You Don't Know What You're Doing (Or Why You're Still Fat) [Archive]

View Full Version : You Don't Know What You're Doing (Or Why You're Still Fat)

RobertLevin

03-11-2006, 2:27 PM

(NOTE: PEOPLE WITH INTRACTABLE WEIGHT PROBLEMS THAT ARE CAUSED BY REAL ILLNESSES OR GENUINE CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION.)

Awhile back I wrote a short humor piece in which I poked fun at a grossly overweight woman.

The piece was called "Peggie" and it elicited a fair share of irate mail from women who identified with the title character.

"I hate you," went a typical response. "How could you write such hurtful trash? Do you have any idea what it's like to struggle all your life with an obesity problem? Do you know what it is to be forced to endure incessant jokes and insults, to torture yourself with one failed diet after another and to live with a constant sense of guilt and shame? How could you be so cruel and insensitive?"

Okay. I'll admit to bad taste (and, as several other readers felt the need to point out, to committing less than deathless prose as well), but I have to say that I remain unmoved by the suffering I'm accused of inflicting.

Why? Because the "obesity problem" of which my correspondents speak (and I'm including all of the emotional woes that attend it) is actually their solution to a deeper and more urgent problem. What's more, it's a solution that, to judge by their obvious absorption in it, is working very well for them.

Now in order to grasp what I'm driving at it is first necessary to acknowledge something about guilt and shame. To feel guilt and shame is built into our essence—it's a natural consequence of being mortal. Not only must we have done some nasty stuff to be in so much trouble but, unable to come up with a way to alter our situation, to change the given, we're incompetent where it matters most.

It's also necessary to remind ourselves that, accompanied as they are by the sheer terror the fact of being mortal causes us, our natural feelings of guilt and shame constitute an intolerable burden that must be relieved if we are to function in the world with even a modest degree of equanimity.

Finally, it's necessary to recognize the last thing we want to recognize since to recognize it is to undermine the success of our purpose: virtually everything we do is, in one way or another, really designed to mollify our existential dread and anxiety. It is, in fact, precisely this need that makes the world go around.

Bearing such truths in mind, I'm saying that people with perpetual obesity issues are playing a game with themselves.

Look. One of the ways we accomplish the mitigation of our natural guilt and shame is by finding, and becoming obsessed with, other things to feel guilty and ashamed about, things that (to assure them an authentic gravity) are culturally certified as real and legitimate faults or deficiencies and which, at the same time, are POTENTIALLY REDEEMABLE, that are within our capacity to overcome or transcend. What we do is make THEM what is essentially wrong with us—indeed, we make them, in our minds, the very reason for the death sentence we've been handed. Implicitly, these acquired problems also embody a way to achieve our salvation. If they are what is fundamentally wrong with us, by defeating them we will be absolved of what is fundamentally wrong with us. If we still must die we will survive our death in heaven.

But here's the thing. If we succeed in beating the problem we've concocted for ourselves we're returned to where we began. Once the flush of victory wanes we discover that our underlying dilemma is still there, that we're left to nakedly confront our existential horrors once again.

So what do we do?

Well, if (and indulging, of course, an innate predilection) we've made weight our problem, and if, with dieting and exercise, we've managed to overcome this problem, what we do is find a reason to quit exercising, to go off our diet. Then what we do is renew our struggle and when the process has run its course again we repeat it.

We hold, that is, any permanent resolution of our weight problem in abeyance.

Yes, each time weight recurs the pain and humiliation we experience is nothing short of devastating. But the degree of our anguish serves to validate the size and authenticity of our manufactured problem. In order to make it feel real and significant enough to work its purpose we need to experience real torment. Finally, however, for all of the misery it causes us, our weight problem functions as the anodyne for a larger misery. The more we flagellate ourselves with it the more we suppress our fundamental dread and anxiety and the more we achieve a measure of peace on the level that matters most to us.

Say all that to say that, whether or not I intended it as such, I think fat people should regard my story as a gift.

Nuts

03-11-2006, 2:54 PM

Google for Robert Levin "Peggie."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-04%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=robert+levin+peggie

After a personal exchange via email, I can confirm that this is indeed Mr. Robert Levin. Pardon my skepticism, I fear I get a bit carried away at times.

Welcome to the site Mr. Levin.

RobertLevin

03-11-2006, 3:29 PM

Why is my identity in question? I'm the same Robert Levin.

