By personal choice I mean that not exercising isn't outlawed.

(February 6, 2011 at 1:19 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: By personal choice I mean that not exercising isn't outlawed.

Ah, yes. I see your point. Sorry about that.

(February 6, 2011 at 12:27 pm)Shell B Wrote: Not all people can exercise. Most people can practice basic hygiene, but hygiene really has nothing to do with being overweight or "chubby." Let's face it, most judgmental people don't look at an obese person and go, "Boy, they need to get exercise and practice healthy living." The sort of stigma I am talking about is that which typically goes something like, "Wow, what a disgusting fat ass." Stigma doesn't have to be negative (I mean, insulting). So why is it that is often the case? I think it is because some people are rather full of themselves and expect other people to be like them. I realize that expecting someone to exercise is still a little condescending, but it is far healthier than just writing someone off as a fat ass.

Usually, when a person lacks in one area, they lack also in other areas. One with poor choice of hygiene usually makes poor choices regarding exercise. As we are humans who are evolved to predict, analyze and simulate the actions of others, a consequence of that system is judgment calls, etc,. This has the effect of linking unrelated objects like exercise and hygiene together because of the way people operate.

Now, to deal with the majority of cases, not the exceptions like one being unable to exercise for medical reasons, it is a matter of personal choice.

It is a personal choice to not take showers.

It is a personal choice to not exercise.

It is also a personal choice to be negative all the time.

Point being, it is all personal choices for the majority of cases.

Therefore, it is nothing but reasonable to, as a personal choice, deride, judge, congratulate or hate those personal choices.

Hating things that cannot be changed is madness, but having a hatred for things that can be changed? Realistic.

Ergo, asking for people to not be judgmental of the fatties, is well... tilting at windmills.

Of course, then again, the very same judgmental folks may be doing just the same.

(February 6, 2011 at 4:08 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Usually, when a person lacks in one area, they lack also in other areas.

What about specialization? That's a case where you neglect certain areas of your life in order to be more proficient in one area.

I noted that you said 'usually' but I think it can often be the case that people neglect certain areas of their lives because they are obsessed with one area and are trying to 'specialize'.

I'm not hemorrhaging blood! I'm just specializing in red-themed Jackson Pollack art!

Really.

Anywho, with specialization, one does not neglect or purposefully damage pieces of oneself for another segment. To do so would be considered a tragedy at best and an aberration at worst. Since we are discussing the usual circumstances for the usual average Joe, we must ask ourselves, "When is it considered a usual and correct behaviour to purposefully neglect areas of yourself in favor of one thing? If so, how long can it go on for before becoming detrimental?"

I don't know. But what I have a conjecture of points to a need to be balanced in all things, mind and body.

It is self evident that too much weight or too little kills. It only makes sense to see that may be a local minima, a "happy medium" for you non-math people.

---

Tangent:
I find the upset over "fatties" and popular views to be quite funny - on one hand, you have people who are repulsed and dislike the state of "fat" in others, at a minimum, and will express it. The other hand has those who want the former to ignore it.

Both sides are silly in the fact that they both fantasize about controlling the overweight.

I think that accepting "fat" people is a non-issue, anymore than one must accept red heads and "get over themselves."

(February 6, 2011 at 7:46 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Both sides are silly in the fact that they both fantasize about controlling the overweight.

I think that accepting "fat" people is a non-issue, anymore than one must accept red heads and "get over themselves."

You seriously think that hoping (not asking or telling) people would either ignore the overweight or simply refrain from insulting them for their weight is attempting to control overweight people? One of us is missing something here.

The entire point is that what one person thinks is "fat" another person thinks is healthy. It is perfectly logical for me to hope people would back the fuck off of the weight issue when it becomes commonplace for healthy, average weight people to be called fat and therefore diet to lose weight.

It's really absurd for people to think that calling someone a fat ass is okay because people should exercise.

(February 6, 2011 at 12:27 pm)Shell B Wrote: ...but it makes me uncomfortable when someone feels bad because someone else thinks they should look different.

