and that is indeed backed up by genetics.

*single-gene determinants are called Mendelian traits and can govern simple things like blood type, and whether or not one develops cystic fibrosis. but all more complicated phenotypes like height, weight, intelligence etc are polygenic traits meaning their expression is influenced by multiple genes acting (or not acting) in concert. that is to say there is no 'fat gene', there are dozens of genes which can influence fatness.

[Anoat]

But are the fats having fat kids and passing their fatness on genetically or are both healthy and fat people raising fat kids based on lifestyle choices? I’d think it’s the latter for the most part.

[Dotsudoku]

See this just seems like a bunch of window dressing.


https://stateofobesity.org/adult-obesity/

Obesity has doubled in less than 20 years.

Genetics is a fucking cop out for about 90% of the population.

Y'all are reading what you want to read. Nobody in this thread is suggesting it's anywhere near the leading cause of obesity, but 10% of the population matters when we're talking about universal healthcare

[Yabby]

Related health conditions homie

On Mutation....