Generic Business Oriented Website

Does anybody else see the amusing overlap between these fat cunts saying they "deserve" to be desired and the M'Ladys acting entitled to pussy because they hold doors? Difference being of course that the fat cunts pretty much verbalize it that way and with the M'Ladys it's just kind of implied. Anyway, I really think we're overdue for downloadable sexbots. Everyone seems to need one now.

Pisscubes wrote:Are we the only society on the planet who feels we have the right to be happy?

I mean, I believe in a country as rich as ours health care should be a right. Along with clean water, access to some kind of education and the right not to starve just because you're poor.

But reading comments about the Hostess Hitchhiker there, I guess I missed out where everyone has the right to be happy and we're somehow responsible as a society to make sure no one feels bad. I mean, yeah-- don't be a dick to strangers for no reason. My folks taught me to be polite and try to treat people well. But happy? Society and life just owes us to be happy and feel good about ourselves most of the time? Since when?

Dave Sim wrote essays about this in the late nineties and early 2000s already, but nobody listened to him because he'd been labeled a misogynist (which he turned into five years after the rest of the world had already decided he was one.) At some point, people started confusing the right to the pursuit of happiness with the right to happiness, and it's been downhill ever since. And no, it's not just the US, it's pretty much all of "Western Culture". The same thing happens here, although as with most things, it's a bit more muted.

I think you just made the distinction clearly enough - people are entitled to certain material things, and the distribution of wealth is something that needs to be monitored at all times so that we don't revert to feudalism, but none of that translates to an entitlement to being "happy" or "feeling good about yourself" or being "loved". Those are very different things, and conflating them... actually, when you put it that way, it's kind of dangerous because it opens up the argument that people who fight for decent wages and affordable health care are whiners on the same levels as people who think nobody should be allowed to be mean to them.

My friends uncle works for Wal-Mart, and he got bone cancer in his leg. Obviously the Wal-Mart owned worker insurance denied his claim, "cancer was a growin' before you started working here." They gave him a $100 gift card and told him he could have his job back when his amputated stump of a leg heals.. and my friends family DEFENDS Wal-Mart, like they are doing him a favor. Brainwashing of the highest caliber.

Pisscubes wrote:

canon.docre wrote:My friends uncle works for Wal-Mart, and he got bone cancer in his leg. Obviously the Wal-Mart owned worker insurance denied his claim, "cancer was a growin' before you started working here." They gave him a $100 gift card and told him he could have his job back when his amputated stump of a leg heals.. and my friends family DEFENDS Wal-Mart, like they are doing him a favor. Brainwashing of the highest caliber.

A $100 gift card. Holy fuck.

that's a fucking depressing story, even from afar

Pisscubes wrote:But, socially, it's a different thing. No one has the right to a girlfriend, no one has the right to society making them feel great about themselves. I think it's why the Fat Activists, specifically, have launched some of their arguments as a human rights issue-- why the Lindy Wests of the world all but flat-out say Fat-ism is the same thing as racism, etc. Because it tries to change the direction of the conversation to something a lot more than it is. They don't want to admit what they're saying in the end is they wish people weren't mean, but what they're pretending they're doing is fighting for rights ala Rosa Parks. Which is hilarious.

Wait... why is legal/civil inequality in a different category than social equality? I just don't see how that's immediately evident to you. Social laws can be just as powerful as formal laws in determining our experiences. Or is your argument simply that fat is a choice and your racial status is not? In that case, if being fat is tied to socioeconomic status, I have to ask if you believe that economic mobility is sufficiently present in USA to suggest that fat people are truly "free" to become thin.

canon.docre wrote:My friends uncle works for Wal-Mart, and he got bone cancer in his leg. Obviously the Wal-Mart owned worker insurance denied his claim, "cancer was a growin' before you started working here." They gave him a $100 gift card and told him he could have his job back when his amputated stump of a leg heals.. and my friends family DEFENDS Wal-Mart, like they are doing him a favor. Brainwashing of the highest caliber.

That's the free market at work right there. Prosperity, motherfucker.

Lol Ross going full Rosstard yet again

Good points, Tors.

Big & Beautiful Thread of Rosstisms

Saying something mean about a fat person on the bus is now the same thing as slavery.

Ross'n.