Protosschick99

03-12-2006, 2:21 AM

That's what I was thinking--Of all places a gaming forum--Where we all have one thing in common--We game :P

If you are thr real Robert Levin--Nice to meet ya :P And I read your story--It made me laugh :D

Nuts

03-12-2006, 11:07 AM

Mr. Levin, welcome to Warboards.

Your idea is an interesting one. True, there are many fat people that enjoy playing "the game." Those select few that like to order a Big Mac with a Diet Coke,....never mind the Big Mac that has the potential of blocking your arteries in one sitting. Or those whom eat their salads with lite dressing then proceed to inhale an entire 3 course meal. Yes, these people do indeed have issues that could be well explained by your theory.

I must say, your idea sheds a great deal of light on a subject that has fascinated me for many years. However, I tend to subscribe to the pain and pleasure ideology. A fat person whom cannot control their eating associates more pain to the idea of a diet than they do to the passive condition of being fat. In addition, the pleasure derived from a pepperoni pizza dancing on your tongue will far surpass the pain of an extra pound here and there. The cumulative effect is slow enough to ignore in exchange for the momentary pleasure from the warm comfort of a mouthful of caloric bliss.

While the idea of being breathless from tying your shoes is indeed repulsive, the thought of dieting is even more painful to imagine. Only when a person accumulates enough pain can they break free from the grasp of obesity.

With this said, I believe that your theory may well play a part in this as well. Just as an individual may be fearful of the discipline necessary to limit their caloric intake, they may also be fearful of the emptiness that might be forthcoming upon successful completion of their journey. As you mentioned, the fear of natural feelings of guilt and shame may indeed cause additional concern on a subconscious level. Coupled with the fear of the diet itself, this could cause most obese people to remain this way for the rest of their lives. Jenny Craig would be proud.

I find it interesting that your theory seems very similar to that of original sin. Did this enter into your thinking when coming to this conclusion?

GenocideAlive

03-13-2006, 5:32 PM

Why is my identity in question? I'm the same Robert Levin.
Consider how simply one of your fans or one of your foes could simply use the login "RobertLevin" as their signon name and impersonate you. Yes, this goes on fairly frequently on the Internet as most people either seek to cause trouble for others or simply lack a personal sense of self-importance. Go figure.

Prozerran

03-15-2006, 12:25 AM

No one else wants to stand up to this nonsense? Fine.

Fuck that! This entire diatribe is abhorrent. I'm not fat, but I'm offended nonetheless.

The food industry uses dieting as a marketing approach. The same companies producing products that perpetuate the problem also produce products that "solve" it. Diet Coke, Subway, and Wendy's salads don't even scratch the surface. Slim Fast, Jenny Craig, and Weight Watchers all create the illusion of solution. This is in many ways similar to the way cigarette companies now make products that help people quit by giving them higher doses (yes, higher doses) of nicotine in an effort to withdraw them from the drug.

In the end, in the fine print of all of those products, exercise still sings the chorus, but the marketing scheme is simple because it makes dieting look like this simple process when it actually takes a great deal of planning and willingness to change one's entire life around. Dieting, in general and as it is perpetuated in the media, is a fucking joke. Stop eating more than your body is telling you to eat and go for a walk. How about that for a solution? It's a better proposition than yours.

It doesn't take insults. It doesn't take dehumanization. It takes support and some responsibility - hardly what you propose we all do to get people to make a change. Get a grip. Don't color-coat blatant demoralization of human beings with plausible concern for them by simply overanalyzing your position to the point of idealism. I believe we all remember a man named Hitler who ran a Nazi regime that conquered a great deal of Europe and Asia on the basis of creating an ideal society. Live and let live.

I'd wish you luck with your position, but for the sake of our society, I hope a big fat man or woman sits on your face and makes some bowel movement in the process. You're not doing much more for them putting yourself on a pedestal of societal awareness when it's more than clear you're making excuses for your blatant cruelty toward other human beings.

