You raise a good point about values Paul, and those values are linked to the culture we are immersed in.

I've often found it interesting to look back through our human history to find the roots of certain beliefs that seem to have little basis in fact, but come from perceptions of moral good.

For example, I am not a person that likes to rise early in the morning, I find that I do my best and most enjoyable work at night. This is seen as being morally bad according to some people I know, and some relatives. When I asked them why they saw this as being wrong they couldn't come up with an answer that didn't involve the moral view that people who are early risers are somehow just better people, than those that rise later, and work later into the night. One even quoted the old adage, "early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise", although there is no basis in fact for this saying, it is widely accepted.

I'm also a person who values intellectual pursuits, I love reading, I love playing and composing music, I enjoy painting and drawing and creating objects that have no practical use, I enjoy technology, I am considered a geek, weird, odd etc. I dislike physical exercise for the sake of it, although enjoy exercise that is simply part of the pursuits I enjoy, such as gardening and walking. I have experienced many times the moral indignation of those that believe that slogging away for hours on a bicycle, at a gym, or running many kms per day, is what people "should" be doing to be good and healthy, when this also has no basis in fact, and I've often wondered where the root of this comes from.

Perhaps it is the puritanical view, (a left over from the religious past), that idle hands, or minds, lead to evil at worst or mischief at best. Perhaps a fear that those that think, look, and behave differently from the norm, are threatening to those that seek to control and have power over others.

For me, real freedom from discrimination and oppression, comes when we ourselves choose to ignore the views of others. I found it liberating to realise that I didn't care what others thought of my appearance, and I stopped comparing myself to others. I stopped listening to the advice of people who took a moral view of weight and exercise, and started listening to my own body.

If we all looked the same, thought the same, behaved the same, we would be so much easier to control. As you said this is a deep and complex issue.

I apologise if this post seems a little rambling and incoherent, more a stream of thought rather than trying to make a succinct point, but your post got me thinking :)

Judith Olney wrote; "if this post seems a little rambling and incoherent,..." No you write well, and the observation that discrimination is subjective is clearly going over many heads. I liked your point about carried over values; "that idle hands, or minds" One of many truism or meme, used frequently by authoritarian thinking. The irony is the next stage of human development, focus is on material pleasure and physical training is inclusive. Can you just imagine what the general population of an early agrian / feudal era, would make of that?
Mostly peoples values are dominated by authoritarian views or use scientific rationalisation and being on these earlier stages of development they cannot see the overview. Which is ok, fine and appropriate for this level of thought.
Expecting the thinking of Deborah Lupton premis to appeal to this level is very optimistic. Really those like you who are applying critical thinking to both sides of this issue of discrimination is her target. That is how cultures develop, change and evolve, it is not by clinging to earlier values but adding to them. As time goes by and science on the whole issue of the human body evolves it will carry the scientific rationalists forward. There really is no place in our human future for authoritarianism and hopefully the memes of previous generations will die out. Thanks for all you wrote, in this sea of comments it was refreshing to read.

Mathew Erskine wrote; "Therefore, being fat is either an unhealthy life choice, or the symptom of a medical or mental illness." This worldview is interesting, but still narrow. It really would be good if this extremely complex issue was as simple as that.
Matthew Erskine wrote ; "Should it maybe be stigmatised, without being discriminated against?"
Neither, in answer to your rhetorical question.
Matthew Erskine wrote ; ".... unhealthy is surely similar to saying we should merely accept mental illness" This is an over simplification, but yes we need to be tolerant of the mentally ill. Particularly as their life conditions are often trapped in their interior and unknown. Our belief we understand 'why' they are what they are, can only be a projection of our values and a reaction to our cognitive bias.
Matthew Erskine wrote ; "..no need to look for a cure". Humans evolving will always search out 'cures', the most topical one currently is 'microbiota' in the human gut. Some of us aquire a colony of microbiota from their mothers that process food and eliminates most of the energy. Some are never breast fed or born naturally to receive the colony, others have it killed off by antibiotics. There are many variables in the structure of every humans personal microbiota. The research is young, and groups developing the knowledge is growing. Do you think the researchers use 'discrimination' on fat people?
Matthew Erskine wrote ; "... just accept that some people suffer from depression, or cancer? We can always choose to accept people for who they are, it is up to your values. Discrimination has little to do with science, it is about values. If your values include discriminating against fat people, own them.
But how does 'discrimination' help fat people live happy, healthy and safe lives? Something to think about.
It is interesting 'discriminators' always have justification for their values and are unable to see they discriminate. Here is an example of colour 'discrimination'.
If you have not seen Jane Elliot, can only recommend watching it and if you do not see parallels in the comments here, it will be surprising. - http://youtu.be/XAv8JA_9uKI
[P.S.if the link dies she is easily found on YT.]

