Quick Links for Today:
-
"At risk of overweight" my ass. Fat is fat. Parents need to realize that and stop enabling their children's gluttony.
-
Surprise: None of those who "found" Noah's Ark are trained archaeologists. Gee, I'm just so shocked. Not.
-
"The abortion industry’s days as a Pedophile Protection Racket may be numbered."
-
The gist of this article seems to be that Wikipedia failed in some way. I see it differently. The article was stable within an hour of Lay's death. That seems pretty impressive to me.
-
Just think of the great things Rob could have done with his brain if he hadn't filled it with bird poop.
-
STDs, soaring divorce rate, shrinking populations…Gee, maybe the sexual revolution wasn't such a good thing after all. Who'd 'ave thunk? Oh yeah, the Church did.
-
I noticed that there were numerous times throughout the day when I would have unproductive downtime that could have been better spent catching up on my reading…[I]n homage to Mann’s [Hipster PDA] I introduce the Hipster Reader.
Funky Dung
Comments 4
Unfortunately, some of the children "at risk for obesity" are emotional minefields. Calling them "obese" or "fat" may not be an effective technique.
I know families with "at risk" children. In every case, there are medical and/or mental health issues involved.
It might be fun for people to call them fat, but you're assuming that their obesity is a moral failing. Depression used to be considered a moral failing, too — laziness. Calling a depressed person "lazy" was great fun, but it didn't do much for changing the person's behavior. Neither will using degrading names on a vulnerable population.
Maybe in some kids, using shocking terms might provoke an anger response that can be channeled toward eliminating the problem. In others, it might result in non-compliance with meds, recurrence of potentially lethal emotional problems, suicide, or an unwillingness to deal with the problem.
Personally, I'd suggest leaving the CDC terms "as is" and permitting doctors leeway based on the clinical picture.
And yes, I'm fat. I know I'm fat. I've run three frackin' marathons and I am fat.
Knowing I am fat and calling myself fat have done nothing to change the problem. Using the same emotional strength I used to run literally thousands of miles in training has resulted in the same weight since six months after I was first diagnosed as a diabetic. I can force my body to train for a marathon, but I cannot sufficiently control my food intake.
I am probably diabetic because I am fat. Or am I fat because I am diabetic? There's a new diabetes drug that seems to treat obesity as a side-effect — or quite possibly as it's primary mode of action. Strangely, many other, less effective diabetes drugs also cause the patient to lose weight, though not to the extent of this new drug.
So tell me — is my obesity a moral failing? Am I a glutton? Or am I diabetic?
Should I feel guilty? Would you taunt me for being fat because I am sinful? Is diabetes a moral failing, and depression a sin?
Even if I am sinful and that is why I am fat, do you really think you can make me feel any worse than I already do? Do you think your taunts would make me repent? Or resent?
+0
Posted 06 Jul 2006 at 8:15 pm ¶Eric, you know I'm a physics dork, why do you taunt me with a link claiming it's going to have symetry operations, only to give me a rant about bird poop?
Really, you built my hopes up. What now for my shattered love of learning?
+0
Posted 07 Jul 2006 at 12:38 am ¶John,
I'm still working on the post about knot theory and string theory, but it's…tangled. Sorry I'm not done with it yet (nor, at the rate things are going, ever will be). The "bird poop" article was just something silly. I'm in a good mood for once…more or less.
Of course, you do realize that the ability to identify birds based on the properties their feces and urates exhibit is, in fact, a symmetry operation? There's a transformative symmetry for dimensional coordinates, acceleration in a gravity field, and others. My wife claims that, relative to the chemicals of surfaces, symmetry is broken — she does have a point.
Why is my tag line getting picked up with the title? Oh well.
+0
Posted 07 Jul 2006 at 8:40 am ¶So call them something warm and fuzzy when you talk to them, but be blunt with the parents.
Crap rolls down hill, so everyone feels better by ripping on someone else. That can be "fun", but I never said that I found such behavior appropriate.
I'm not assuming moral failure, per se. I'm assuming that poor eating habits and insuffient exercise are important contributors to unhealthy weights and muscle/fat ratios.
Laziness and spiritual apathy are still moral failings. The criteria for laziness have changed, though, and depression would now be considered a mitigating factor that reduces or removes culpability.
My problem with that is that "at risk overweight" is Orwellian. You're not at risk, you're overweight. Whether it's your fault or not, you're not healthy and at risk of being worse.
You've said yourself in prior conversations that you wish you hadn't let your body go to hell. You were pleased that I changed my diet and started running because you hope that I'll be spared what you've gone through. It seems to me there's a very obvious relationship between your former lifestyle and the development of diabetes.
Your moral status prior to being diabetic is what's relevant. See above.
I won't taunt you. If you want a better word that "fat", find one and I might use it. I won't bullshit you, either. I wasn't "at risk overweight" three years ago, I was overweight. I still am. Making us feel comfortable with our bodies didn't light fires under our asses to make us live healthier lives by eating better and exercising more. A potentially deadly disease woke you up and pride spurred me.
Again, I am not advocating name-calling. I just want doctors and parents to stop pretending that the typical American lifestyle isn't a huge contributor to the current obesity epidemic.
+0
Posted 20 Jul 2006 at 3:08 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
Post a Comment