Friday, 13 November 2015

Maximum Weight

Every now and again (well, actually all the time) certain unexpected anomalies are thrown up in the miasma of lies flying around fat 'n' slim wishful thinking.

I cannot pretend to speak for fat people in general, but I'm wondering how many fat people have a maximum weight. If that doesn't ring a bell, I'm referring to the way many slim people have some kind of weight limit above which they will reign their body's in via restriction, anything from outright (usually brief) fasting to cutting out certain food items for a little bit.

The reason I and I suspect many other head scratching fatties missed out on this joy is a side effect of our 'obese' role. This you may recall requires us to "admit/confess" we are failing to be slim-in order to change,  BAHUUUUTTTTTTT at the same time, demands we reject our weight as well, sort of unaccept it. Hence fa(c)t acceptance.

Oh my. Fat Acceptance =Fact acceptance, lmao.

 It's true though.

Only recently did the realisation of this difference kick in.

Some FA's may find this a bit unsavoury,  but I have wondered how many people would/could have stemmed or slowed an upward drift by employing this strategic defense of the status quo. I could only guess at how much this could have arrested any gain. I had a hunger disorder that was worsened by most aspects of living the 'obesity' canard lifepath. The one that ends with the removal of your stomach possibly along with some other weight loss dieting induced "obesity related disorder."

But I do know that at every point I found fasting piss easy in comparison with weight loss dieting. Number one, I was always "fasting" because my level of hunger was quite bestial and I was permanently trying to fight this. So I was spending a lot of time being hungry in this ferocious blizzard of urge overkill. 

This constant advance and reversal shows the failure of calorie restriction in slim people-or they'd be going backwards, not back and forth and back again. The bitterness of it informs their anger towards fat people and their game of zig-zag forms a lot of the basis of their model of how it is with fat people.

Monday, 26 October 2015

A sugar tax is to pay for quacks, fund SCIENCE instead

The slimstream got what it wanted over the term of the current 'obesity' crusade. What all humans want, for food that it likes to be widely available, amongst other things. Its very own 'obesity' construct helped, there's much citing of "personal responsibility" as being the locus of weight control-for fat people anyway. Therefore acting in the face of requiring an evisceration of calories was fine until......getting what they wanted brought them a greater sense of clarity. 

Slim people previously allowed themselves to believe their slimness is down to some vigourous yet invisible exercise of self control on their part.  Now they're concluding their mythological will isn't what's keeping them slim or enabling them to become as thin as they wannabe, after all.

What do you know, its time to control the food environment via the proposal of a sugar tax. Apart from laughable cries of faddiction, they advance this volte face behind their beloved conceit.

I say suddenly sugar, but way back in the day it fat was the enemy, on the grounds that fat in your food meant fat or your arse: pause and let the elegance flow through you again. Fat was to be reduced from an horrific 30% or thereabouts of one's intake, to half that and even 10% when of course that didn't make fatz low-fat.

This caused industrial food to obey by accelerating its mis-use of sugar to compensate for qualities lost by the removal of fat. It has also obediently reversed this. It's accused of doing nothing as fat people are, due to it not having the demanded effect.

This morality play is presented by the slimstream as dirty tricks upon its poor innocence (i.e. belief it can walk on water when it comes to weight) as if taste is not in their mouths. Et voila we have another little turn of the macronutrient whirl

If you want to talk about the so called 'evidence' in favour of this nonsense (give me strength). I haven't had the heart to abuse my brain with it anymore. There's no more appalled, hate reading style fun, its just risible. I do not like to make a habit of not reading what I criticise. In spite of this, I can confidently sum up from the premise laid out is that it consists of; lots and lots and lots and lots of sugar in your diet is 'bad' for you ergo sugar is {{{{poison}}}}.

Look closely at anything written about this currently and I think you'll find that summation punches way above its little weight in doing justice to the sugar ist poison hoodoo.

Suffice to say this will "work" just as well as any other intention of the 'obesity' agenda, but the most salient and sinister fact is the real agenda behind this tax is to establish funding streams (this would just be the start) to promote and enable even more invasive interference in people's lives.

Not being able to thus far has held them back. Heaven help us all-regardless of weight- if they get their grubby mitts on a steady stream of filthy lucre. 'Obesity' quackery has always struggled to gain secure funding so that it can abuse people in a more sustained all encompassing way.