Thanks for your reply Paul, I enjoy reading your posts a great deal.

Here's another little idea that I would be interested in your views on.

I have noticed that when people are discriminated against, whether that be because they are different to the norm because of skin colour, sexuality, body size, or smoking, or whatever the difference is, they will tend to withdraw from the people that discriminate, not seek their advice or company.

I have noticed this within my own circle of friends and acquaintances. The people that are discriminated against for being over weight, tend to avoid those doing the discriminating, and stick with people who accept them without judgement and discrimination, because they are also overweight, or standard weight people that don't use discrimination.

A person that thinks they are doing the "right" thing by discriminating against the overweight, could be missing out on knowing some really wonderful human beings, simply because they refuse to accept one aspect of this human beings life.

Why is discrimination better than gentle and loving encouragement towards choosing healthier ways of living? It seems to me that people think that discrimination works. I know several smokers who have quit smoking, they didn't do it because other non-smokers discriminated against them, or treated them badly because they smoked. They quit because as more information became available about the health effects of smoking, they chose to give up, either for their own health or the health of their loved ones that were affected by their smoking, discrimination did not cause them to change their behaviour, knowledge and love of others and themselves, did.

Discrimination builds resentment, and anger, and does not encourage change in behaviour, but will often entrench behaviour.

What happens when being overweight is the norm? Will the tables turn on those that are now standard weight when they become the minority? What happens if being overweight had no health implications for the person, or it was found that being overweight was in fact the healthier option? Will there be a revolution?

I'm inclined to agree with Mike here. Being fat is a choice.
I definitely have a perception of being fat as a negative quality. As such I probably discriminate subconsciously against fat people.

Rather than simply pointing out that fat discrimination exists, would it be possible to address why fat discrimination is unfair?

I agree with the notion that overweight bodies are unattractive. It would be hard to change my mind otherwise. But I would be interested to have any prejudices regarding laziness, being a drain on public health, being greedy etc addressed.

While on the topic of fat discrimination, is there a risk that being accepting of obesity will only encourage poor health? Is stigmatising obesity really any different to stigmatising smoking?

Mike Swinbourne wrote; There are "negative concepts of fatness" for the simple reason that being fat is not a good thing.
'not a good thing' - Neither are life conditions e.g past generations tribal beliefs, inherited microbiota, and an industrialised food system driven by exponential profit.
This issue of discrimination is a very complex issue, as Australia and the global community is on many stages of human development. It would be great if it this issue was as 'simplistic' as
"People are fat because they eat too much and do not exercise enough. Full stop."
This kind of 'discrimination' is precisely Deborah Lupton's premiss, thank you for demonstrating it.
We can only hope you evolve through this level of thinking.

Rosco Hamilton wrote; "........ would it be possible to address why fat discrimination is unfair?

Deborah Lupton, did point out it was unfair. Unless you feel making people feel negative about themselves and others who do not enjoy your life conditions have value.

Is that not what 'discrimination' is? How many areas does this apply to? Discrimination covers many areas of the human condition, skin colour, birth place, schooling, employment, family history, schooling, wealth, even a choice to be a cyclist.

So, Mike, you believe that because being overweight is avoidable a fat person is fair game for abuse and discrimination? Really?

Ok, lets for one insane minute assume that they deserve all the abuse and discrimination they get. Say we have a person who is 40 kilos overweight, and they diet and exercise and do all the things necessary to lose this weight. At which stage do they gain the right to again be treated like a human again?

Bear it mind it can take a couple of years of extreme discipline to lose a large amount of weight. Probably more discipline than most thin people exercise on a daily basis.

Paul Richards wrote:

"This kind of 'discrimination' is precisely Deborah Lupton's premiss, thank you for demonstrating it. We can only hope you evolve through this level of thinking."