If they feel bad it's because they think they should look different.

Quote:The sort of stigma I am talking about is that which typically goes something like, "Wow, what a disgusting fat ass." Stigma doesn't have to be negative (I mean, insulting). So why is it that is often the case? I think it is because some people are rather full of themselves and expect other people to be like them.

No no no. I do not say "Wow, what a disgusting fat ass." because I'm rather full of myself and expect other people to be like me, I say "Wow, what a disgusting fat ass." because they are a disgusting fat ass.

Quote: I realize that expecting someone to exercise is still a little condescending, but it is far healthier than just writing someone off as a fat ass.

Expect them to get some exercise (or put down the doughnut) or write them off as a fat-ass, really, what's the differance? One is insultive and one is a 'suggestion for healthy living'?

I think if someone points out your fat-assness that in itself should be a suggestion for healthier living.

Shell B Wrote:I have to admit that I am an average looking person with average physical attributes, so I don't suffer so much from body image problems as other people, but it makes me uncomfortable when someone feels bad because someone else thinks they should look different.

I really hope at least some people think I should look different... I should be extremely irritated with them if they did not. It rather causes in me more self-discontent when people encourage/compliment my current appearance than when they side with me in disliking it across almost all aspects.

Shell Wrote:Not necessarily. There are people who cannot exercise enough to make a difference, medically speaking. There are also people who are overweight because of medical conditions. Of course, this isn't usually the case. Overeating tends to be the problem, but does that mean we should be judgmental about it? I don't think so. I could give a rat's house about a person's weight or appearance (unless they look like Ed Gein).

Sex with the male human walrus is... crushingly popular with the ladies...

Syna Wrote:Anywho, with specialization, one does not neglect or purposefully damage pieces of oneself for another segment. To do so would be considered a tragedy at best and an aberration at worst. Since we are discussing the usual circumstances for the usual average Joe, we must ask ourselves, "When is it considered a usual and correct behaviour to purposefully neglect areas of yourself in favor of one thing? If so, how long can it go on for before becoming detrimental?"

I don't know. But what I have a conjecture of points to a need to be balanced in all things, mind and body.

Depends on how useful the specializations are, and how useful the thing(s) one is weakening themself in are. Balance is all well and good... but being balanced doesn't mean one is talented. Talent is much more applicable than being a 'jack of all trades, master of none'. I'd rather have three masters in three fields working for me than one journeyman capable of the three noted fields that all compete for his time.

(February 7, 2011 at 6:24 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: Depends on how useful the specializations are, and how useful the thing(s) one is weakening themself in are. Balance is all well and good... but being balanced doesn't mean one is talented. Talent is much more applicable than being a 'jack of all trades, master of none'. I'd rather have three masters in three fields working for me than one journeyman capable of the three noted fields that all compete for his time.

Ironic, then, how new advances in the fields of biology and physics (biophysics) is being made by people capable of both fields. Of course, one field is actually very rigorous through mathematics, the other through memorization. Still, the destructive protein crystallography, inner ear, etc, projects must be lesser, after all, they have journeyman and masters in both fields.

Part of being in physics is the ability to work on damn near anything relating to math and science. Don't believe me, let the SPS speak: http://www.spsnational.org/cup/profiles/index.html

Point being, cross-disciplinary actions are becoming more valuable today, not pure specialization.

Syna Wrote:Still, the destructive protein crystallography, inner ear, etc, projects must be lesser, after all, they have journeyman and masters in both fields.

They are not made lesser projects by who works on them... and in relation to biophysics: a person has specialized in two 'separate' areas of science and joined them together to perform perhaps unique tasks. This instance of twin specializations is useful. A person specialized in astronomy and psychology is far far less capable of finding a way to join their specializations together into anything remotely useful.

Syna Wrote:Point being, cross-disciplinary actions are becoming more valuable today, not pure specialization.

Granted to an extent, though one still likely needs to have specialized in both/all applicable fields to perform well in multi-discipline tasks.