Obesity, skiny, tall, short, unibrow, hairy, flat figure

[Boop]

First of all, 1% would be pretty high for people that geninuely have some health issue relating to their weight. Probably closer to 0.00000001% or something. Out of those people, the underlying medical condition can be treated pretty easily for most of them. There are a few medical issues that really suck. Like there is some weird one where people do not "feel" full regardless of how much they eat. I can imagine that would make losing weight harder...

But at the end of the day, it is like someone said, calories in vs calories out. If someone could create fat from nothing, then we would have solved the energy crisis by using those people as batteries or something(like the matrix). So it may be harder for some people to lose weight, but it is just physically not possible to not be fat without eating. You don't see starving fat people in poor 3rd world countries.

[A-Man]

I should say I didn't see that coming, but that does not change my point as when I said 1%, I assumed that was the lowest it could get. If what you're saying is right then I stand corrected, but I'd still like to know where are you getting your statistics from. Regardless, even that less of number should still make the difference while you're dealing with people for what I said though.

"calories in calories out" is correct as energy is conserved. But, as we're talking about energy now, we know that an efficiency of a 100% is practically impossible. The body needs effective energy to function properly, but the energy in does not equal the effective energy out; one is constantly losing some of this energy as heat, and the rest is latent energy as fats. Now how efficient, or more precisely, how much of the food you take is actually used up for effective energy is what's important. In cases where your body is very inefficient (probably because of a disease), it could become inevitable not to gain lots of fat.

but it is just physically not possible to not be fat without eating

I am not sure you mean what the text suggests you mean here. Please try not to use lots of negatives.

You don't see starving fat people in poor 3rd world countries.

Of course you don't. Because anyone would prefer being fat full over being thin hungry.

This whole thing is making me sound awfully defensive. I am only referring to those who are very sick in regards of the matter.

[STM1993]

Quick google search.

“Thus far mutations in about eight genes are known to cause obesity in humans. But these mutations account for under five percent of the obesity in our society, and certainly are not, by themselves, responsible for the current obesity epidemic, since the mutation rate in these genes could not have changed dramatically during the past twenty years,” says Dr. Joseph Majzoub, the chief of the division of endocrinology at Boston Children’s Hospital and an author on the Science paper. “However, mutations in these genes have led to the discovery of pathways that are important in energy balance in humans, giving us hope that drugs can be developed that affect these pathways to prevent excessive weight gain, either by curbing appetite or increased burning of calories.”

All we're saying is that being obese due to genetic factors is a very small minority and that we should not promote this idea as an excuse. Even the people who DO have genetic factors or disease usually have the diet or medication to manage it. The exceptional cases are what they are - exceptional; outliers. Until proven to be an exception, it is only reasonable to treat something as the norm. And the norm of obesity in this case is due to poor lifestyle rather than genetic factors or disease.

That being said, I don't go around telling fat strangers in their face "STOP BEING A LAZY BUM" because I don't know the individual(we should always distinguish individuals vs groups), I have better things to do, its being mean (and asking for a beating) and positive reinforcement works a lot better anyway. When meeting individuals, it is best to treat each case as a blank with no assumptions until proven otherwise, but its not unfair to use a statistical trend as a frame of reference for a group of people.

People who work to lose weight usually do so not from "I don't want to be ostracized", but from "I want a better body for myself and look better". As a society, I believe we should strongly discourage obesity, but at the same time we shouldn't ostracize obese people, but rather encourage them to do something about it for their own sake.

[A-Man]

I could agree with everything you've said, except here:

but its not unfair to use a statistical trend as a frame of reference for a group of people.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Albert Einstein.

It's straight up wrong to generalize as long as there is a single exception; 5% means 1 in every 20 overweight people you meet everyday do suffer a genetic problem associated with it. None of those who were arguing mentioned anything about these few exceptional cases, but sticked to what was more like "Obese people have no excuse, and therefore they're all fat cuz lazy". I am not promoting genes as an excuse; all I am try to do is clarify that it's not fair to jump to conclusions every time they encounter a fat person.  

People who work to lose weight usually do so not from "I don't want to be ostracized", but from "I want a better body for myself and look better".

Not right. Have you ever wondered why bullies are stereotyped as fat boys? It's nothing but a result of those trying to manifest themselves in the community in the way they found to be best; to be a "bad boy".

[STM1993]

Okay, fair point about the bullying thing.

I could agree with everything you've said, except here:

but its not unfair to use a statistical trend as a frame of reference for a group of people.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Albert Einstein.

It's straight up wrong to generalize as long as there is a single exception; 5% means 1 in every 20 overweight people you meet everyday do suffer a genetic problem associated with it. None of those who were arguing mentioned anything about these few exceptional cases, but sticked to what was more like "Obese people have no excuse, and therefore they're all fat cuz lazy". I am not promoting genes as an excuse; all I am try to do is clarify that it's not fair to jump to conclusions every time they encounter a fat person.  

I think you're being too black & white about the idea of generalization, perhaps even fear the idea of it because of association with unreasonable extremes like racism. This isn't science where we're trying to prove a universal truth.

Let me put it this way: People in Germany speak German.
Obviously, not everyone in Germany speaks German - there are immigrants, tourists, the mute who can't speak etc, but would I be wrong to assume that the majority of people I meet there would speak German?
In the same way, if I'm looking at a large group of obese people, would I be wrong to say that the majority of them are obese because of bad lifestyle and not genetics etc when the statistics back this assumption?