In short, it's just not that simple, Mr. Levin.

whoman_human

03-15-2006, 6:17 AM

Nuts

03-15-2006, 7:33 AM

It's amazing Prozerran that you were able to read this thread and come to a conclusion that seems completely irrelevant to the article in question. It's obvious to me that you haven't done much research on this subject, since you seem to think that the solution is as simple as taking a walk. This shows a great deal of ignorance on your part, since if it were that easy, I imagine we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Fat people do not eat simply because they are hungry. Fat people eat for all types of reasons, some for comfort, others eat to compensate for emotional issues and it's likely that most have a combination of the two problems. Mr. Levin is suggesting that overeating is a perpetual problem created consciously or subconsciously by the individual. Now on the surface, that sounds pretty damn accurate based on what I have read. The substitution of a weight problem for a naturally occurring guilt is perhaps hard to grasp, but to rebuke it without an understanding of root problem seems careless at best.

And I'm curious, Prozerran and whoman_human, have you stopped to ask yourself why you had to make certain that our readers knew that you weren't fat? Are fat people less credible or unable to form a proper argument? Surely you don't believe that being fat has any effect on the validity of your statements, do you? Just an observation from my side of the monitor, nothing more.

whoman_human

03-15-2006, 9:01 AM

And I'm curious, Prozerran and whoman_human, have you stopped to ask yourself why you had to make certain that our readers knew that you weren't fat? Are fat people less credible or unable to form a proper argument? Surely you don't believe that being fat has any effect on the validity of your statements, do you? Just an observation from my side of the monitor, nothing more.
No I haven't got anything bout fat people or stuff like that...I just posted it cuz i don't want people to think that i'm fat simply cuz i ain't and i dont wanna-b... i haven't got anything against fat people and i Do respect their oppinions (thats wat ure saying right?) And wat is the meaning of that being fat has any effect on the validity of your statements??

Edit: the shortform of this: i treat fat people and average weight people same..but i don't want to be fat cuz i myself don't like it!

Nuts

03-15-2006, 9:37 AM

No I haven't got anything bout fat people or stuff like that...I just posted it cuz i don't want people to think that i'm fat
Stop right there. Why don't you want people to think that you're fat? Think about it. You're in an intellectual forum discussing the motivation behind eating disorders and you're concerned that people might mistake you as being fat? Why would they do that? What possible reason could you have for thinking that? If we were discussing the causes of homosexuality, would you proclaim that you're not gay? How does this lend credibility to your argument?

i haven't got anything against fat people and i Do respect their oppinions
Of course you do, being fat has no effect on a person's ability to reason, right?

GenocideAlive

03-15-2006, 11:19 AM

Nuts, I understand arguing with Prozerran...but whoman_human? Seriously, he can barely construct a sentence. And technically, I think you're going the wrong way with Proz. He was suggesting "taking a walk" as a hyperbole in the way of ridiculing the food industry, not as some sort of super diet. You've sort of taken it out of context.
Dieting, in general and as it is perpetuated in the media, is a fucking joke.
I most certainly agree, but...
The same companies producing products that perpetuate the problem also produce products that "solve" it. Diet Coke, Subway, and Wendy's salads don't even scratch the surface.
Here they're offering more healthy alternatives in order to keep customers around after they "health up" or whatever. You really couldn't expect any more or less, could you? They're food companies, Proz, they sell food; I mean, a farmer sells his crops, right? All things considered, I'm having difficulty understanding where you're going with the villification of these companies.

I enjoy a Coke now and again, and I'm right at my ideal BMI; I like the way Coke tastes and that's what I want when I crack open a can. I don't want Coke to close its doors or drastically alter their formula because some 1000lb fatass drinks sodas chronically and explains it away by saying "[drinking] water makes me feel sick" (true story).

Ultimately the problem lay with those that have the eating disorders. While I wouldn't have gone the way Rob did, I'm not entirely sure that we should be readying the stake and torch for him just yet.

I've found that frequently those with drastic social complexes rely on others' quiet demurring in order to function. In other words, they rely on others' good nature and good intent to continue their horrid habits. I think a little frankness and intolerance isn't the end of the world, especially when it comes to something as grotesque as self-mutilation.

Creating a "fat culture" where we're all tolerant and eat 8000 calorie meals and buy Lane Bryant clothes isn't the solution. I know we love to tout how wonderful the US of A is and how much we accept everyone, but I'm afraid I want to hold back on the acceptance of fat people as "acceptable" or "OK". It's disgusting and it's a crass lack of discipline; I don't find that to be "acceptable" in the loosest sense of the word. Do I consider a fat person less of a human being? Fuck no. But I consider them as much of an addict as any abuser.

If my kid gets fat, by god, we're going to be doing some laps together.
I believe we all remember a man named Hitler who ran a Nazi regime that conquered a great deal of Europe and Asia on the basis of creating an ideal society.
Ahahahahahaha! And there's the requisite Hitler reference!

