Monday, 23 May 2016

Attacking Bodies

I was puzzled by the story of a feminist group called "Cherchez la Femme" and an ad publicising one of their events. Little did I know it was going to turn into why mainstream feminism is too often stuck in an intellectual drain part Xty X.

The event question, mooted as a "talk show" will discuss fat acceptance/body positive and such. F**book [yes I'm aware only two **'s.] banned it from boosting the ad you see at the top of the banner of their page, featuring a picture of Tess Holliday in a bikini.

Now what thoughts are rushing into the void? Discrimination? [see comments underneath the post]. Or good on f**book for resisting the impulse to promoobo? [see DM commenters-probably responding to that headline].

All this despite Jessamy Gleeson a producer of said event, helpfully touching on f**book's actual problem, which is-to quote them,
Your ad wasn't approved because the image being used in the ad doesn't comply with our Health and Fitness Policy.
The image depicts a body or body parts in an undesirable manner. Ads may not depict a state of health or body weight as being perfect OR extremely undesirable. [my emph.]
You can see "undesirable manner" plus the last two words-"extremely undesirable" probably set some people off. We'll let them continue,
This includes ad images showing:
  • Close-ups of "muffin tops" where the overhanging fat is visible
  • People with clothes that are too tight
  • People pinching their fat/cellulite (even with full body visible)
  • Human medical conditions in a negative light (ex: eating disorders)
Any clearer? Here's the money shot,
Ads like these are not allowed since they make viewers feel bad about themselves.
And there we finally have it. Lying bunkum and balderdash about how mere viewing of bodies gives poor ickle womenz body boo, boos, have come home to roost.

Tess Holliday's form is apparently presented as an aspirational image, which might make less than perfect fatz feel bad about themselves. Boosting the ad featuring her image is therefore being blocked by f/b on the grounds that women's bodies cause women to have problems with their own bodies, totally against their will. If indeed they have one in this storyboard.

No wonder no-one got it!

Like every fat person, I've said I really miss(ed) the input of the mainstream bodied. But I keep waiting for the application of their business as usual twaddle to be of any earthly use to fat women. I don't wish to seem unnecessarily divisive, but a lot of what is said in the m/s about women 'n' their bodies is horseshit and stinks just as bad. Dishonest, bogus and heavy on the quack, ridden with psychobabble, blatant unconvincing placeholder type waffle.

It's only supported by the halo assigned to certain people.
 
Is it really bad of me to point this out? We know those phoning this in don't believe it either, 'cos they've told us. They bend over backwards to tell fatz we choose our bodies, and get very onery about any attempt to introduce the nuance of our actual experience [how dare we].

Not a little of that is due their own frustration and boredom with their own fakery and its dampening of honest exchange in this area but won't give it up. Well, it's status ain't it?

I couldn't help but be amused when on one forum some years ago, there was thought to be a suggestion [there wasn't] that slimz diet solely for the approval of others rather than personal fulfilment. They rightly felt the inference to be blazingly patronising [whether true or not]. "What, we're so pathetically supine that we cannot express urge to control our own bodies? We have to be 'oppressed' for that?"

There you have it. A tacit recognition of just how bad this nonsense about poor defenceless women starving themselves because of other women's bodies really sounds without the shield of m/s investment.

Just read that highlighted sentence again;
Ads like these are not allowed since they make viewers feel bad about themselves. 
For three year olds maybe.

Bodies do not cause eating disorders. And even if they did, tough. People's bodies cannot banned or pathologized because of other people's personal issues. There's also a sense of using body banning to avoid seeing someone you might envy and of finding ways to harass those you are jealous of, but don't have the authority driven funkfest that is the crusade.

[Oh yes they would.]

The only concern should be any undue exploitation of those who appear in such publicity, models, actors and the like. But as long as they aren't under duress to starve themselves, the body police can lump it.

Especially given that the problem is the denial of your agency by the white coat elite, intent on continuing to deny real means to help yourself. More effort can be put into techniques that could undermine and protect people from problems with hunger and food.

Thinspo is rank, it's hatred should be challenged, but the agency of those involved must be recognised, along with the context in which it operates. Insisting any reversal of weight must happen via calorie manipulation, encourages calorie restriction. It's not gone unnoticed that  thinspo is just a form of "weight management."

