Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 151

Thread: Negative Body Image

  1. #101
    Bad Enough Dude to Rescue the President Kodos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,897
    "No. The expectation is made before any words come out of anyone's mouths. The expectation is created as soon as a black person walks into a room. The expectation is broken when the word 'nigger' is said. The person is not held accountable for saying what they said, they are held accountable for the meaning that someone else attributes it to. Which is stupid. "

    Do you like big boobs? Dragons? Ninja? Martial arts? Wizards? Then click here and make all your wildest dreams come true!!

  2. #102
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Except "nigger" is widely considered a racial slur? Has no medical or diagnostic value? Has a history of being used harmfully against a group of people for something that 1.) they cannot change 2.) poses no detriment to anyone and 3.) has no significance in identifying personal or characteristic deficiencies? Associated with some of the worst inhumane and violent crimes of the past few centuries? There are key differences between "fat" and "nigger" Kodos that you are deliberately ignoring.

  3. #103
    Bad Enough Dude to Rescue the President Kodos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,897
    1. Why should fat people have to change?
    1.5. Being healthy and/or thin is expensive. Skinniness and healthiness - which are not the same thing - are both luxuries that many Americans cannot afford.
    2. What detriment does being fat pose? What detriment does being black pose?
    3. What personal deficiency does being fat illustrate? Tell me, please, I'm dying to know why fatties are untermensch worthy only of our scorn.

    Do you like big boobs? Dragons? Ninja? Martial arts? Wizards? Then click here and make all your wildest dreams come true!!

  4. #104
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Kodos View Post
    1. Why should fat people have to change?
    They don't. I said I'm perfectly fine with fat people being fat. It's the fat people who are bothered by their own weight and force others to walk on eggshells around them that bother me.

    1.5. Being healthy and/or thin is expensive. Skinniness and healthiness - which are not the same thing - are both luxuries that many Americans cannot afford.
    I don't argue that. But see, what you're saying is people cannot afford to be healthy. In other words, people are forced--by lack of accessibility to healthy options--to be fat. You are creating a dichotomy between "healthy" and "fat".

    2. What detriment does being fat pose? What detriment does being black pose?
    Are you seriously suggesting that obesity isn't a health problem? Cuz you know, 30%+ of American adults are obese and it threatens to shorten their lifespans. Far more are overweight and even more are out of shape. I'm not saying "being fat poses a detriment 100% of the time", but it is a possible indicator of conditions that may. And avoiding the topic doesn't help identify them. And being black poses no detriment at all. That was my point.

    3. What personal deficiency does being fat illustrate?
    I dunno, the ones that toast, Inksprout and I have been discussing for the past 4 pages? An inability to cope with one's insecurities. An inability to leave one's comfort zones? Potential laziness? Of course, this is not 100% true. But like I said, avoiding the subject altogether doesn't help identify the cases where it is true, which do exist.

    Tell me, please, I'm dying to know why fatties are untermensch worthy only of our scorn.
    Right. That's what I've been saying.

  5. #105
    Bad Enough Dude to Rescue the President Kodos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,897
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    They don't. I said I'm perfectly fine with fat people being fat. It's the fat people who are bothered by their own weight and force others to walk on eggshells around them that bother me.
    It is so difficult for you not to use the word 'fat' that it is equivalent to walking on eggshells? Your vocabulary is that limited and/or you are that impulsive?
    And, again, how is this an issue? To my knowledge people are not saying "never use the word fat, ever" they are simply saying "I find the word fat pejorative, please don't use it in my presence. Thank you."

    I don't argue that. But see, what you're saying is people cannot afford to be healthy. In other words, people are forced--by lack of accessibility to healthy options--to be fat. You are creating a dichotomy between "healthy" and "fat".
    Did you read what I wrote, at all? I said they cannot afford to be healthy and/or skinny. The affordable food options for most Americans are both unhealthy and fattening. Not all fat people are unhealthy, not all skinny people are healthy. But the affordable food options for most Americans are both fat heavy and unhealthy.

    Are you seriously suggesting that obesity isn't a health problem? Cuz you know, 30%+ of American adults are obese and it threatens to shorten their lifespans. Far more are overweight and even more are out of shape. I'm not saying "being fat poses a detriment 100% of the time", but it is a possible indicator of conditions that may. And avoiding the topic doesn't help identify them. And being black poses no detriment at all. That was my point.
    Some people may choose that the pleasure they gain from eating fatty foods is worth the shorter lifespan. Fat related health complications are not contagious. It is not your place to judge whether or not this is an acceptable trade-off. Many people find the pleasure of a rough sport like football or boxing to be worth the associated health risks.
    So, no, try again.