RobertLevin

03-15-2006, 4:45 PM

Not to be lazy, but let me at least make an initial response by posting another piece. Written several years ago, it addresses the same subject from a slightly different angle.

EVERYTHING'S ALL RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE EAST
A Mutual Solution to the Problem of Being Mortal
by Robert Levin

Can we, just for a minute, dispense with the hand-wringing and acknowledge that the problem Israel and the Palestinians have with one another is actually their mutual solution to the problem of being mortal?

Of course to understand what I mean it is first necessary to recognize that it's not love or sex or money that makes the world go around but the fact of death; that what drives virtually everything we believe and do is the need to reduce, to at least a manageable degree of fear, the terror and panic the anticipation of death causes us. (If you can't quite grasp this notion, if you have to be reminded that terror and panic constitute the human default condition, then whatever you're believing and doing is working for you.)

Of the myriad subtle and blatant ways we've come up with to make living with an impossible reality tolerable, one example would be the symbolic immortality we assure ourselves of by leaving behind a scientific discovery, or a work of art, that will continue to have an influence on the world. Another is the accumulation of inordinate wealth. The god-like trappings great sums of money buy enable us to feel not just superior to the common man, but less vulnerable to the common fate. Still another is getting high, which is about getting ABOVE the body that we know will one day be our undoing.

And then there's our invention of an afterlife. Presenting us with a chance to survive death—if we honor the pronouncements and follow the dictates we've assigned to deities of our own fashioning—it's this immortality illusion that's at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Arabs are qualifying for eternity by doing what they've determined to be God's work, which is to make war on those who, ignoring or questioning His authority, are undermining His plan for the planet. And Israel, dropped in the Arab's midst, its diverse culture implicitly challenging the validity of Arab beliefs, provides the Arabs with the infidel they need to carry out their mission. For Arabs, it's not about killing Jews, per se. Jews are simply a fortuitously placed means to a purchase on heaven. (You could say that—their culture being, by all appearances, limited in its repertoire of immortality illusions to the resources of Islam—suicide is the only instrument of self-perpetuation available to the Palestinian terrorists.)

On the other hand, the Arabs afford Israelis an opportunity to continually certify their biblically bestowed "chosen" status—AND TO ASSURE THEMSELVES OF THE POST-CORPOREAL REWARDS IMPLICIT IN THE ANOINTMENT—by constantly threatening, but never accomplishing, Israel's destruction. Persistently testing Israel's exalted designation, but never disproving it, enabling Israel to be embattled AND remain intact, the Arabs are every bit the blessing to Israel that Israel is to the Arabs.

It follows that the violence each side visits on the other must be measured; balances and proportions need to be kept. For one side to win, after all, would be for both sides to lose; would, that is, end the game and return BOTH sides to a contemplation of the void. We might call this aiding and abetting of one another's immortality illusions—the cooperation and the accommodations it requires—the deeper definition of the "social contract."

So we can engage ad infinitum in the most earnest discussions about anti-Semitism, about Hamas, about Sharon, about territory and occupation, and forever miss the real dynamic of the situation. The Arab-Israeli problem is, again, a solution to a more pressing problem, to what is, literally as well as figuratively, the mother of all problems. And what accounts for the tenaciousness of the conflict is the ongoing success it's enjoying in the service of its underlying agenda. As long as this holds true, Arabs and Israelis will, for all the anguish it induces, remain at odds because the enmity between them is their buffer against the spectre of oblivion.

The pain we are witnessing is a palliative. These are not the worst of times in the Middle East.

GenocideAlive

03-15-2006, 5:21 PM

Not to be lazy, but let me at least make an initial response by posting another piece. Written several years ago, it addresses the same subject from a slightly different angle.
OK, well, this really does look lazy if not wholly off-topic, and your account is starting to come off as a shameless self-promotion.

I suggest you stick to the subject at hand and create a new thread if you want to discuss your other essays. I've read some of them (including the one you just posted), and it's more than slightly annoying to see you post more essays...in response to criticisms of your other essays.

Try throwing in some actual content, besides your soapbox-type rhetoric.

whoman_human

03-16-2006, 4:05 AM

Stop right there. Why don't you want people to think that you're fat? Think about it. You're in an intellectual forum discussing the motivation behind eating disorders and you're concerned that people might mistake you as being fat? Why would they do that? What possible reason could you have for thinking that? If we were discussing the causes of homosexuality, would you proclaim that you're not gay? How does this lend credibility to your argument?