This little set-to should give pause for thought in going along with this other women's shady antics of the bodies cause me/someone else damage variety, this is where it can end up.

Now there's potential discussion with real bite. I wonder if CLF will take this ball on in their talk?

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

This is 'Obesity'

Sarai Walker's article in NYT tells us exactly what the 'obesity' construct is and is for.
I posted a link on Twitter to a 1969 interview with Jim Morrison, in which he said, “Fat is beautiful.” Minutes after posting the link, a friend responded angrily that being fat is unhealthy because it causes high blood pressure and other health problems. This response, I told the audience, is an example of what I call “Fat Derangement Syndrome,” where even people who consider themselves to be open-minded, critical thinkers become outraged if fat is spoken about in any positive way.
"Fat Derangement Syndrome" is 'obesity'. It's the applied vigiliante style, permanent chorus of disapproval, which is supposed to trigger feelings of unwellbeing in fat people. This can be pointed to as the expression of the pathology of 'obesity'/caused by 'obesity'.

Or what have you got? A lot of hysteria about unhealthy, and a lot of completely tuned out fat people going about their beeswax, being just as un/healthy as they are, no more no less? How easily can you make fool yourself with that?

The much hoped pathology that is the 'obesity' construct can only be made anything like a realistic pretense even for the desperate, with this kind of proactivity. If you really want to believe something, the urge is to act that out where you feel you can. To try and make it happen. Or else, why bother wanting it?

Unfortunately, Sarai Walker like many of the fat activist bent point blank refuse to countenance this, despite heavy prompting. 
During the audience question-and-answer period, people stood up, one after another, and made negative comments about weight.
You don't say.
I felt like a witch surrounded by torch-wielding villagers. It was clear that even for many urban sophisticates paying to attend a festival about difficult ideas, thinking about fat as anything but bad was borderline impossible.
Oh its possible alright, it just not desirable to these folk. If they're so sophisticated, why would this be anything but their decision? This whole rackety ob act wouldn't exist without serious interventions from the white coat mafia, true. However, no-one's stopping the keepers of all human intellect and compassion from seeing right through that. Basic critical thinking would do that.

No one's in a better position to dismantle it than they. If they'd have wanted, they could have saved us all from this by seeing it as beneath their dignity-which it is. The 'obesity' crusade has always been aimed straight at Walker's audience. It knows them, because it is them. It is how they think, especially about those of the lower orders.

Walker can't believe her audience doesn't recognize her. I'm one of you!

Fat activists, those who see themselves as white, middle/upper class educated intelligent etc., refuse to acknowledge that given no comebacks, they too can choose to feel liberated by bigotry. The implications on self identity are sharp but why is that any different for the rest of us?

How do you think I feel about Black people, especially self-declared militant activists, accepting the idea that Black people are lazy and stupid, as long as they're 'obese'? We are talking about their mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts who worked all hours for them and theirs.

I did not need to know it was this easy. But I'm not going to pretend that hasn't happened.

I can see, despite the assumption that Black people live to cry "racism" at every turn, the sheer fatigue with politics. How wonderful to be able to achieve radical change that's wholly internal? The power is yours.

Black or otherwise, fat people are imbued with the magic of totally existing in an ether untouched by the laws and mechanisms of society.

If I ignored all this and pretended its purely about don't know, it would be erasing and ignoring those feelings. Whilst I don't respect the craven submission to 'obesity' folklore. There is something deeply condescending about behaving as if they're under any real duress to feel this way. It's collusion pure and simple.

Something else;
Backstage, the moderator of the event asked if I was O.K. This wasn’t the first time someone on my tour had pulled me aside to ask that question. I said I was fine, but in the hotel that night, I crawled into bed, relieved that I no longer had to perform as a professional fatty. I wanted to go home and hide. I am ashamed of this response. I wrote a novel to give fat women a voice, but then became exhausted using mine.
That is the best description of "political correctness" I think I've ever read. How ironic that she thinks that's the source of her pain! Rather than her refusal to see people want her to feel bad, feel ill, so they can say-that is what we are talking about. So they can validate their assertions. That's how brittle and willfil the ob cult is. 

The real consideration is not to feel like you're fronting with an insouciant 'tude. It's to recognize the limits of identity. That you have to be able to be more important than whatever group you feel part of. That you can and must be capable of standing aloof from them. Knowing that they are wrong and you are right.