Whatever nonsense is spoken about Mexico, France and Scandinavia, countries like the UK and America aren't them. Even if shame taxes did the job which they don't, the will just isn't there.

Permitting people to perish trying to trap and keep any and all [fat] people trapped into starvation either free form or surgical, but that too has trapped these societies into a certain course.


Certainly it would not only have been he right thing to do, it would have been far cheaper than tormenting people with lifestyle anorexia, butchering and mutilating them and leaving their weight unchecked to go where it may, whilst vigourous attempts are made to block, block, block things that would seem just as challenging on the face of it.

Why is their no means to block weight from getting higher if that's oh so offensive "unhealthy"? How much of this 'obesity' fuss would not have been if that was available? Oh right I'm answering my own questions again aren't I. Taxing food does not give anyone personal control. 

The locus of control of shame taxes is firmly in the hands of those proposing and seeking to gain from them.

Just as there's a pretense that becoming fat as a child must seal your fate, so should the insistence on allowing industrial fast food into schools, hospitals, every nook and cranny should been seen as having sealed the actual fate of the 'obesity' lobby.

Quackery has run its course, truth is the only way out of this false consciousness.

Fighting to get money to interfere with the big business you liberated, the reasons you went along haven't really abated, is frankly a futile waste of time. 

This has all gone way beyond anything but progress through objective research into metabolic function. So remember to give the 'obesity' industry, public and private what it desires so much to give to especially to fat people. Starvation.......of funds.

Starve the bastards of funding, what they call "the costs of obesity" (i.e. them).  Remove any being given to the worthless slimming industry and instead fund teams of the best and brightest minds to help us all grasp how our bodies produce weight.

Stumbling on how my body produced excess hunger was the way I ended the tyranny of hyperhunger. That was effectively a rebalancing of a certain aspect of metabolic function.

The control must be put in the hands of people. If you wish to campaign to control the food people eat, do that in the open. It's interesting that some openly say they wish to abolish tobacco products, but wouldn't have said that from the start.

The logic of low fat and/or low sugar was actually the end of the food industry as we know it.
The advice to cut fat was intended to direct us to the naturally low-fat foods that existed at the time, namely vegetables, fruits, beans, lentils, whole grains, and lean meats.
Whether you think that's good or bad, that has to be the endgame. That and the insistence that weight is "behavioural" is at the heart of the why of micronutrient whirl really.

Metabolic manipulation is entirely feasible, logical and achievable, to manipulate it more effectively and painlessly. It's also potentially good for way more than mere metabolic function. It simply requires honest sustained effort. Something no one involved in such as 'sugar taxing' should be allowed anything to do with.

That in itself would be a refreshing change. 

Monday, 12 October 2015

World 'Obesity' Promotion

World 'obesity' promotion day has passed without much ceremony. Let's face it, everyday is 'obesity' promotion day. In case of any confusion. The term "obesity promotion" is one of those blurted confessions fat phobes sometimes leak out.

It's when you promote the ideology that focus on the false construct of 'obesity' somehow makes sense, rather than it being a toxic pathology inducing cul-de-sac that circles round and round leading nowhere, acting purely as distraction from real knowledge and better ways.

Barely reading a phoned-in farticle containing the usual, how fat everyone is definitely going to be in a few years hence, because there is not a cat in hells chance that "obesity research" will be interrupting that, in the ever fat phobic guardian.

I was stopped in my hazy tracks by this,
“Like climate change, we know the answers to the obesity crisis. We know that tough policies will need to be implemented, and we know that such policies are challenged by powerful commercial interests. But we have no choice if we hope to meet those 2025 targets.”
That's was Tim Lobstein The World Obesity Federation's Director of Policy (lols). Just before that he's quoted as saying,
“Preventing obesity means tough government action to limit the promotion of junk food, especially to children, to ensure healthier food is offered at work, in schools and institutions, and to encourage physical activity through better urban design and transport systems.
We of course do not know how to alter metabolic function so it reverses weight and "maintains" that state itself. Cos we can't impose that through the anorexia method. 

The article includes the entirely predictable fact that weight is also increasing in developing countries too (the clock is ticking on praising black and brown people for their extremely moral hunger). It's a side effect of progress.