Your welcome. Now how about you actually do some critical thinking. Being fat is a choice and fat people are fat because they eat too much and do not exercise enough. That is a fact that no amount of 'poltical correctness' will ever change. Of course there are reasons why some people gain weight more easily or find it more difficult to lose weight. But that does not change biology. If you have a 'low metabolism' etc, then eat less. It's not rocket science.

And a disclaimer - I am a few kilos overweight. And I know how difficult it can be to lose that weight - I have tried. But that does not change the fact that it is my fault because I eat and drink too much and lead a fairly sedentary lifestyle.

And Leonie Price. You wrote this:
"So, Mike, you believe that because being overweight is avoidable a fat person is fair game for abuse and discrimination? Really?"

Stop constructing strawmen. If you can't argue against my actual point, then don't argue at all. I did not say anywhere in my post that it was ok to abuse fat people. I said - very clearly so that anyone could understand it (well - maybe not anyone), that being fat was a choice, and that being fat is not a good thing.

But yes, it IS ok to disciminate. We discriminate every day - every time we make a choice. That's what the word discriminate means. The determining factor is whether or not that discrimination is justified. There are fashion stores for 'skinny people' which don't stock any sizes larger than 14. And there are fashion stores for 'plus size' people that only stock sizes 16 and up. And in doing so they are discriminating based on weight/size. Are you going to claim that they can't do so?

In some circumstances it IS justifiable to discriminate against fat people, We don't make train seats wide enough for some of the fat people I see every day in my commute. That's discrimination. Is that ok, or should all train seats be wider?

James I'm not trying to make a point about public health and obesity, just asking a question.
Do any commonly held prejudices against obesity hold true?

After all, I'm hardly the sort of person that would hurl insults at anyone for being fat. I dont see any sense in making someone feel bad for being big.
When I speak to a black man, I dont assume that he is going to rob me. When I speak to a homosexual, I dont go thinking he will be a paedophile. Yet those used to be common preconceptions.

But if you were to ask me which of my colleges is going to die of a heart attack first? Without being on an anti-fat crusade, I'm still likely to think the obese colleagues are going to be the best candidates.
I would have thought that rather than saying "it's unfair to discriminate", it would be most effective to tackle societies prejudices with a bit of evidence.

As for cyclists and injuries? You may have missed the all important bit of information about motorists causing most of those injuries. Would I ban cars from roads? I would love that to happen. Its just a pity a pedal powered ambulance isnt a practical reality.

Mike Swinbourne wrote ; ".... Your welcome. Now how about you actually do some critical thinking. Being fat is a choice and fat people are fat because they eat too much and do not exercise enough."
Hmmm ..... interesting thanks, a cultural truism.
We understand you vehemently disagree with the author Deborah Lupton's premiss on discrimination. Your values are respected as most of us once held similar views and they are within our interior. So the position taken is understandable, but your opinion.
Mike Swinburne wrote; "There are "negative concepts of fatness" for the simple reason that being fat is not a good thing." Another truism, profound observation.
Can you please explain how 'discrimination' contributes to fat peoples well being and health?
Since you are an avid critical thinker, your opposing perspective to Deborah Lupton's could be interesting.

Mike Swinbourne wrote; "....Well Paul if you disagree with my point about fat being a choice based on calories in exceeding calories out, then perhaps you can explain why?"
Firstly, the question posed was not a 'strawman' argument, but it can be if you feel it works, up to you.
I wrote; "can you please explain how 'discrimination' contributes to fat peoples well being and health?"
Mike Swinbourne wrote; "Well Paul if you disagree with my point about fat being a choice based on calories in exceeding calories out, then perhaps you can explain why." I don't, it is part of the 'story' or if you like the 'holon'.
Mike Swinbourne wrote; " We 'discriminate' against smokers. We shame them and ostracise them for their unhealthy lifestyle choices. What's the difference?" Smokers may very well feel discriminated against by individuals. But that type of personal 'discrimination' is just another facit of an un-evolved level of thinking, an undeveloped stage of human development. Discrimination is 'discrimination. The unaware can be emotionally triggered to respond inappropriately, as can the aware. Deborah Lupton's premiss can just as easily applied to smokers. With the caveat, that when we sit next to fat people we are not forced to eat their food. Neither does food aroma cause disease, bring on an asthma attack or cause harm to others. The culprit with smoking is the non living corporations desire for exponential profit above human health. I have no issue with discriminating against a non living entities with an unending life. It is interesting we get our food distributed largely by the same types of corporations and this again is part of the complexity of the issue.
Do you have a tobacco addiction, is this an emotional trigger for you? [rhetorical an interior question]
As you have written a great deal how Deborah Lupton's is wrong because ....
[reapeating] Can you please explain how 'discrimination' [exclusion, bigotry etc.etc.] contributes to fat peoples well being and health?
It is a very direct question, and goes to the very core Deborah Lupton's article. [your opinion will be respected by me]
The premiss of Deborah Lupton's article is topical, based on helping fat people lead happy and healthy lives. If you disagree, that's ok.
[reapeating] ; "can you please explain how 'discrimination' contributes to fat peoples well being and health?"

Paul, I am not sure why you are asking me (again) to explain how 'discrimination' [exclusion, bigotry etc.etc.] contributes to fat peoples well being and health? It is not a claim I have made.

But I suppose that (surmising here) that discrimination is a form of negative reinforcement (operant conditioning if you like) and that you can change behaviour through the application of such conditioning.

Now whether or not that works is something that can be debated - but it is the basis for much of how we control behaviour in our culture. And since we have determined that being fat is the result of undesirable behaviour, then it is hardly surprising that we would (consciously or unconsciously) utilise a common tool that we usually employ in such circumstances.

However, I make no claims about whether or not this is appropriate. You asked me a question about how discrimination can improve the health etc of fat people, and I have offered a possible answer.

Is that what you are after?

Mike Swinbourne wrote; "However, I make no claims about whether or not this is appropriate. ....Is that what you are after?" That works, we are purporting to be critical thinkers on this argument.
Your opinion stands.
Your 'why' you 'judge them' is crystal clear.
Your 'how' we help them by 'discrimination' is, you are unsure.
Appreciate your candor in a public forum. Your 'defence' of discrimination has not been offensive personally, wishing you well this year and many more.

Sue Ieraci wrote ; "So, does that mean that we should continue to tolerate the tribal beliefs and exponential profit of "industrialised food systems", or should we work towards better choices for good health?"
From your perspective you can see it that way, that's ok.
The application of understanding could be inclusive and demonstrate a tolerance of others values. The late Fred Hollows modeled an evolved set of values in the application his knowledge, do you think he worked toward better choices?

No, Geoffrey Edwards, giving advice about behaviour that improves health is not moralising.

I am not saying that people who smoke or drink to excess are "bad" people. Many smokers, for example, self-treat anxiety with cigarettes. Should I, as a health care practitioner, not assist them in modifying one of their major health risks?

Geoffrey Edwards - if my job is to promote good health, and people consult me for my opinion, then my advice is no more moral advice than if I consulted my mechanic because my clutch was worn out or brake pads gone, and they advised me to stop riding the clutch or brakes.

Advice about modifying one's behaviour to achieve a better result is not all about morals or value judgments - no more than sport coaching or piano lessons are moral.

If your saxophone teacher suggests you stop smoking to be able to play better, are they giving moral advice?

"Should I do X or Y?" is not necessarily a moral question. It could mean "does the evidence tell me it is better to be up-to-date with tetanus vaccination or not?"

If one goes to the extreme and calls every choice between alternatives a moral one, then the meaning of the word "moral" is lost. "Better" need not mean "more worthy" - but "likely to yield a more acceptable outcome".

Geoffrey Edwards - you have gone to an awfully long effort to press your point.

You ought to drop it now.

That's not a piece of moral advice - just a practical one.

Mark Carter said; "A true friend of the obese wouldn't make excuses and encourage a culture of victimhood" Good point mark, but only as as part of the process.
Critical thinking requires us to look at both sides.
So how does 'discrimination' help discourage a culture of victimhood?
It could be interesting to hear your perspective.

Mark,

You present a false dichotomy. People are not being asked to lie about anything, least of all potentially life threatening conditions brought on by morbid obesity.

Rather, it is suggested that people stop behaving as if the insults and mockery regularly directed at overweight people is permissable and justified.

I was a chunky kid and subjected to bullying at school. I lost weight and was a slim and athletic adult. But they psychological scars were not removed, and the realisation that my physical appearance mattered more than my thoughts and abilities was one ugliest of my life. It soured my relationships and my life for years.

The damage to peoples mental health caused by prevailing attitudes can be just as devastating as the more obvious physical issues.

Mark Carter wrote; "I doubt anyone here is condoning the deliberate bullying or belittling people because of their weight, but a lot of the time we are talking obese people take offense when a medical professional tells them they must prioritise loosing weight." Interesting point, and valid. But being honest with ourselves, it is just part of the complex story attached to peoples life conditions.
If you watch any of Jane Elliot's exercises on blue collar vs brown collar. The excuses people in the exercise make sound remarkably similar, in fact those discriminating in the exercise vehemently deny they do. Interesting .....
Mark Carter wrote "Like I said, real friends don't lie to you." Friends don't discriminate either do they?
Your why people may discriminate is clear.
But the how 'discrimination' works for fat peoples health, happiness and general well being is not working for the spectrum of issues involved.
This is not a one size fits all issue, just taking into consideration human variety and life conditions. However, if you see it that way that's ok, most of us did at one time.
Very interesting premiss that Deborah Lupton's article covers. Something to think about.
Jane Elliot's exercises in the UK;
http://youtu.be/XAv8JA_9uKI?t=3m39s
[Jane Elliot's exercises easily searched if the link dies]

PC? Group-think? Circle-jerk?

Trifecta!

Here is some Nietzsche for you:

"My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—all idealism is mendaciousness in the face of what is necessary—but love it." - Ecce Homo

"I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer." - The Gay Science

Maybe you might choose to—look away?

Well Mark, it looks like you are just as judgemental as the people you are complaining about for being judgemental.

Asinine fools huh? But please tell me - if you say people are 'asinine fools' for saying being fat is a personal choice, does that make you an asinine fool for agreeing with that statement (well, maybe)?. And can we judge you for being intolerant, since you appear to be pretty intolerant as well.

Mike - it appears you don't get it. I am intolerant towards others as individuals because of their behaviour (at least at time when I find such behaviour offesnive) - that's an attribute you appear to share :)

I am not intolerant towards anyone because of any group they belong to - or to groups in general. perhaps you should reflect on that :)

No Mark, I got it.

According to you, people who "...'seek to judge 'fat' as being a personal choice...", are "asinine fools". But then, those "asinine fools" are members of a group, just as surely as fat people are members of a group. Why are you being so intolerant of them? Especially as you appear (from your post) to agree that being fat is a choice.

Perhaps you should reflect on your attitudes to others, and ask yourself if you are being hypocritical in your judgements (hint: you are).

Mike - that's just rubbish - and you know it. Ttrying to compare the grouping of "fat people" with my description of those of those who negatively judge people as asinine fools is absurd. Fat people are stereotyped and judgements made against them based on their appearance.

Asinine fools, to the extent that it can be called a "group", is hardly the same.

The fact that you resort to this sort of specious fallacy to justify your anti fat bigotry is telling

Thanks for that point Mark.

Just rubbish? Specious fallacy? Anti-fat bigotry? Well you got me with your logic and reasoning.

Maybe I am missing something though. Your whole argument appears to be that being fat is not a choice (except that you think that maybe it is), and that we shouldn't judge people for being fat, because it's wrong to judge people just because they 'belong to a group'. I am not sure what group fat people belong to, except perhaps for the 'fat people' group.

However, you assert that it is ok to judge people for being stupid and intolerant. In fact, not only is it ok to judge people for that - they should expect to be judged! But hang on, is it easy to change from being stupid and intolerant? Aren't there a miriad of factors which preclude people from becoming less stupid and more tolerant - couldn't it be a combination of the everyday little choices they make. Choices which have consequences - some of which can be regarded as unfavourable. Consequences that take a lot of will power to overcome; which mitgate against opportunities to broaden your mind and to become more knowledgeable and open minded.

Nahhhhhh - let's judge them anyway.

Emaciated cyclists not getting to enjoy meals? Ha!
I'm going to hazard a guess that you dont do a whole lot of cardiovascular training. I'll let you keep thinking that.
In the mean time, I'll continue to enjoy my 20,000 to 25,000 kilojoules a day.

"Those who continue to argue on this thread that being fat is a "choice" simply have no understanding of the realities of human choice and psychology and are apparently unaware of their essential bigotry."

No Mark, "those" who continue to argue that being fat is a choice do not have no understanding etc. "We" have very good understanding thank you very much. But "we" still know that it is a choice. It may be a difficult choice, and there may be many obstacles to overcome to make a different choice, but it is still a choice. If you or anyone wants to lose weight, you can "choose" to do so - unlike gays who might want to be straight, or short people who want to be taller, or members of an ethnic minority who want to be part of the majority.

And "deserve" discrimination? On what basis do you think that people should never be discriminated against? If you are unsuitable for something because of some characteristic that you possess, then you are going to be discriminated against. That's life, and it's perfectly reasonable. Or do you think that there should be no discrimination anywhere? Should fat people be able to fly fighter aircraft? Be special forces soldiers? But if they lost weight, maybe they could do those things. Oh no - isn't that discrimination against fat people? We better put a stop to that!

You are right Mark - none of us is perfect. And it is those 'imperfections' that preclude us from doing certain things that others without those 'imperfections' can do. That is discrimination - and it is perfectly reasonable and normal. The good thing about being discriminated against because you are fat is that you can do something about it. That option is not available for most forms of discrimination.

You; me; indeed everyone, judges people every day. We make a judgement about people based on all sorts of things - with first appearances being one of the most important. If you understood psychology as much as you are insinuating, then you would know that. And because of that. the negative consequences of fat people's appearance is going to cause a negative first impression. I don't know if you are a medical doctor - but I bet if a fat person walked into your surgery complaining about an ailment such as heart disease you would immediately think that their 'fatness' may be a contributing factor.

But then, maybe not. Because, after all, if you did, it would say more about the negative qualities of you than perhaps you might realise.

You still don't get it Mike. On two fronts

1) Discrimination against someone because they are a member of a group is bigotry. Yes, we make discrimintaory judgements all the time - and if they are based on people's actions toward us then that seems reasonable to me. You appear to desperately want to justify your anti-fat discrimination - but you have no basis for doing so if you judge people as bad because they are a "fat"

2) You have comprehensively failed to undestand the notion of choice - and till treat it like it selecting a TV channel. by your very statement "If you or anyone wants to lose weight, you can "choose" to do so " - failes to recognise or appreciate the difficulties involved. You still use the language of blame and bigotry

Mike - with respect - the point(s) that I suggest you have failed to grasp are:

1) You seek to judge an individual negatively because they belong to a group (fat) that you believe has negative connotations. That is discriminatory (and bigoted) because you judge them not for themselves but for their alleged group membership

2) You still seem to see choice as a black and white issue. And that therefore it carries some easily assigned moral culpabiluty. As I have shown - and the literature makes clear - especially in relation to issues like weight - it isn't easy at all - and to be stereotypically judged because you grapple with that difficulty is discriminatory, objectionable - and inherently bogoted by those that do so

This link to the actual study published in JAMA is better:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137

And it is not easy to dismiss. A meta analysis of 2.88 million study subjects and 270,000 deaths found that being overweight (BMI 25-30) was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (HR = 0.94) than normal weight (BMI 18.5 - 25), and even grade 1 obesity (BMI 30-35) was not associated with higher mortality (HR = 0.94).

Well said Phoebe - Mike Swinbourne take note?

We should never discriminate based on membership of a group or on associated stereo-types linked with a person's visible attributes.

Judgements about another person are only legitimate when made about that individual and their actions in context - and even then must be tempered by empathy, circumstance and only made insofar as they impact out own sphere of influence and responsibility.

Phoebe Ledford wrote; "....I simply cannot understand why it should ever be considered acceptable in this case."
A good part of the emotive discussion here is lack of understanding of others perspective. Those with values who see discrimination as unfair, unhealthy or of no benefit to the discriminated, have growth through the opposing values.
These discriminatory values are most evident today in four to eight year olds over many issues and seen just watching children playing. Five hundred years ago these values were evident from four to seventy years olds, over time humans have developed better values or evolved since. Within our community their are many people on varying stages of human development, from undeveloped / developed tribal / feudal, / religious or scientific rationalist / capitalist and higher, understanding others perspective is recalling where we have been ourselves on an earlier stage.
Those who have not grown or are growing values will never understand your perspective, most importantly will not have an opportunity to be tolerant. All that can be done is to be tolerant in return and not be triggered to down to earlier values in response. The old truism "set in their ways" applies.
I did grasp your turn of phrase in context; "I simply cannot understand", but it was a great segue and I do appreciate your comments.