If the boot was on the other foot, wouldn't you want them to stand their ground against your wrongness? How many times have your mistakes been corrected by those who refused to submit to you[r identity]?

Tuesday, 3 May 2016

BizarrO

Something I seem to have failed to get fully across to fatz is just what an unprecedentedly peculiar consciousness we've been cornered into. Many fatz trade in the sob fatty story, they feel the only way they can communicate with slimstream is to accede to their demands that we are tragically melancholy about our rape-proof status lols.

Enter, the DM (and others) reporting a new "bizarre new "roast me" craze". This unheard of pastime involves posting a picture onto the internet and inviting people to insult you on the basis of what you look like.

Or in other words, exactly what is supposed to save the 'obese'. In this case it is invited, therefore consensual-signalled by the person holding up a sign in said picture with "roast me" written on it. 

Do you remember consent? That's when you decide of your own volition to do or not do stuff. Those were the days......

The DM and others rightly state inviting people to abuse you is not a health aid. It is not the sign of a healthy psyche or a moral character. It is not even a signal that one seeks to exit the depths of bonbon-related depravity.

It is bizarro.

It requires an explanation. Acceptance of such would be a deviation from the norm.

More than this, if you do not consent, and are just set up for it, you are the victim.

Fat people are truly gracious in bearing this.

There are rules to this. Comments should be "dry and funny". Only with permission, as already stated. The uses of said forum, should be older than 13, to give this consent. Leaving the youngest children out of it.

How civil.

Time served playing 'obese' is like having been in a mind-altering cult. Your will is bent into the service of the cult, rather than yourself. The two are presented as if they are one.

After an experiment there's debriefing. After a cult comes deprogramming.

The aim is to restore the mind back to its equilibrium of judgement.

Going from a savage internal monologue of fat hating to a truer sense of yourself, on the basis of will, is such a feat that people struggle to see beyond that.

Wonderful though that is, it isn't enough. Fat people, activists included need to develop methods of debriefing/ deprogramming our minds from the punctured perspective that has been so normalised.The refusal to call time on the crusade means, no one wants us to, perhaps even us. 

From where many of us stand, it threatens to put so much distance between us and the slimstream that it feels like a greater test of sanity than dealing with fat phobic norms.

Given fat people have no interest in separating ourselves from slim people. On the contrary. We've always sought connection, from our extreme dedication to  [re-]join them in the utopia of slim. To now when we twist ourselves out of shape to try communicating on their terms, and pay the price for that ourselves. 

Limitations on the respect a person has for themselves will curtail the ability to respect others, even those we give as much respect to as slim people.

Friday, 29 April 2016

Binge Eating Disorder is not Hyperphagia Nervosa

It's finally clicked! *Binge eating disorder-BED is a bulimic cycle without the vomiting. Instead there's calorie restriction/starvation with or without exercise bulimia [that's exercise to induce weight loss] in response.

This cycle seems to run over days, at least, rather than the more condensed bulimic initiation and response of bingeing [consuming a high volume of intake/calories in a very short space of time] and more or less immediate purging.

Like all hunger/eating disorders, its mainly initiated by dieting. 

I've struggled in the past to grasp exactly what BED is. Not that it wasn't explained to me, the explanations just didn't add up to much in my mind.

I thought of it as a mild version of hyperphagia nervosa, which brings me what needs continual reiteration. BED is not hyperphagia nervosa. Hyperphagia nervosa does not fit into the convention anorexia model of 'eating disorder'. It is not an ED, it's a hunger disorder.

That is extremely important in this context. Hyperphagia nervosa is not 'food addiction' it is not 'eating addiction' it is hunger function that is hyperactive, hypersensitive, achieves high momentum that's takes longer to bring to a halt. It can be a combination of some or all of these things.

It is aggressive, invasive, unneeded hunger. Sometimes accompanied by other disturbing symptoms. It feels like your (nervous) system is under pressure. Not like you're trying to get drunk with food or whatever people with BED are supposed to feel (I'm not trying to go there anymore).

The difference is that with HN its usually a more constant fight, as in moment to moment. Rather than cyclical and seemingly initiated by the attempt to lose weight via dieting, as is likely with BED. For some its a moment to moment basis. The term binge eating appears to be modelled after binge drinking and applies the same assumptions about that to food.