Of course you do, being fat has no effect on a person's ability to reason, right? i don't want people to think that cuz i don't think being fat looks nice... i would proclaim that i ain't gay simply cuz i ain't and thats it! it doesn't lend any crediblity to my argument....!an wtf do u think u r Ga? First of all my first language isn't english so shut the f*** up aite? and wats that ..he can't construct a sentence bullshit? look here is one: He's going to the park. is that enough proof?

Back to topic: i do agree wit Ga... but i think that the fastfoodchaines could atleast make their products a bit more healthier... Did any of u see the film "Supersize me" ? if u see the film u don't wanna eat by mc donalds anymore...

Nuts

03-16-2006, 5:52 AM

First of all my first language isn't english so shut the f*** up aite? and wats that ..he can't construct a sentence bullshit? look here is one: He's going to the park. is that enough proof?
You might want to direct your insults towards the right person jackass.

whoman_human

03-16-2006, 8:10 AM

You might want to direct your insults towards the right person jackass. ehmm...i did..Read the sentence before the thing u quoted..Ga=GenocideAlive!

Nuts

03-16-2006, 8:21 AM

whoman_human

03-16-2006, 8:36 AM

I was unable to discern the name Genocidealive from your ramblings. You didn't create a new paragraph and you failed to quote his text, therefore I conclude that Genocidealive was correct with his initial comments regarding your inability to form a proper sentence.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Maybe cuz i don't know how to quote two things. "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" thats real :cool: ...Haha, wat kind of bullshit is this? If u read my post, u would've noticed that i made a "proper sentence". And anyway I ain't in the mood for checking all grammar mistakes and stuff like that...I mean I've got a life and it doesn't just excist out of a internet forum like yours...And why do u write here as if it were an exam? Don't u have anything better to do? Well I'm really sorry:cry:

Kingscrab

03-16-2006, 8:49 AM

Maybe cuz i don't know how to quote two things. "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" thats real :cool: ...Haha, wat kind of bullshit is this? If u read my post, u would've noticed that i made a "proper sentence". And anyway I ain't in the mood for checking all grammar mistakes and stuff like that...I mean I've got a life and it doesn't just excist out of a internet forum like yours...And why do u write here as if it were an exam? Don't u have anything better to do? Well I'm really sorry:cry: Holy crap. Someone pass me a babblefish. What en eyesore of a post. This thread was pretty interesting until someone took a dump on it.

Please read the quote below... For the love of God, stay in school.
The Edit button IS your friend. Say Hi! to it, and learn to use it.

hammocksleeper

03-16-2006, 9:04 AM

I can read his posts fine. If you can't, I am sorry for your limited understanding of language. Anyway, back on topic please. (What's the topic again?)

whoman_human

03-16-2006, 10:08 AM

:)*sigh* No. That was a stupid comment as my post was obviously directed at hammocksleeper and not you.

Uhg. It's like playing cards with my sister's kids. I'm over this.

I am so sorry. But u sayed that I don't/can't write in an intelligent way and that is why I aske you if it was an intelligent comment, because I say my mistake and wanted to make it better next time. So is it ok how i write now?

I think if fat people aren't happy with their weight, then they would do something, even if they aren't insulted by others. For the ones that eat because of emtional problems I don't know what to do, but I think that, even if Slimfast would do what it promisses, they would still be fat because they didn't become fat while eating only "wrong" stuff, but because they ate to much.

I think that you should make a difference between people that became fat because of simply eating "wrong stuff"(to much fastfood, etc.) and fat people that became fat because of emotional problems. The insulting thing could work by the ones that just ate to much mc donalds or so (group 1), because they can easier control their eating and loose weight through eating salades or other healthy stuff. But i don't think that it works by the ones that eat because of emotional problems, because they can't really "control" when and how much they eat.

Those are my two cents:)

Prozerran

03-16-2006, 11:21 AM

I think we've got someone posing as Robert Levin. I believe we would have received feedback in the form of relevant explanations and criticism of my views by now. That being said, Whoman_human isn't great with English, everyone knows this, and everyone knows it's a second language. What a waste of an entire page sitting here ARGUING about it.