Pisscubes wrote:

Necrometer wrote:

Pisscubes wrote:But, socially, it's a different thing. No one has the right to a girlfriend, no one has the right to society making them feel great about themselves. I think it's why the Fat Activists, specifically, have launched some of their arguments as a human rights issue-- why the Lindy Wests of the world all but flat-out say Fat-ism is the same thing as racism, etc. Because it tries to change the direction of the conversation to something a lot more than it is. They don't want to admit what they're saying in the end is they wish people weren't mean, but what they're pretending they're doing is fighting for rights ala Rosa Parks. Which is hilarious.

Wait... why is legal/civil inequality in a different category than social equality? I just don't see how that's immediately evident to you. Social laws can be just as powerful as formal laws in determining our experiences. Or is your argument simply that fat is a choice and your racial status is not? In that case, if being fat is tied to socioeconomic status, I have to ask if you believe that economic mobility is sufficiently present in USA to suggest that fat people are truly "free" to become thin.

I'll assume you're not actually making a case for why prejudice against the fat is the same thing as the institutional racism blacks in the united states dealt with.

Please let me assume that.

So the historical aspect is the main thing differentiating them? I'm just wondering about you guys' argument about the "right" to happiness or to freedom from prejudice. Under what circumstances does a class of people lose those rights, in your opinion? Or, if you think that right is not a default thing, is it just the history of slavery that grants that right to black people in USA?

Necrometer wrote: Please let me assume that.

So the historical aspect is the main thing differentiating them? I'm just wondering about you guys' argument about the "right" to happiness or to freedom from prejudice. Under what circumstances does a class of people lose those rights, in your opinion? Or, if you think that right is not a default thing, is it just the history of slavery that grants that right to black people in USA?[/quote]

Does sciencing no longer require basic literacy? Honest question. I'm not a sciencer. I do books and stuff, so I have to be able to read.

Yeah, but what's really the difference, Geoff? Why is this distinction so self-evident to you?

Lol Ross will do anything for internet social justice warrior points. There is no bottom.

This is an illustration of my anecdotal expertise on the fat spectrum.

The left is what happened to me when I was eating according to USDA standards.
Lots of whole wheat, grains, and carbs. Not surprisingly, in the throes of metabolic syndrome and well on the way to diabetes type-II. As pictured, 318 lbs at 6 feet tall.

The right is after a few years of a modified Paleo diet, heavily focused on meat and fat, with sparing starchy tubers, and some greens. I rarely even eat fruit, beyond tomatoes anymore.
Now, 215 lbs at 6 feet.

It would be important to note that my activity levels did not change.
It is also important to note that the cost of Paleo's meat/fat is high, but the amount of food eaten is much lower, as it is MUCH more nutrient-dense.

Now, this is NOT a civil-rights issue, it's more that the official government prescriptions for diet are laughably wrong, and incompatible with biochemistry of the human body and the endocrine impact of macronutrients.

You can blame Lindy West on the USDA RDA.
You can blame her on the fact that the FDA and USDA are bank-rolled by the people selling cereal grains as "health food" (see also: Cargill, ADM, AE Staley).

You can blame a lot of people, but you have to ultimately blame her for lack of research.

It is NOT, nor will it ever be, a "civil rights" issue.

Pisscubes wrote:None of this applies to the fact that there ARE stereotypes that people cast on fat people. Approaching how fat people are treated as a civil rights thing-- which is, at her most extreme, what Lindy West has done-- is hyperbole. People who society don't find attractive and the kind of treatment they get for it is a HUGE stretch of the phrase "civil rights injustice" as we've come to know it.

I dunno, I think it's been established that fats are discriminated against when applying for jobs. But that's a minor thing and I get your point.

OK, one more clarification: do you think it's fair to compare the size discrimination to what well-to-do minorities have to deal with? Like, in USA, let's say Asians are doing fine economically, even if they're underrepresented in certain ways (in media or governance... same goes for superfats). Should they put up with racial prejudice to the same extent that fats put up with fat prejudice?

This is why you don't engage him in any kind of discussion. It just deteriorates.

i mean

we could make it one?

STAIRS ARE FUCKING OPPRESSIVE GEOFF

GOSH

It's already been said many times in this thread.....not only should obese people not be treated fairly, they should be discriminated against.

Of course this is just my opinion. If I were a hiring manager, I would not hire smokers, drug addicts, or alcoholics. If you can't take care of yourself, I can't expect you to be responsible in your job. You can be choosy in todays job market.

This is why I will never be allowed to hire people.

literally seizing in agony right now

Are any FA people black?