HN is body led, and seems to be bound up with the functioning of the hypothalamic region of the brain/endocrine system. Often its trigger seems to be related to the endocrine systems efforts in regulating human growth. 3 years old keeps coming up. So I'm wondering what chemical milestone/s happen thereabouts.

7 give or take a year either way is another one. I think its safe to say this is the lead up to puberty. The process of triggering the hormonal change/increase/surge happening around then, can disrupt hunger functioning. It seems related in some way to hyperphagia/hyperhunger from lesion to hypothalamus but without any obvious sign of such injury.

I use nervosa as altering my nervous system's tension relieved it. So my guess is that although it may caused by a wonky hypothalamus it can be amenable to alteration through the nervosa system, hence nervosa which is a reference to that system.

I realise that's a case study of one, but that's what happens when people refuse to produce anything close to objective study. You're forced on to what you have. Any one wishing to conduct a genuine study is welcome to. I'll happily cite their efforts.

From what I've gleaned over time, BED yields more readily to manipulating your response to food. Like a lot of anorexia, it doesn't necessarily have to be gotten over or gotten over fully. You can work around it, as the guy described in his video. This may lessen hyperphagia but to really take a lump out of it, you have to alter the default way your body functions. Rather than chase it after the fact.

I know slimstream researchers are trying to shove hyperhunger into their little empire, as they feel they can puppet fat people and that we all think they're the wind beneath our wings etc., Theirs and the general fixation with eating is a product of an anorexic mindset and sensibility. Those who believe weight =calories in minus calories out tend to develop this compensatory fixation with food and eating.

They lack self awareness about how glaringly clunky it is. If your idea of weight is instead rooted more around metabolic function, this symptom is not invoked by this. So it just reads like a superficial, irrelevant imposition. An unwanted one.

It's key those experiencing excessive hunger make reducing that their focus rather than food which is what others want to focus on. Especially if they're seeking to involve others. If what I'm saying makes sense to you, keep their focus on what you need.

* Not recommending this video, it just happened to trigger realisation. 

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

The Elephant in the Room

More good news from yesterday. Dementia diagnoses experienced an unexpected drop, over the last 20 years. The study authors didn't engage in speculation as to why, except when they did;
The findings are potentially significant because they suggest that it is possible to take preventative action, such as stopping smoking and reducing cholesterol, that could help avoid the condition. “Physical health and brain health are clearly highly linked,” said Carol Brayne of Cambridge University, who co-authored the study.
You can do all those things and still be chubby, or fat or putting on weight. Which brings us to the elephant in the room. The crisis of weight.  Just as sure as this would have been prominently mentioned if the findings were negative, its only right that society's increasing weight should be mentioned as a possibility for the reduction in dementia.

That of course would also be speculative, though lower weight was surprisingly [to fat phobes] uncovered as a 'risk factor' for an increased risk of dementia-much to many people's bitterness. There's been a long term desperation to insist fatness and dementia go together like venereal disease and unguarded sexual activity. 

Not that I would dream of insisting people try to put on weight, heaven forefend such flagrant degeneracy as obstructing weight reversal. This is just a reminder that health is a complex overlapping business. Imperatives clash and choices have to be made, others eschewed as they do not suit nor make sense on an individual or even community basis.

That for me is the reason why we have no duty to be 'healthy' according to the dictates of self-serving authority. Rather than any kind of abstract libertarian-style ideal of disposal of body as one wishes. Yes, as long as it's clear that it is inherent in human agency and self realisation to-seek to maximise your function-to the best of your ability. Or pursue health as others would call it.

To me, the language of "self destruction" is nonsense, a slander healthists love to build their shady empire on. The idea that we don't care about our health. Yes we do. There's rarely such as the banal "self destructive" tag. Most placed in that category are either doing things because they feel that is what they need to do to keep going or do themselves good. Or they may be punishing themselves.

That's as self destructive as; fat people need to be brutalised to 'lose weight'. They believe they deserve it, due to their beliefs about themselves, or that it will do or produce good.

Healthists like to convince us we don't care, presenting themselves as having the solutions as long as we do whatever they demand. They claim to be the ones that truly care about your health, more than you obviously. The view that some of us wish to trash our bodies for the heck of it is not a convincing one. 