The second essay of Robert Levin's is something I whole-heartedly agree with, but again I believe there's more to that conflict insofar as the US involvement in the Middle East. Nonetheless, this essay does nothing to answer my previous critique of the previous article.

Here they're offering more healthy alternatives in order to keep customers around after they "health up" or whatever. You really couldn't expect any more or less, could you? They're food companies, Proz, they sell food; I mean, a farmer sells his crops, right? All things considered, I'm having difficulty understanding where you're going with the villification of these companies.

I believe my point wasn't quite summed up the way I had imagined it when I wrote my response. There's <-- look at my gramatical error -- a few articles on the FDA I need to look up and reference (I'll edit them as links here later), but the whole point is that the FDA has allowed companies to come up with cyclical ways of customer retention. For instance, Diet Coke isn't really a dietary substance AT ALL. It still contains simple sugar compounds, carbonation (which increases elasticity of the skin and water retention), and caffiene. Even Caffiene Free Diet Coke has caffiene in low doses. Same for Sprite. But what really sucks is that the caffiene in these substances (much more like Nicotine in Cigarettes), creates an addiction to these drinks. Basically, those that try to diet believe they're doing themselves a favor drinking Diet Coke rather than regular Coke. Then, when their diet doesn't work, they go right back to regular Coke without missing a beat on the caffiene rush they get with each can. These companies COUNT ON Failed Dieting.

Don't think for a minute these companies don't take advantage of dieting with complete disregard for the health of the population. Why do we see the Sweet Onion Teryaki Chicken on wheat bread right next to a Big Philly Steak and Cheese Sub on Italian Bread? It's the temptation that everyone feels when they diet. Subway wants you to eat their healthy sub, build up your desire to eat the "forbidden fruit," then watch as you binge on Meatball Subs and Steak and Cheese Phillies for the next week just to realize you've got to get back on your diet and order that Sweet Onion Chicken Teryaki Sub next time. If Subway wants to target health-conscious consumers, they need healthy products.

If the food companies actually perpetuated consumer dieting, they'd be cutting their own throats so to speak. The only reason the food industry is so successful is because people EAT MORE FOOD. Disguising that food as "Healthy" when it's not even "Dietary" is blatant Bait and Switch.

I like Mountain Dew, and I drink them more than I should. I love Subway Pizza Subs, I may have one every other week. Taco Bell is the shit! I'll get a Crunchwrap Supreme, a Soft Taco, and a Big Dew. But I'm not kidding myself by thinking if I ordered a Diet Dew, a Sweet Onion Chicken Teryaki Sub, or a Taco Salad with a Crunchy Taco with Chicken that I'm dieting. That's really where a lot of the problems begin with people who try to diet.

That's my much longer explanation to that one paragraph. Now, how that relates to my overall opinion that it doesn't take cruelty to get someone to do something about being overweight, I think I was trying to get at the fact that the problem is not solely perpetuated by the individual. The FDA should answer for what it's allowed Food Companies to get away with for decades.

Ahahahahahaha! And there's the requisite Hitler reference!

Heh. It seemed appropriate at the time. Now, it's more or less melodramatic... and slightly humorous.

Nuts

03-16-2006, 11:34 AM

I think we've got someone posing as Robert Levin. I believe we would have received feedback in the form of relevant explanations and criticism of my views by now.

As I mentioned above, I have verified his identity via a 3rd party sourced email correspondence. Take it or leave it.

That's my much longer explanation to that one paragraph. Now, how that relates to my overall opinion that it doesn't take cruelty to get someone to do something about being overweight, I think I was trying to get at the fact that the problem is not solely perpetuated by the individual. The FDA should answer for what it's allowed Food Companies to get away with for decades.
If McDonalds began infusing crack cocaine into their chicken nuggets, I still wouldn't blame them for making their customers fat. The FDA isn't here to play mother to a bunch of irresponsible adults whom are unable to control their mental states. I have said this before and I'll say it again, personal responsibility is the underlying problem in this country. Nobody is held accountable for anything they do anymore. Anymore it seems there are unlimited numbers of illnesses and conditions that are used to explain every facet of human deviance from kleptomania to paedophilia. I'm sick of the excuses and it's time we start laying some blame where it's deserved, on the individual.

I detest apologists.

By the way Prozerran, you never addressed my question, why did you find it important to make certain that our readers knew you weren't fat?

