The icing on the cake

This topic is getting more and more obese, so I'll feed it one more time with dessert, and then call a close to it because it needs to go on a diet.

Beefsoup69 has responded to my previous post, so I'll give him/her one final airtime here in relation to this topic.

"Most obese are obese not because of physical problems, but because of mental problems."

I'll have to disagree with that. Most obese people have mental (and physical) problems BECAUSE of their obseity. They're not obese BECAUSE of mental problems. Don't put the cart before the horse...or you'll not go anywhere... .

Unhealthy eating + lack of exercise ---> Obesity ---> physical problems ---> mental problems

NOT

Mental problems ---> physical problems ---> Unhealthy eating + lack of exercise ---> Obesity

Once you can see the pattern for what it really is, then you can solve the problem...or better still, prevent it. And once again, I'm talking about the norm, not the exceptions... .

"Just because things are easy for you, it doesn't mean they are easy for others, no matter how stupid that seems to you (lack of empathy)."

Yes, things are somewhat easy for me, yet I still don't just sit around doing nothing. I make it a point to play tennis two to three times a week in the summer, and this does require some effort on my side, especially when I have to get up early in the morning to do so before starting work.

I can EASILY eat burgers and fries at McDonald's 3 times a week without putting on weight so quickly due to my high metabolic rate, but the last time I ate a meal at McDonald's was in March this year...in Australia. I have chosen not to eat McJunk, but opt for more home-cooked food even though my household is a double-income one with both me and my husband working full-time.

Like I said before, if you really want something badly (to stay healthy in this case), there is ALWAYS a call for effort involved no matter who you are. The key words here are RESPONSIBILITY and SELF-CONTROL, and it's about time people start taking responsibility for themselves.

Therefore, I acknowledge that it's not easy for some as it is for others, but I do think it's "stupid" when people shirk responsibility and not exercise (excuse the pun) self-control.

"Look up the meaning empathy. You have it confused with sympathy."

Not quite. I know fully well what empathy means. Sympathy is feeling sorry for someone as an external viewer. Empathy is putting yourself in that person's shoe even if you have not experienced before what he/she is going through.

When I put myself in an obese person's shoe, I am unable to empathise anymore because all I will think about is WHY DID YOU NOT TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CHANGE YOUR DIET AND START EXERCISING WHEN YOU WERE MANY KGS LIGHTER SOME YEARS AGO?!?

"They are often raised into that state of mind, often lower class on low income (if any), which only makes it so much harder to get out of their "condition"."

Raised into that state of mind = VERY bad parenting. You can still be a single parent and raise your kid well with a healthy lifestyle. I know several who were able to do this. My good friend, Sandra, is one of them. Parents who think it's cute to have a Happy Buddha deity-like child, or who are too lazy to properly take care of them, should be reported to child protective services.

Lower class on low income (if any) = not good reason for opting fast food instead of healthier food. Beans and rice with fruits & veggies on the side can make a healthy diet, along with tortillas or bread, store-brand cheese, and healthy (small) servings of meat. It's not rocket science.

And then there are those families in Africa with absolutely no income...but don't have obese kids. The point of mentioning this is to show that "low class" or "low income" should not be used as an excuse as to why people are obese. They are not correlated, even though statistics wants you to think they are. There are obese middle+upper-class people too. What's their excuse then?

Also, exercise does not need to cost anything, so again, having low income is not a good reason not to do push ups/sit ups at home, or jog in the park. It boils down to taking responsibility for your own body.

As for time to prepare a home-cooked meal rather than just buying fast food, again, there is no excuse. No one is asking you to make a sumptous Michelin meal that takes hours to prepare. A simple meal takes not more than an hour to prepare and cook, and with some help from your kids (if any), it'll take less time PLUS you spend quality time with them. And it would mean 1hr less watching TV or surfing the net, which is actually a good thing.

makes it so much harder to get out of their "condition" = harder, yes (to some extent). Impossible, no - so "giving up" on trying is not an option.

Let me add my own personal story. For 10 years of my childhood life, my family didn't have it easy. We were considered a low income (if any) family. My dad was in and out of jobs, usually out. My mum did not have a good education, so she couldn't get a job in the early years. She started working with low pay only much later, when she realised that my dad had "given up" looking for work.

They had 2 children to take care of - me and my brother. Borrowing money from friends and family was sometimes a temporary solution, but such favours eventually ran out.

There were several occasions when I remember having dinner by candlelight. Not because it was "Romantic Night", but because we did not pay the electricity bill over the last few months so the electric company cut off our supply after several warnings.

During really hard times, we had plain rice, fried eggs and baked beans for dinner. And plain water to drink. My grandmother (mum's mum) came by once or twice a month bringing fish, vegetables, fruits and some meat fresh from the market to ensure that we had something nutritious to eat now and then.

McDonald's, Burger King, KFC and other junk food was a "treat" for us, never part of our daily/regular diet. You can also forget about soft drinks or sugary juices - costs more than plain water.

When my brother and I were home alone, we had no access to junk like crisps, candy, chocolate, etc. Such things were not even locked behind a closet - they just weren't there.

We didn't sit in front of the TV all day - we played with each other! We had some toys, we had our bikes that we could bike up and down our street on, sometimes with the neighbour's kids. We were running around the house, inventing games in order not to get bored. We also had compulsory physical ed. twice a week in school, totalling 2hrs per week.