There is no rigid healthy standard as is too often asserted even by those opposing it. We need to watch the setting up of standards that may seem rational in our heads only to fail spectacularly in reality. Look how rational eat fewer calories than you use seemed before we chucked away so many years only to be left to repair the resultant mayhem.

That's why science has clinical trials, very little can be taken for granted when it comes to our ability to conceive of what is possible, versus what is.

I've not been so sure of 'healthy' since having to step back from adherence to living that way. I always had a suspicion that activity + certain dietary dictates =health was a simple reversal of, the more rewarding your life is, the more likely you are to emerge with your inborn instinct to move alive and kicking.

Few things represent the constraints of a more stressful life better than the need to disregard your urge to move due to the constraints placed on them and you.

Nor is healthism so sure of itself. I'll remind you of the thrust of much ''obesity' research' is healthy living is little use to the fat. Though these sound suspiciously emphatic, sprinkled liberally as they are with wishful thinking, drowned in bitterness sauce.

Many fat phobes fall into that trap thinking this debunks fat people's self realisation, actually, 'tis healthsim debunking healthism. If healthy living is only good for the purportedly healthy, then it does not produce the health claimed, ergo cannot be described as healthy.

Above all, we must be meaningfully ourselves.

Our bodies have their own rules.

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Human Metabolism's Plasticity

No-brainer news;
This study shows that if an overweight person is able to maintain an initial weight loss – in this case for a year – the body will eventually ‘accept’ this new weight and thus not fight against it, as is otherwise normally the case when you are in a calorie-deficit state,”
If an o/w person-or presumably any person including slims, 'cos they're people too-keeps starving themselves, after a year, their metabolic function may reset itself to that level of hunger.
The interesting uplifting news in this study is that if you are able to maintain your weight loss for a longer period of time, it seems as if you have ‘passed the critical point’, and after this point, it will actually become easier for you to maintain your weight loss than is was immediately after the initial weight loss.
I beg to differ. Its the other way round. Adjust metabolic function (first) and that will alter outcomes insomuch as your body responds to any particular [metabolic] alteration, as I've been boring on about for it seems like aeons.

If she plays her cards right, Professor Signe Sørensen Torekov  the head honcho of this study-she could be on course to be the second most famous Dane after himself

Isn't this magnificent? No more enforced starvation for anyone; whoo hoo: Paaaaartay!!!

This particular study's topsy-turvey findings came by measuring the levels of two chemicals GLP-1 and PYY 3-36, said to be present, in the blood, when there's "appetite inhibition". The levels of both were measured after meals in people who had lost 13% of their weight. Three measurements were taken; before they'd lost the weight, just after their weight loss and 52 weeks after sustaining said weight loss.
These chemicals increased after the 52 week period to a level reflective of a lack of unwanted hunger. According to this study, the body finally "accept(s)" lowered intake, in theory of course. That's great.

It should be simple to confirm whether these pointers are simply present along with, or are hunger cessation in action. Find a way or ways to reduce/inhibit levels of GLP-1 and PYY 3-36 directly, stand back and watch people's hunger/appetite fall without any need for privation. It will be sensational-given the desperation to stave off the global adipocalypse.

Significantly altering hunger/metabolic is nothing new. Having dieting career or merely the threat of one hanging over you, can and does significantly adjust hunger/metabolic function. Yes, merely contemplating springing a diet on yourself day after day for years is enough to trigger some of the delightful adjustments of your metabolic function and nervous system.

Repeat, some people are going to discover that what they thought was a neurotic flaky nature is actually a side effect of long-term calorie restriction or the threat of it.

I altered mine back albeit accidentally. I barely altered in weight, tricky though it undoubtedly is, altering hunger seems way easier than altering the extent to which the body stores fat.

I'm sure I've said enough times to bore people almost as much as I'm bored with saying it. There's no way bodies can only gain weight. That nonsense has been put about solely via the calories in/out assertion. All that's lacking is the means of adjusting the metabolic mechanism to trigger or set that off reversal.

Each and every force must have an equal and countervailing force.

It's obvious in the way even that weight gain does not happen at the same speed. If your weight goes up one year and less or nothing the next. That's a downward adjustment, a theoretical reversal in terms of absence of gain. The body does this without pain, privation or punishment. Suggesting all that's necessary is making adjustments at source.

If what's missing is  reducing the levels of a couple of chemicals, then vamos, let's go kiddos.

