4 ms·

Most fat people don't have reasons other than stuffing their faces for being fat. As evidence for this, consider the fact that obesity is skyrocketing while mos

Most fat people don't have reasons other than stuffing their faces for being fat. As evidence for this, consider the fact that obesity is skyrocketing while most of the things on your list are not changing.

brotchie 12y ago
I don't disagree, but I feel you're implying that obese individuals have complete "self-aware" autonomy over their decision making. I can pick an obese individual out of a crowd and go "That guy is fat because he eats too much. Dude... have some self control, stop eating so much, buy healthy food, do some exercise, learn to cook for yourself." Focusing on an individual, all these things may be true, and one may seek to place all the blame on that individual. However, take a step back and look at the cohort of obese people. When entire swathes of society are suffering from these problems, I don't think you can point your finger and blame every obese person for "stuffing their faces." What collective forces are acting on the majority of the population that results in them eating poorly, not exercising, putting on weight year after year, etc? The more and more I've read about psychology, self-awareness, political science, etc, and observed how the media and business interests clearly influence behavior, the less and less I feel it's a viable position to attribute individual blame to "fat people" "poor people" "homeless people" for what are society wide issues.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Society is an abstraction for the aggregated product of individual actions. It's an abstraction layer above the level of individual choice, much as thermodynamics is an abstraction layer above mechanics. Now lets suppose we do want to work on the societal abstraction level. The problem is that the proportion of people making a certain individual choice has gone up. One solution is a pigouvian tax to disincentivize this choice. I agree you can't blame every single obese person for eating too much. You can only blame the vast majority of them - a small fraction really do have thyroid issues (and could potentially be excused from said tax).
  - estebank 12y ago
    1) people want line item veto from taxes? Where can individuals opt out of paying for wars they don't agree with? 2) taxing obese people would (beyond all the moral and ethical questions that arise) disproportionately affect people that already screwed by the status quo, people of lower income that cannot afford to eat better. Obesity is a symptom, in the same way that homelessness is a symptom of a failed policy towards mental disorders. Just as some people treat depression and PTSD though alcoholism, some people consume unhealthy food that is cheap and keeps them going. The same reason that demographic also disproportionately smokes, it's a cheap chemical hit that keeps them awake while working two jobs. This reeks of "Fuck you, I've got mine".
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      ...people of lower income that cannot afford to eat better. People of lower income can't afford to spend less money on food? ...keeps them awake while working two jobs. Please familiarize yourself with even the basic statistics on poverty in the west before discussing this topic further (hint: google the fraction of poor people who work).
    - girvo 12y ago
      You can achieve this tax without hurting those who don't overeat and under exercise, the same way we tax smokers and drinkers without hurting those who don't do either; tax it at the source, the food itself. Set up a tax system on junk food, etc. or something similar.
DanBC 12y ago
I mostly agree with your point[1] but you should be aware that seroquel and abilify (the 5th and 6th most prescribed medications in the US) both lost increased appetite and weight gain as side effects. The US also has a lot of "off label" prescribing of other anti psychotic meds. This includes risperidone - which again promotes weight gain. The rate of prescribing mental health meds has increased dramatically since the 1990s. The mechanism of weight gain for some mental health meds is not just "increased appetite, eats more" either. Part of it is the sedating effect so people need less calories, and there might be some changes to gut flora. Gut flora to lose weight: http://bbc.co.uk/news/health-22458428 http://bbc.co.uk/news/health-22458428 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-help-make-us-fat-and-thin/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-h... http://rt.com/usa/children-antipsychotic-taking-us-187/ http://rt.com/usa/children-antipsychotic-taking-us-187/ [1] are you aware how you come across and just don't care?
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  If one's calorie needs go down, one can reduce consumption, correct? Similarly, "increased appetite" is simply a desire to eat more - additionally, it's a signal that your mind can correctly dismiss once you know it's phony. Another choice is to do what people in 1989 did - not consume those pills. I'm aware you don't like me. I make no effort to signal loyalty to the American "blue tribe" (c.f. Scott Alexander [1]). Further, I am willing to discuss inconvenient facts/questions and I oppose the fashionable anti-intellectualism that's pushing into the tech world. This angers people. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - SamReidHughes 12y ago
    > additionally, it's a signal that your mind can correctly dismiss once you know it's phony. I know it's a phony signal yet I haven't correctly dismissed it. Please tell me what I'm doing wrong.
epsylon 12y ago
You don't tax the fat people, you tax the unhealthy food. As far as I've noticed, this is another very US-centric problem: portions are much larger and the food is much more carb-heavy in the US (compared to other developed countries). There's a strong cultural aspect to that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_tax