    I dunno, the ones that toast, Inksprout and I have been discussing for the past 4 pages? An inability to cope with one's insecurities. An inability to leave one's comfort zones? Potential laziness? Of course, this is not 100% true. But like I said, avoiding the subject altogether doesn't help identify the cases where it is true, which do exist.
    Please demonstrate to me the connection between being fat and all these things. Because, see, where I am standing, the only thing being fat illustrates is "this person eats a lot of fatty foods and doesn't exercise enough to off-set that fat."
    Also, let's entertain your madness. Okay. In fact, let's go a step further. Every single fat person is insecure, unable to leave their comfort zone, and lazy. So what?


    Right. That's what I've been saying.
    You are saying that being fat is an objectively bad thing and that you have the right to call fat people fat whether or not they want you to. You have not demonstrated that fatness is objectively bad, and you have not demonstrated why you calling fat people fat when they would rather you didn't is not you being a massive prick.

    Do you like big boobs? Dragons? Ninja? Martial arts? Wizards? Then click here and make all your wildest dreams come true!!

  6. #106
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,337
    Cypress, your dispute with Kodos and I arises from our differing semiotic perspectives.

    You argue that the meaning of language (here 'fat') is created entirely by the listener, without any reference to the intention of the speaker or to social context. Within this perspective your argument is perfectly acceptable; 'fat' is insulting because the listener deems it insulting, the speaker bears no responsibility for the listener's interpretation, and so on. This would be a perfectly acceptable perspective a century or so ago, before philosophy of language really got started. However, there are a number of simple arguments that can easily show how useless this theory is. Here's one Kodos made on AIM:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kodos
    - The man is literally like a brother to me. I'm as close with him as any two people can be in a non-romantic relationship. We've been friends for ages. Anyway.
    - "Sup shitbitch."
    - "Assmonger."
    - By Cype's logic
    - We are insulting eachother.
    - Because words have only one meaning
    - And context and social setting can't matter
    Kodos and I are arguing that the intention of the speaker and the social context are important in interpreting the meaning of language, hence calling someone 'fat' is an insult in a context where it is deemed to be insulting. Moreover Kodos' example shows how important the intention of the speaker is to fully understanding the social context. Your calling someone fat, unless they're a close friend who doesn't care, is rude because the social context says it is. Claiming that it's the offended person's fault for being offended totally ignores the way language is normally used.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

  7. #107
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Kodos View Post
    It is so difficult for you not to use the word 'fat' that it is equivalent to walking on eggshells? Your vocabulary is that limited and/or you are that impulsive?
    Nope. It's one of many words I could use, but why should I censor myself in that single instance anyway?

    I said they cannot afford to be healthy and/or skinny.
    So they can only afford to be fat, right.

    It is not your place to judge whether or not this is an acceptable trade-off.
    So you agree that it does generally pose a detriment, then. I agree that it's not my place to judge. But I'm not judging. Lol. I was just pointing out why your replacing the word 'fat' with 'nigger' in the context of my post doesn't make any sense.

    Many people find the pleasure of a rough sport like football or boxing to be worth the associated health risks.
    Except football players and boxers are generally healthier than most average people?

    Please demonstrate to me the connection between being fat and all these things.
    It's clear you didn't go back and read these posts because Inksprout herself is having issues feeling relaxed in a gym environment and we are discussing how that is negatively affecting her desire to lose weight... C'mon now.

    So what?
    So nothing. Like I said, I made these points to show that using the word 'nigger' in place of 'fat' in my post doesn't make any sense.

    You are saying that being fat is an objectively bad thing.
    Obesity is an objectively bad thing, yes. If you were to disagree, I'd have to say you're insane. Being overweight is not necessarily bad, but being out of shape does have lasting health repercussions. Either way, no, I'm not saying that being fat is an objectively bad thing. I, myself, have stated that there are exceptions. I'm saying it's a general indicator of bad things.



    And yes, Delphinus, I agree. We're just looking at the word differently. But at the same time, even though I have extensively explained that I do not mean it as an insult, for some reason the last 6 or so pages of this thread insisted that it was. There are some words that, despite social context and etiquette, are so needlessly reactive that it doesn't make sense. Fat is //clearly// one of them.

    I also like how nobody says shit about the liberal use of the word "nigger" and "faggot" on the internet but, by God, if you call someone "fat", you are damned for eternity.