Again, I want to stress that looking at people as a group and looking at individuals is a very different matter, largely because individuals don't have a sample size (plus the obvious emotional factors). That, and making a generalization does not mean declaring a universal truth.

EDIT:
Strictly speaking, I think positive/neutral/negative generalizations are equally valid from a purely logical point of view. Personally I find that the only reason why a neutral generalization is accepted while a positive/negative generalization is shunned is really because of the perceived implications or fear of offending someone - I don't want to believe someone is fat because he is lazy, but it still stands that the majority are.

[Boop]

First of all, sorry for any terrible grammar. I reply from my phone when I'm bored on trains. Its a pain in the a** to use this forum on your phone. I can't get rid of that god damn quote thing up there.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify when talking about "fat" people. I'm talking about morbidly obesse people. I'm not talking about people that are slightly chubby. And I don't expect everyone to have visible abs and be around 8-10% body fat.

Additionally, as STM is kindly explaining. The majority of obese people are obese because they are lazy. They are the ones I dislike. I tried to make that distinction earlier when I was talking about people(group) vs individuals. Judging an individual based on a group is pretty messed up. Saying that a group primarily consists of lazy people is not.

My problem is that society is trying to make it socially acceptable to be obese. No one should want to be obese. If the only obese people were the outliers with medical conditions then no one would judge them. People do not negatively look down at people that are handicapped. 

There this movement called "HAES" (healthy st any size). It is f***** up. They are trying to normalize obesity. They are literally telling teenage girls that they cannot lost weight and should not try. They tell people to ignore their doctors when they tell them they have unhealthy lifestyles. It is literally on the same level of stupidity that anti-vacine group is. I shall continue to show my part in disliking obese people to prevent society normalizing obesity.

[A-Man]

Let me put it this way: People in Germany speak German.
Obviously, not everyone in Germany speaks German - there are immigrants, tourists, the mute who can't speak etc, but would I be wrong to assume that the majority of people I meet there would speak German?
In the same way, if I'm looking at a large group of obese people, would I be wrong to say that the majority of them are obese because of bad lifestyle and not genetics etc when the statistics back this assumption?

Again, I want to stress that looking at people as a group and looking at individuals is a very different matter, largely because individuals don't have a sample size (plus the obvious emotional factors). That, and making a generalization does not mean declaring a universal truth.

But that's different! Here is another example that has more to do with the generalization we're making: All the filthy (and by filthy here, I just mean extreme) rich are scammers, smugglers, or people who work in an illegal field such as drugs trade.

There is a huge difference between making bland generalizations on something that is considered neutral, and something that is negative or offensive (or even positive). While it's true that the majority of the filthy rich's money can return to the reasons above, there are still those selected few who made their fortune legitimately. I still can not say "Filthy rich people made their fortune by resorting to dirty means", or am I wrong?

Edit:

Judging an individual based on a group is pretty messed up. Saying that a group primarily consists of lazy people is not.

Indeed. Note the use of the word "primarily". This also means we can't let a first impression be based on that generalization. I agree that obesity is a problem, and any move doing what "HAES" is doing should be countered. And please pardon my impulsive misunderstanding reply.

[Boop]

Well the statistic you made up is most likely wrong. If you had any proof that what you said is true, I feel like it would be valid to say.

[A-Man]

Ah, so, failed to find anything to backup what I said (I admit I just repeated what I hear people often say, and from how the media portraits them riches). But the point that I am trying to make is that a neutral generalization isn't to be compared to a negative one.

Edit:

Strictly speaking, I think positive/neutral/negative generalizations are equally valid from a purely logical point of view. Personally I find that the only reason why a neutral generalization is accepted while a positive/negative generalization is shunned is really because of the perceived implications or fear of offending someone - I don't want to believe someone is fat because he is lazy, but it still stands that the majority are.

All right, then here is a question. Is being offended logical at all? Do we really get offended because we're logical?

[STM1993]

Strictly speaking, I think positive/neutral/negative generalizations are equally valid from a purely logical point of view. Personally I find that the only reason why a neutral generalization is accepted while a positive/negative generalization is shunned is really because of the perceived implications or fear of offending someone - I don't want to believe someone is fat because he is lazy, but it still stands that the majority are.

All right, then here is a question. Is being offended logical at all? Do we really get offended because we're logical?

No no, I'm saying that when you analyze something, you should see it as it is and not deliberately avoid unpleasant implications, since what is unpleasant is subjective from person to person and because avoiding unpleasant ideas leads to ignorance. I won't automatically assume a single obese person I met is lazy just because 80% are(random number to illustrate my point) nor assume all obese people are lazy just because of one person, but I would keep in mind that 80% of those I meet tend to be lazy. That's what I mean, its like the concept of forgiving but not forgetting.

Hypothetically, say a town is occupied by Red people and Blue people, and 100% of crimes are committed by Red people, but not all Red people are criminals. If you go to this town, then the smart course of action is to be extra wary of Red people, even though you know and should not assume that all Red individuals you meet are criminals. That's the idea I'm trying to get across.

Either way, we all agree that its not right to judge an individual based on a group.