brotchie 12y ago

I don't disagree, but I feel you're implying that obese individuals have complete "self-aware" autonomy over their decision making. I can pick an obese individual out of a crowd and go "That guy is fat because he eats too much. Dude... have some self control, stop eating so much, buy healthy food, do some exercise, learn to cook for yourself." Focusing on an individual, all these things may be true, and one may seek to place all the blame on that individual. However, take a step back and look at the cohort of obese people. When entire swathes of society are suffering from these problems, I don't think you can point your finger and blame every obese person for "stuffing their faces." What collective forces are acting on the majority of the population that results in them eating poorly, not exercising, putting on weight year after year, etc? The more and more I've read about psychology, self-awareness, political science, etc, and observed how the media and business interests clearly influence behavior, the less and less I feel it's a viable position to attribute individual blame to "fat people" "poor people" "homeless people" for what are society wide issues.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Society is an abstraction for the aggregated product of individual actions. It's an abstraction layer above the level of individual choice, much as thermodynamics is an abstraction layer above mechanics. Now lets suppose we do want to work on the societal abstraction level. The problem is that the proportion of people making a certain individual choice has gone up. One solution is a pigouvian tax to disincentivize this choice. I agree you can't blame every single obese person for eating too much. You can only blame the vast majority of them - a small fraction really do have thyroid issues (and could potentially be excused from said tax).
- estebank 12y ago
  1) people want line item veto from taxes? Where can individuals opt out of paying for wars they don't agree with? 2) taxing obese people would (beyond all the moral and ethical questions that arise) disproportionately affect people that already screwed by the status quo, people of lower income that cannot afford to eat better. Obesity is a symptom, in the same way that homelessness is a symptom of a failed policy towards mental disorders. Just as some people treat depression and PTSD though alcoholism, some people consume unhealthy food that is cheap and keeps them going. The same reason that demographic also disproportionately smokes, it's a cheap chemical hit that keeps them awake while working two jobs. This reeks of "Fuck you, I've got mine".
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    ...people of lower income that cannot afford to eat better. People of lower income can't afford to spend less money on food? ...keeps them awake while working two jobs. Please familiarize yourself with even the basic statistics on poverty in the west before discussing this topic further (hint: google the fraction of poor people who work).
  - girvo 12y ago
    You can achieve this tax without hurting those who don't overeat and under exercise, the same way we tax smokers and drinkers without hurting those who don't do either; tax it at the source, the food itself. Set up a tax system on junk food, etc. or something similar.

DanBC 12y ago

I mostly agree with your point[1] but you should be aware that seroquel and abilify (the 5th and 6th most prescribed medications in the US) both lost increased appetite and weight gain as side effects. The US also has a lot of "off label" prescribing of other anti psychotic meds. This includes risperidone - which again promotes weight gain. The rate of prescribing mental health meds has increased dramatically since the 1990s. The mechanism of weight gain for some mental health meds is not just "increased appetite, eats more" either. Part of it is the sedating effect so people need less calories, and there might be some changes to gut flora. Gut flora to lose weight: http://bbc.co.uk/news/health-22458428 http://bbc.co.uk/news/health-22458428 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-help-make-us-fat-and-thin/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-h... http://rt.com/usa/children-antipsychotic-taking-us-187/ http://rt.com/usa/children-antipsychotic-taking-us-187/ [1] are you aware how you come across and just don't care?

yummyfajitas 12y ago
If one's calorie needs go down, one can reduce consumption, correct? Similarly, "increased appetite" is simply a desire to eat more - additionally, it's a signal that your mind can correctly dismiss once you know it's phony. Another choice is to do what people in 1989 did - not consume those pills. I'm aware you don't like me. I make no effort to signal loyalty to the American "blue tribe" (c.f. Scott Alexander [1]). Further, I am willing to discuss inconvenient facts/questions and I oppose the fashionable anti-intellectualism that's pushing into the tech world. This angers people. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  > additionally, it's a signal that your mind can correctly dismiss once you know it's phony. I know it's a phony signal yet I haven't correctly dismissed it. Please tell me what I'm doing wrong.

epsylon 12y ago

You don't tax the fat people, you tax the unhealthy food. As far as I've noticed, this is another very US-centric problem: portions are much larger and the food is much more carb-heavy in the US (compared to other developed countries). There's a strong cultural aspect to that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda_tax