If this had been done in a timely fashion, 8 year old, Hana Tarraf wouldn't have had to have a gastric band fitted merely to try and arrest hypothalamically induced weight gain. The originator of this, a tumour, may not be so simple to permanently vanquish, but she could have been spared from the unnecessary anguish of agonising hyperphagia.

Hyperphagia-genuinely excessive/heightened hunger functioning is distressing enough to be relieved with or without weight loss. Never forget who's paying for this bizarre obsession with getting fat people and therefore everyone else, to starve themselves.

I hope this is helping you to see how that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is no point I can see to it, but I'll stand correction. Feel free to explain why the cart must be put before the horse, instead of the right way round.

I don't give a damn where you are coming from on this, ask yourself; Why are ob researchers avoiding directly adjusting metabolic function?

Even more fascinating still; What is it are they avoiding?

That's more of a mystery than the plasticity of metabolic function. 

Friday, 15 April 2016

Society's A Gastric Band

Susan Jebb's recently said weight is genetically inspired and worked on by the (food) environment. It's another incarnation of the 'obesogenic' notion.
“You need in some cases a superhuman effort to reduce your food intake. Is that their fault? I don’t think it is.”
What demands superhuman effort is that our bodies are designed to fight this withdrawal of nourishment. The effort is required to defeat your body's organization. Like a football team trying to win by aiming only to score own goals, you are working hard merely to play against yourself.

Better still, it would require little to no effort if a person's hunger was reduced first. That would then led to the person eating less without any need for inefficient "willpower". Whether this would make a person slim or not, is another story but it must again be noted that Jebb doesn't mention this. 'Obesity' wallahs rarely do.

They continue with the wrong way to implement their own demands, so desparate are they to head off the end of civilization as we know it. The idea of the environment acting on a person's weight differs little from- public opprobrium (supposedly) acts to repress a person's weight.

Note the constant of the general contains the individual. This denies said individual any real control over their own body, such as altering hunger, use of energy and so on. This weird, locus of control as outside and wholly inside, keeps your open to interference yet dumps the dysfunction at your door. Jebb hardly departs from this mode. She's just positioned towards the other end.

The outcome of millions of individuals eating as sparsely as would be required, is to turn big food as we know it, into small food. The possibility that this will be replaced with companies that produce acceptable food is undermined by the impossibility of pleasing the food-is-weight regulation crew.

Whether its their phoney tussling is whether sugar or fat is the culprit. Or "plant-based" is everything. [Followed by corrections with titles such as: "This is why you're putting on weight on a plant-based diet.] Who can follow their hypothetical assertions?

To regulate the food of people versus regulate the food business that will be regulated anyway by the regulation of millions of individual people, is the same "side", all inside calories in/out. Not facing up to the implications of mass "lifestyle change" has depended on the untenability of dieting, which is then blamed on individual failure, to keep it going.

Recognizing the extra obstacle of trying to diet individually in the face of an onslaught diametrically opposed to it, was always likely to be the, when slim people felt threatened enough to start behaving like fat people have done for ever. 

The purpose of individualizing dieting and weight, was to try and keep this away from slim people, when they felt dieting had nothing to do with them, not because it was any way to implement mass dietary restriction.

I already made the point that in a society, the thinnest/least weight retentive need to swap roles with the so called 'morbidly obese'. They will have to be the ones scrambling uphill to maintain to their weight up as deathfatz have to run around trying to repress theirs. Calories in/out as the default weight regulation, pits the needs of those least able to gain weight, against those most able.

You can see a bit of this when people complain about food taxes; "Why should I have to pay more for those who can't control themselves?" Clearly they are dunces, but the point is, they voted for it by going along with the insistence on CRIWL. 

Constant warnings about how fat every will be have finally helped to slowly erode slim people's confidence that they just choose slim. This set-up was always waiting for that particular penny to drop and it is. 

The origin of fat people's sense of guilt and protectiveness towards slimmer people is based on feelings of: "We don't want to drag you into this." But that was a conceit. It wasn't up to us.

Those clinging to the status quo pretense of this is an issue of "individual responsibility" simply wish to continue this particular sort of fiction. They're ignoring that this would probably allow the clamour toward dismantling invidual rights to increase, the one that has enabled this taxing of sugar in the first place.

Such is no longer restricted to fat people.

And so it goes.