GenocideAlive

03-16-2006, 12:28 PM

If McDonalds began infusing crack cocaine into their chicken nuggets, I still wouldn't blame them for making their customers fat. The FDA isn't here to play mother to a bunch of irresponsible adults whom are unable to control their mental states. I have said this before and I'll say it again, personal responsibility is the underlying problem in this country.
Well, we all know that Nuts feels that we're ultimately responsible for ourselves in every possible sense of the word, no sense in arguing that fact. I could point out that it'd play total hell with our economy and the fallout of the medical / rehab costs for these people, but we've gone down that road and there's only a DEAD END sign to be had. Needless to say, it's more of an idealism than a pragmatism.
The FDA should answer for what it's allowed Food Companies to get away with for decades.
I certainly agree with what you're saying to an extent, but I'm afraid that I don't really see a solution. What is the FDA supposed to do, run around playing Diet Nazi for the weak-willed? I will aquiesce that this is merely an extension of the "Information Wars" that will make up the 21st century.

I think the problem is in marketing altogether rather than the food companies. It used to confuse the hell out of me as a kid to try to figure out what "false advertising" was, because it seemed like such a prolific thing, sometimes. Cigarettes, Alcohol, Food, Cars...so many everyday items are blown out of proportion on TV. What is there that can be done? :confused:

Prozerran

03-16-2006, 3:07 PM

As I mentioned above, I have verified his identity via a 3rd party sourced email correspondence. Take it or leave it.
I'll leave it until I get some direct correspondence myself on this forum. As I see it, there's not a whole lot of discussion going on here, just a couple of essays that relate to each other not at all.

If McDonalds began infusing crack cocaine into their chicken nuggets, I still wouldn't blame them for making their customers fat. The FDA isn't here to play mother to a bunch of irresponsible adults whom are unable to control their mental states. I have said this before and I'll say it again, personal responsibility is the underlying problem in this country. Nobody is held accountable for anything they do anymore. Anymore it seems there are unlimited numbers of illnesses and conditions that are used to explain every facet of human deviance from kleptomania to paedophilia. I'm sick of the excuses and it's time we start laying some blame where it's deserved, on the individual.
And if every grocery store, restaurant, and gas station in the world infused crack cocaine into their food, I'm sure you'd still blame the individual for eating it. That's just about what it's come to.

I detest apologists.

By the way Prozerran, you never addressed my question, why did you find it important to make certain that our readers knew you weren't fat?
I wanted to distinguish the fact that my emotional response was not because of my physical appearance. While I made that statement for credibility, I do not believe an overweight individual holds any less credibility in this discussion. Just putting things into perspective really.

What is there that can be done?
For starters, let's get a grip on advertising, as you mentioned. Let's start fining these advertising companies that create these ridiculous tactics to fool consumers. If a restaurant provides healthy alternatives, then they need to be legitimately good meals - not a taco salad that still has fattening, sodium loaded ground beef. Let's see legitimately good beverages - not diet coke that's still loaded with caffiene and sugars. It's a bait and switch, an illegal business practice. The FDA doesn't regulate this, but they should.

Nuts

03-16-2006, 3:27 PM

And if every grocery store, restaurant, and gas station in the world infused crack cocaine into their food, I'm sure you'd still blame the individual for eating it. That's just about what it's come to.
We're not comparing like situations here and you know it. The junk food that is marketed by modern marketers is a choice, not a necessity. Anyone can go to the grocery store and buy any number of wholesome natural foods as a alternative to the junk that is being served in any number of fast food joints. The problem here is that people are "choosing" convenience over health. There's an option, yet you seem bent on blaming the marketing instead of placing blame where it should ultimately rest, on the individual.

By laying blame on the marketing, you are essentially claiming that humans are stupid and unable to make the simplest decisions regarding the crap that they put in their mouths. Fat people existed before fast food, and fat people would exist if fast food disappeared. If you're saying that fast food has caused an increase in fat people, I would claim that fat people have caused an increase in fast food. Circular logic is fun, isn't it? But seriously, if the market doesn't demand these things, they aren't produced. Economics 101.