    Quote Originally Posted by indescribable View Post
    Quick question: Is your excess weight due to muscle mass or actual fat?
    I'm about 30 pounds overweight. I'd say it's like 20 pounds worth of muscle and lots of bone density and 10 pounds of fat.
    Last edited by CypressDahlia; 06-29-2012 at 03:18 PM.

  8. #108
    Regular Member Sunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    195
    I think there's a fine line between just being an asshat, and actually doing something that's useful. IMHO, you shouldn't always waste your breath. Yes, people get butthurt over everything; have a cookie. But sometimes, opinions need to gtfo. I mean, you're not part of that person's life, so you can't really know what they are really all going through. You can, from a subjective point of view, but that's really it. I do think you're responsible for what you say and that, yea, there are times when you need to say something, and other times when you need to nut up and shut up. Karma is a bitch, but it really depends on the kind of person you're talking to and how well you know them. Some people need to have things said in a softer tone, and others need a swift kick in the ass.

    Regardless, so what if people stick in their comfort zones? If you really just don't care, then why does it matter if people feel if they're beautiful or not? Why do you feel the need to tell people they're this, that, or the other? And why SHOULDN'T people be offended? Shouldn't they have a right to be just as opinionated as you are?

    An opinion is like a fart. It's fine to have an opinion, but like a fart, there are just times where you shouldn't rip one. Knowing when to say something, and when not to, I think, is a sign of maturity, and not just a recognized effort to understand social graces. Personally, I think it shows that you have the wisdom and understanding to let people be themselves, whether or not you agree or disagree, like or dislike with what they're doing with their lives.

    So, no, I don't think you should go around calling people fat and not take responsibility for it. It's a social taboo everybody knows; it's not hard to understand. But if someone is lying about paperwork at work and blaming it on you, you should get out the whips and slap some bitches. Good day!

  9. #109
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunny View Post
    So, no, I don't think you should go around calling people fat and not take responsibility for it. It's a social taboo everybody knows; it's not hard to understand.
    So wait, you're telling me that we have a 70 page thread dedicated solely to making insulting generalizations about the largest religious constituency on the planet--that's 2.1 billion people--and that hasn't bothered anyone but calling a person fat based on relatively objective and quantifiable factors is such a social taboo?

    I think MT ethics, for the most part, are pretty Lol-worthy but this kinda takes the cake. "Fat" is super inflammatory but vilifying a third of the planet for mere beliefs is not. I give a slow clap for how ass backwards this whole discussion is.

  10. #110
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,337
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    And yes, Delphinus, I agree. We're just looking at the word differently. But at the same time, even though I have extensively explained that I do not mean it as an insult, for some reason the last 6 or so pages of this thread insisted that it was. There are some words that, despite social context and etiquette, are so needlessly reactive that it doesn't make sense. Fat is //clearly// one of them.
    Don't you see that social context is what makes it reactive?
    I didn't say "it's all opinions", I said we take differing semiotic viewpoints, and that your argument for 'fat' only being offensive because the perceiver deems it so is based on a semiotic view that can easily be proven to be false. Ergo your argument is false, because it rests on shaky foundations.

    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia
    So wait, you're telling me that we have a 70 page thread dedicated solely to making insulting generalizations about the largest religious constituency on the planet--that's 2.1 billion people--and that hasn't bothered anyone but calling a person fat based on relatively objective and quantifiable factors is such a social taboo?
    Firstly, this is irrelevant to the actual argument and is a form of ad hominem attack, even if it were true: your opponents argue for a viewpoint that you find loathsome, therefore their arguments are unsound. That's politician logic, and worse: conservative politician logic. Secondly, I think if you were to look in the Psalm thread rather than make 'insulting generalisations' about the views there, you'd find that most of the regular posters don't believe that individual believers are in the wrong or bad people. We argue against the belief system, rather than villainising individual believers. We may use the loathsome actions of some individual believers as examples of 'bad religion' but we don't think all religious people are like that: Jack and Joe Christian are probably nice people.

    Speaking solely for myself, I think there are positive moral and spiritual messages to be taken from many of the world's religions, but that the organised nature and dogmatism of these religions undermines their positive message. I also believe that religious texts ought to be treated as any work of literature: you can feel free to agree or disagree with particular parts of it. I think religion does reveal truths, but these truths are not spiritual or metaphysical, they're psychological. For example, I agree with the Catholic idea of God (the Father) as an impersonal and distant presence, which bears some resemblance to eastern religious ideas, but with the Protestant idea of the individual, rather than collective, search for religious truth. I fail to see the problem with this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenn
    You forgot your F in Modesty.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •