Does "gravitationally challenged" work?

[FMJ]

Or is "you're short for your weight" less offensive?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...-someone-fatty-could-become-a-hate-crime.html

 

[Raging_Bulls]

aww come on ! They're kidding, right?
If you don't want to be called fat, lose some weight FFS.

This kind of stuff really pi..es me off.

 

[twain]

"Under the Equalities Act 2010, it is illegal to harass, victimise or discriminate against anyone on the basis of a number of 'protected' characteristics, such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability."

isn't obesity already classified as a disability? surely this means no amendment needed..??

i think someone is trying to make more work for themselves to justify their existence.

 

[Neil]

Have to say it doesn't offend me - after all, the existing conditions that are specified are merely a symptom (perhaps euphemistic) that society has evolved to be civilised, and matured beyond the playground.

If religions get protection, I see no reason why fatties shouldn't.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Oh for Gods sake. Pretty soon it'll be illegal to say anything derogatory about anyone.

This is the beginning of the end for modern society. I give it 50 years absolute max if rule makers and do gooders artificially suppress natural selection. The faster, fitter, more able, more intelligent will no longer have any edge over others... Even one's who choose to consume more calories than they use.

 

[Neil]

Oh for Gods sake. Pretty soon it'll be illegal to say anything derogatory about anyone.

This is the beginning of the end for modern society. I give it 50 years absolute max if rule makers and do gooders artificially suppress natural selection. The faster, fitter, more able, more intelligent will no longer have any edge over others... Even one's who choose to consume more calories than they use.

Thing is, you make out the bullies and those that are derogatory to be somehow worthwhile (given your talk of natural selection) - but is that really true?

Are these people superior from an evolutionary perspective? Or just as flawed in some other aspect?

Why should the rest of society care about them, either? I'm struggling to see the mutuality or empathy, here.

 

[cyfa2809]

This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk

And top 2 comments:



'who knew it would turn out to be a documentary?'

'This movie = America in 10 years if the people keep acting the way they do now.'

 

[Neil]

This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk

And top 2 comments:



'who knew it would turn out to be a documentary?'

'This movie = America in 10 years if the people keep acting the way they do now.'

OK I let it slide, before, but exactly where is this connection between the potential that laws may make it an offence for some being big meanies, and the evolution of dumbing down society.

There seems to be two assumptions that I'm seeing as quite bogus: 1) that bullies are either intellectually or evolutionary superior 2) (if you buy into that completely specious assumption) that laws assaulting their desire to insult others, would somehow prevent / discourage them from breeding.

I'll say it again, if it's so important to have to not say anything mean about peoples' religious beliefs, why not about them being, um, large?

Either freedom of speech is not universal (it isn't now), or we have to accept that some things are off limits. So why the outrage? Why should the rest of society care any more about the bullies, than the chublies?

 

[sylus]

Girls as young as five worry about their size and appearance, the group reported, while appearance was the largest cause of bullying in schools.

Damm it when did that happen I'm pretty sure there was no bullying or insecurity as we all tried to find our place in the pack when I was a kid :facepalm:

What next, bald, ginga glasses?

Me I'm practicising my phsycic mind slap so I can insult people and never get caught

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Oh for Gods sake. Pretty soon it'll be illegal to say anything derogatory about anyone.

This is the beginning of the end for modern society. I give it 50 years absolute max if rule makers and do gooders artificially suppress natural selection. The faster, fitter, more able, more intelligent will no longer have any edge over others... Even one's who choose to consume more calories than they use.

Thing is, you make out the bullies and those that are derogatory to be somehow worthwhile (given your talk of natural selection) - but is that really true?

Are these people superior from an evolutionary perspective? Or just as flawed in some other aspect?

Why should the rest of society care about them, either? I'm struggling to see the mutuality or empathy, here.

To be fair this thread is about fatty boom booms, not other areas of psychological or physical inadequacy. Just lard-O's.

Consume more that the calories you burn and you will pork. Simple. No fatty US airmen were released at the end of the Vietnam war. You won't see a chubster at the end of a hunger strike.

These people do it to themselves, and if they don't like the consequences then the power is in their hands to do something about it, but the majority don't because they are undisciplined and weak willed. A simple, unpalatable fact.

It's their lifestyle choice, 'choice' being the key word. No one forces them to eat crap and/or take insufficient exercise.

And all of that is a seperate issue entirely from young kiddies on diets. That's a unrealistic portrayal of life on the media, bad parenting, and perhaps all these documentaries about fatties scaring them into it!