Deep Thoughts
In America, you can be a drug addict. You can be a compulsive gambler. A single mother. A smoker. A drunk. A gang member. And you are considered a victim; you are deserving of sympathy and coddling. Billions of taxpayer dollars are allocated for countless educational, medical and monetary programs to aid, support and abet these so-called victims of society. It's apparently not one's choice to inject heroin, use your EBT card at the local casino, have money for cigarettes, tattoos and alcohol but no money for cheese, bread or rent. Yup, we American citizens are programmed to feel sorry for these hapless individuals who apparently have no personal responsibility or accountability for the choices they have made in their lives.
But if you're fat...
...you are a vessel of shame, derision, scorn. You are unworthy. You are guilty. You are a glutton and a disgusting pig. You should be held accountable for putting that fork in your face. Skip a meal. You should be punished because it is just unfathomable to have taxpayer dollars pay for the consequences of a fat person's choice to be fat.
It is okay to be intolerant of fat people. They do, afterall, ruin the visual aesthetic for America. Addicts slumped in doorways and drunks sleeping on park benches are pitiable and you can even find them in Europe; fat people are disgusting and not welcome in Europe. Did you know that fat people can sometimes get hypertension and/or diabetes? Skinny people and old people can get hypertension and diabetes as well but, you know, it is unfathomable to have taxpayer money spent on something that fat people can get. Being fat is supposed to be a risk factor for breast cancer. I would love to see pictures of Cynthia Nixon, Christina Applegate, Melissa Etheridge, Sheryl Crow, Kylie Minogue, Kate Jackson, Suzanne Somers, Peggy Fleming, Linda McCartney, Maura Tierney and Guiliana Rancic during their fat years.
It's no big deal if taxpayers fund tattoo removal programs for gang members. They're victims. Only smokers can get state-funded nicotine patches as smokers really don't have a choice to smoke, right? Taxpayer approved victims. Somehow I just find it really odd that people choose to bring children into the world but not be in enough of a financial place to pay for even the most basic of needs of a child. So taxpayers are on the hook for feeding, clothing, educating, paying for medical care, paying for childcare and entertaining generations of children whose parents simply abdicate their responsibilities to taxpayers. And that's okay. It's not the childrens' fault and apparently it isn't their parents' fault either.
Bottom line: if it is okay to shame fat people under the guise of taxpayers having to spend funds on their health afflictions, then why isn't it okay to shame others who drain taxpayer dollars for their life choices as well? Sex isn't a requirement and pregnancy isn't a disease and yet taxpayers are being bullied into paying for Americans' sex lives. Condoms aren't enough. We have to pay for pills, IUDs, and all other manner of birth control too.
You gotta die of something. Everyone, as they get older, will get sick for some reason and die at some point. The biggest risk factor for heart disease and cancer isn't BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc...it's age. Doing everything right lowers your risk of disease, but not to zero. There is no magic set of behavior that will prevent disease; the closest is obvious behavior to prevent cancer like "don't smoke" and "don't zap yourself with radiation on a daily basis."
But there's a big difference in confirmation bias. When a person with good habits and numbers has a random heart attack at age 60, people will be shocked and sympathetic, thinking it's abnormal. When a fat person has a random heart attack at age 60, people will think it's entirely the fat person's fault. In reality, the fat person's risk of heart attack is only slightly higher; most people think that his risk is drastically higher, and his heart attack will confirm the bias while a "healthy" person's heart attack will be discounted as not fitting the pattern.
One final thought: before passing judgment when you see someone fat, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the effects of many cancer drugs and steroids that are used to treat chronic and life-threatening illnesses. Do you want them to skip a meal, too?
But if you're fat...
...you are a vessel of shame, derision, scorn. You are unworthy. You are guilty. You are a glutton and a disgusting pig. You should be held accountable for putting that fork in your face. Skip a meal. You should be punished because it is just unfathomable to have taxpayer dollars pay for the consequences of a fat person's choice to be fat.
It is okay to be intolerant of fat people. They do, afterall, ruin the visual aesthetic for America. Addicts slumped in doorways and drunks sleeping on park benches are pitiable and you can even find them in Europe; fat people are disgusting and not welcome in Europe. Did you know that fat people can sometimes get hypertension and/or diabetes? Skinny people and old people can get hypertension and diabetes as well but, you know, it is unfathomable to have taxpayer money spent on something that fat people can get. Being fat is supposed to be a risk factor for breast cancer. I would love to see pictures of Cynthia Nixon, Christina Applegate, Melissa Etheridge, Sheryl Crow, Kylie Minogue, Kate Jackson, Suzanne Somers, Peggy Fleming, Linda McCartney, Maura Tierney and Guiliana Rancic during their fat years.
It's no big deal if taxpayers fund tattoo removal programs for gang members. They're victims. Only smokers can get state-funded nicotine patches as smokers really don't have a choice to smoke, right? Taxpayer approved victims. Somehow I just find it really odd that people choose to bring children into the world but not be in enough of a financial place to pay for even the most basic of needs of a child. So taxpayers are on the hook for feeding, clothing, educating, paying for medical care, paying for childcare and entertaining generations of children whose parents simply abdicate their responsibilities to taxpayers. And that's okay. It's not the childrens' fault and apparently it isn't their parents' fault either.
Bottom line: if it is okay to shame fat people under the guise of taxpayers having to spend funds on their health afflictions, then why isn't it okay to shame others who drain taxpayer dollars for their life choices as well? Sex isn't a requirement and pregnancy isn't a disease and yet taxpayers are being bullied into paying for Americans' sex lives. Condoms aren't enough. We have to pay for pills, IUDs, and all other manner of birth control too.
You gotta die of something. Everyone, as they get older, will get sick for some reason and die at some point. The biggest risk factor for heart disease and cancer isn't BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc...it's age. Doing everything right lowers your risk of disease, but not to zero. There is no magic set of behavior that will prevent disease; the closest is obvious behavior to prevent cancer like "don't smoke" and "don't zap yourself with radiation on a daily basis."
But there's a big difference in confirmation bias. When a person with good habits and numbers has a random heart attack at age 60, people will be shocked and sympathetic, thinking it's abnormal. When a fat person has a random heart attack at age 60, people will think it's entirely the fat person's fault. In reality, the fat person's risk of heart attack is only slightly higher; most people think that his risk is drastically higher, and his heart attack will confirm the bias while a "healthy" person's heart attack will be discounted as not fitting the pattern.
One final thought: before passing judgment when you see someone fat, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the effects of many cancer drugs and steroids that are used to treat chronic and life-threatening illnesses. Do you want them to skip a meal, too?