Despite living at such a low income level, my brother and I were NEVER obese. Heck, my PARENTS were never obese! Not even close to being overweight. In fact, we were underweight...but healthily underweight. We didn't have any health problems apart from the occasional flu.

So please...don't come and tell me that it's hard for people in the low income bracket to get out of their "condition", when it is actually VERY EASY for them not to get into that "condition" in the first place. Again, responsibility and self-control.

Making contrived excuses for people does not help them. At all.

"I actually can't say that I have much sympathy for a lot of them, but I am not going whine about some people having a hard enough time already, getting a chance to travel. Even if it should end up costing me a tiny bit, if I chose to travel with that airline."

If you don't mind getting squashed up between 2 obese people on a long haul flight, that's your sainthood call. However, I do mind, and I'm sure MOST people mind...and have good reason for that. We have the right to comfort too, and I don't want a "hard time" travelling either. Better still, I don't want OTHERS to have a hard time travelling/losing their comfort because of me, and that is why I take the responsibility to keep myself fit instead of making things inconvenient and more expensive for them.

" "if you weigh less than 45kg, you cannot do a worthy cause like donate blood." "
What is wrong with it, is that you are using it to say that skinny people are discriminated against. It's a matter of health and safety, not discrimination.

Again, you missed the sarcasm in its context... . Let me bring you back to my original text and "spell it out":

This is not discrimination at all - no, not at all. (in making an obese person pay for 2 seats when necessary)
......
The same way that smokers make their choice to smoke, and now have to smoke outside a restaurant or bar here in Copenhagen. Not discrimination at all.

Otherwise, we can say that really skinny people are discriminated against too. For example, if you weigh less than 45kg, you cannot do a worthy cause like donate blood... .

And then, my text again in the next post...this time more crystal clear:

But I can't call that "discrimination against skinny people", can I?

So...tell me again what I'm using it for??? That's right - to show that we can't go around pulling out the discrimination card every time there's an issue with weight - whether obese or skinny. Bravo! You get it now :o).

"Airlines can always give extra seats up with no cost, even when they are overbooked (In fact they overbook in an attempt to avoid this). Airlines already charge different amounts for each seat, even if it's the exact same class, location and service.

If half the people were obese enough to get 2 seats, you would see it on the prices. With the amount that currently travels, you won't."

*Sigh*...why do I always have to go back to my original post to spell things out yet again... . Didn't I write: "On a pretty full flight, at least, since it goes without saying that there can be more flexibility on more empty flights."

Let me go back and check...(pauses to check). Oh, yes - I DID write that! I'd be damned!

I'm sure you know...as well as I know...that when you book a flight, you're not asked about your weight. The airline carrier cannot tell how obese you are until you're CHECKING in.

In the same way, they cannot tell how much overweight luggage (I'm talking about literal luggages now, not fats. Just so we're clear, since they can be inter-changeable if you think about it) you are going to put on their flight until the point of CHECK-IN.

Now, we agree that especially on a fully booked flight, they make you pay a LOT of money for your overweight luggage. If the flight is empty, they're more lenient about it. Nobody WANTS to pay for overweight luggage, but we do know that the limit in general is 20kg in economy class. Isn't it fair then that if we go much over that limit, we just have to pay for it? I think it's very fair. I may not agree with the cost/kg, but it's still fair for them to charge.

So, in the same way, when the flight is fully booked, it can happen that people are asked if they can take another flight with some compensation given. I don't know how often you travel, but I've travelled enough to know that overbooking DOES come at a risk, because on a "good" day, EVERYONE shows up to take that flight, so even after bumping people up to business class, it still won't be enough to take in everyone. I've personally experienced 2 such incidents already.

In these cases, SEATS ARE VALUABLE. An obese person who is going to take up 2 seats would be stealing that extra seat from another person who had paid for it and needs it. If the airline gives 2 seats to the obese passenger for the price of 1, it has to compensate the other passenger for not being able to put him on that flight.

I think it's very fair therefore, that the obese person pays for 2 seats then instead of 1, instead of getting it "for free". The limit is afterall, ONE seat PER PASSENGER, just like the limit is 20kg luggage weight per passenger. Anything EXTRA, you pay for - obese or otherwise.

"You're going to charge me extra because I'm fat?!"
"No, madam. We're going to charge you extra because you're going to be using 2 seats instead of 1 on this very fully booked flight. Would you prefer another flight instead?"

And that is how it should be.

"Above average IQ (wow),"

Yup, you should indeed go "wow" (again).

"...does not negate stupidity."

Stupid is as stupid does. You do realise that people who call others "stupid" usually do so so that they can feel better about themselves by making others feel worse? In other words, such people have very low self-esteem. Hmm...obese people usually have low self-esteem. Not that I'm implying you could be obese, but since you still won't say who you are, I can only try to put the pieces of the puzzle together with whatever information I can get... .

Fortunately for me though, I know my worth, and it's not built upon other people's opinions of me...and especially not a "stranger's" opinion like yours.

I can only feel sorry for (I believe "sympathise" is the word here) people who call others "ignorant" or "stupid" or "selfish" while cowardly hiding behind their computer screens.

Despite the lack of courtesy from you, it has nevertheless been an interesting discussion...and I do enjoy engaging in discussions, if we can agree to be civil about it, while we agree to disagree.

"Let me just make a comment on Sheila's blog and call her 'shallow', 'airhead', 'bimbo' and 'heartless'. She'll never know who I am anyway, so I can apply the 'Coward's Code of Conduct.'" - S.I.S.I (Some Incredibly Scared Internet-user).