GenocideAlive

03-16-2006, 5:06 PM

We're not comparing like situations here and you know it. The junk food that is marketed by modern marketers is a choice, not a necessity. Anyone can go to the grocery store and buy any number of wholesome natural foods as a alternative to the junk that is being served in any number of fast food joints. The problem here is that people are "choosing" convenience over health.
Grocery stores sell Coke. In bulk, no less.
By laying blame on the marketing, you are essentially claiming that humans are stupid and unable to make the simplest decisions regarding the crap that they put in their mouths.
Ah, no we're not. That's something you extrapolate as soon as you see something that you feel impugns on the right for individuals to choose. What we/I (well, I can't really speak for Proz) want is advertisements that are accurate and not reliant on misdirecting or misrepresenting their products in order to sell them. I'd like to see this in regard to everything, including food products and especially the "herbal supplement" market.

There should come a point at which people like myself shouldn't have to do 4 hours worth of background checks, 2 years in school as a nutritionist, and intense study of metabolism information in order to safely or reliably act as a food consumer.
But seriously, if the market doesn't demand these things, they aren't produced.
I call shenanigans. The market will always call for food, clothing, shelter, and hygiene products. The day that you can increase demand for your product by lying or misrepresenting your product isn't one that the world should celebrate as Capitalism.

At some point, the consumer needs reasonably reliable, easily attainable information about what they're getting themselves into. In my opinion, the current market does not offer that consistently.

Nuts

03-16-2006, 5:31 PM

I would like to know what products you feel are being marketed deceptively. For instance, a Big Mac, we all know what's in it, right... say it with me now, two all beef patties special sauce lettuce pickles on a sesame seed bun...phew. So yes, there you have it, a well publicized ingredients list and the public still continues to eat it. As for junk food sold retail, there are ingredients on the side of everything these days, I believe that is required by law. I support this since it doesn't impede on the rights of anyone to a free market, it is essentially mandating that we don't lie to our customers. I have no problem with this.

While I understand, and agree to some extent that food labels are highly complex, I don't think anyone is being forced to buy pre-packaged food. There are choices in a supermarket that don't require ingredients such as Red Dye #40 and Butylated Hydroxytolulene (trust me, I don't know what this crap is.) Whole grains, beef, vegetables, fruits.... the food pyramid is ripe with natural foods that don't have an ounce of misleading truths to worry about. But people don't buy them as much as they used to since we're always in such a rush, or perhaps we're just lazy.

Regardless of the reasons, I would love to see honest advertising, but just like with cigarettes, it doesn't take a government agency to tell me that this stuff is bad for me.

GenocideAlive

03-16-2006, 5:53 PM

Regardless of the reasons, I would love to see honest advertising, but just like with cigarettes, it doesn't take a government agency to tell me that this stuff is bad for me.
The cigarettes analogy works in my favor, I'm surprised to see you bring it up. Anywhere from 60-70 years ago, smoking cigarettes was contended to be nothing more than a mostly harmless pasttime--like having a beer at night when you get off of work.

They were advertised as relaxation agents and generating a "smooth" feeling and image. We now know that "smooth" feeling is the cilia in your lungs relaxing to the point of immobility, opening you up to various infections and diseases, ultimately leading to cancer. You can't honestly say that every 80 year old with emphysema knew that cigarettes would eventually lead to the ruination of his lungs and circulatory system.

I agree that people should be able to make choices, but you can't contend that advertisers are innately honest.

Prozerran

03-16-2006, 6:45 PM

Let me also follow up on one thing here. Regarding grocery store shopping, you may notice in your area (I absoutely <-- HAH I did it again!!-- notice both in Tampa, FL and Eastern and Middle Tennessee areas) that those "health food" items are conveniently placed in some of the most inconvenient areas. They aren't readily available, and the packaging is so confusing, it's almost not even worth buying it because half the time you don't even know what you're getting.

Think also about how schools nowadays have Taco Bell's and Subway's popping up in them, and that cafeteria food is being substituted with food that comes from the same distributors of McDonald's and Burger King's in the US. Now, I'm down for real food in schools, but Taco Bell and Subway are a far cry from taking a step forward. Let's face it, we're surrounded and cornered by it, and if not for expert nutritionists (or those familiar with the subject like GA) we'd never even know we had a problem until Diabetes became an epic plague that threatens our very existence.

But that aside, my original point is that the only escape the larger people of the world have from their plight is exercise and smaller portions of the food they're surrounded by. The last thing they need is to be discouraged by random statements, letters, and other commentary that they are what poison's our society. Not that societal image has anything to do with that at all, but that's an entirely different conversation.

So, whatever, Nuts. No one here is saying that overweight people have no obligation to their condition, but we have an obligation to help them, encourage them, and most importantly treat them as equals to those of us who don't bare their burdens.