LOL - well Mike that's amusing. To "prove" your argument that people who are fat are fat entirely by choice you invoke a regime (a concentration camp no less?) that removes any choice they might have??

That this is vacuous logic clearly escapes you.

I can see you will go on thiking that I am wrong and you are right.

Perhaps - perhaps not - maybe you should watch this http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html

I find it interesting that you will go to such lengths to justify the very sort of negative fat dsicrimination the author alludes to - I am starting to feel genuinely sorry for you.

Sue Ieraci wrote; " ... on what basis is that question related to my comment?" I apologise for not being clear and replying under the correct thread.
Sue Ieraci wrote reply to Peter Ormonde's comment; "At what point does a cute childish chubbiness transform into a morbid pathology?"
Sue Ieraci wrote "As you've intimated, obesity is not, in itself, an illness. Like smokers, the severely obese can be free of significant pathology - until the cumulative effects catch up."
Why is your comment relevant to the authors article on discrimination. The author has assumed the reader is well informed about 'morbidity' and all the variations of 'fat people', in the article.
Do you disagree with discrimination of 'fat people' or agree with it?
If you do, how does 'discrimination' help fat people live happy, healthy and safe lives?

"At what point does a cute childish chubbiness transform into a morbid pathology?"

As you've intimated, obesity is not, in itself, an illness. Like smokers, the severely obese can be free of significant pathology - until the cumulative effects catch up.

One could argue that the point at which severe obesity transforms into "pathology" is when blood pressure, joints, insulin effect or coronary arteries are effected. IN the same way, a heavy smoker can be free of pathology until their lungs and arteries start to show the effects. Like smoking, severe obesity is a risk factor for pathology, not a pathology in itself.

There is no point at which one's body size, shape and composition are pathological int themselves - it is the increase in the likelihood of complications. We all know smokers and obese people who live long lives, apparently free of disease or disability. The are in the minority, however.

Peter Ormonde wrote:"Haven't always been a farmer..." No however those values are within you, within your holon if you grok my meaning.
Having lived in the Pilbara, absorbed bigoted views, discriminated and used prejudicial language talking about our 'Australian Aboriginals' in the region. These values seemed appropriate at the time and gave social acceptance. But no longer are the core of my value system. As the level of awareness grew and new stages of development were reached, understanding of why discrimination happens became clear and grows.
My tolerance of others who discriminate is because these values are with me, suppressed until they are triggered by an emotion, appropriate or not. The difference now is awareness of the effect of discrimination on this family of amazing humans, so the language inside and outward 'story' has evolved and thinking sensitised to all discrimination. My understanding of some of the tribal culture, its wisdom / knowledge and benefit to human survival in one of the planets harshest ecosystems is grasped. Highly respected. Are they better humans? No am I a better human? No.
However because of my life conditions, the privileges of being on a more advanced stage of development is mine. Like you, evolving and developing will carry on until the last beat 'if' possible. The Australian community has evolved, however some of our community still cling to certain values because of the lack of knowledge, personal stage of development or both.
We both understand why people discriminate and there maybe a grasp of why it was within me or part of my holon.
How did discrimination help the Australian Aboriginal to develop into their next stages? [rhetorical]
So its a simple question; how does discriminating against fat people help them?

Hi, Peter O - a Happy New Year to you too.

I agree with much of what you say. What I was intending was to address the concept that the morbidly obese person can be objectively "healthy" (ie without identified pathology) at a single period in time but, like smoking, the effect on health are likely to occur over time and to be cumulative.

I get what the author of this article says about people making moral judgements about the very obese. While I agree that this is both cruel and unhelpful to those individuals, I don't believe that severe obesity should be ignored as a health risk.

Andrew Walker-King wrote; "'No amount of bien pensant political correctness will get around this." It is interesting you raised political correctness, because it carried a completely different set of values in Germany between 1934 and 1945.
So in your opinion; how does 'discrimination' help fat people live happy, healthy and safe lives?
Why do you feel the need to break longstanding online etiquette and shout using caps?

There seems to be an article, usually long on rhetoric and short on substance, justifying, or defending fat peoples' right to be fat, in TC every few months.

The last article had the same photo of a fat lady shopping, to 'prove' that fat people eat healthy food. In this article it is supposed to show that grocery shopping is difficult for fat people.