Certainly in Western model countries, a lot of these conditions existed and were undermined or jettisoned during the crusade. Indeed, often using the crusade's folklore of individuals design and make their bodies, to do this. This now looks bad even among the most shameless 'obesity' wallahs.

The "policies" he speaks of have been and gone. They used to be just the way life was. Now he wants to bring them back, despite people chosing to get rid of them/bring them in on the grounds of cost. Either saving money or making it to fill in the cracks of funding cuts.

Now that too many people have washed-up on the rocky shores of a dieting career to sustain that delusion....for a while, it's assumed by slim people that all fat people want is for blame to be directed at someone else, instead of us.

Don't be fooled, that can't happen as long as calorie restriction induced weight loss (CRIWL) is the only way and that is what a lot of this is really all about. Blaming "Big Food" can make little dent in the culture of blaming fat people.

As long as we're expected to starve, we'll be to blame. What would happen if they said, "It's not your 'fault' you're fat" or that "We've deliberately not bothered with any better means to lower weight. But starve anyway."

Whaddya say, self hating fatz, would you be so up for that?

Industrial food has benefited hugely from the 'obesity' crusade and its calories in/out insistence. Not simply due to its money-for-nothing slimming industry that was not only held up and legitimized by the medics/"obesity science" axis, it was saved from going under  by the same too.

It's also profited from entering seemingly every nook and cranny of the public environment on the back of weight = "personal responsibility." Bullying and profit motive. Why should fat phobes ever deny themselves?

Blaming industrial food for "causing obesity" is an attempt at window dressing for susceptible fat people. They're actually trying to get us to blame the food industry for doing our bodies to us!!!! The notion that this incredible entity called the human body, one that grows from a speck to yourself or myself, following its own innate pathways is not one to be deemed blameworthy, doesn't compute.

Another pathetic attempt to prop up the legitimacy of CRIWL which can be seen in itself as the supreme avoidance of learning how to tweak metabolic function. Something that's being studiously [geddit] avoided.

The reference to climate change cannot be taken as read or even seriously. 'Obesity' wallahs are always desperate to legitimize their credo, despite saturation acceptance and an eye watering level of hegemony. I swear dictators would not expect this level of adherence.

But it is quite a take down of climate change to raise it in such comparison. The so called "tough action" flies in the face of a lot that is in the economic model. It was obvious which suspects would struggle with the required collective action required to put cals in/out to the fore. Though that wouldn't have stopped fatness it could have at least slowed its course.

Nor would it empowered individuals to regulate their own bodies. Something usually absent from this. 

This is not motivated by an anti-capitalist desire to remake society-that's looking at it the wrong way round. Calories in/out makes this "anti-capitalist" head on collision inevitable. Targeting eating must be about curbing those who produce, make and sell food. Whether indirectly through potential customers or directly by government regulation.

It's the same source (ideology). It's not either government regulation, or "personal responsibility". It's find the right way to do it, or don't. What we have now is the latter and what is being proposed is more of that.

Either you suppress aspects of the food business, or you put people out of business. You may say that healthy eating can make lots of money. So what explains industrial food's reluctance? It has bought up and destroyed numerous wholesome products in order to get more milk out of its cashcows.

It is extraordinary that people have been sold a personal problem that's solution requires the co-operation of people whose rampant hostility has been stoked up almost beyond their ready control. One that involves perfecting society along your own lines.

The question is, is this at all the case for proposed policies to fight climate change?

Are we being sold an activist utopia at the expense of the most practical workable, accessible ways that could be discovered?

I hope not. 

Saturday, 10 October 2015

Missing METABOLISM arrives when pseudo-science leaves the room

For years, I've been banging on like sister from another planet about weight being all to do with METABOLISM?


All WEIGHT is produced by such. 

And no, that does not refer specifically to disorders of, or disordered metabolic function, it refers correctly functioning metabolism, its anatomy, function, physiology.  Just as referring to the anatomy and physiology of your limbs is assumed to be about said limbs, rather than disorders or diseases that can affect those limbs.

Just as the pathologization of fatness has merged somewhat with physiology of fat bodies, therefore of all bodies, and as it is also conflated with diabetes. Increasingly, metabolism has become suggestive of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance (whatever the latter two especially actually are) and so on.

Nor is it another way of presenting digestion or nutrition.

It is,
Now if this seems all encompassing to the point of becoming indistinct. Science to the rescue. Here's an example of how obvious and easy it can be to grasp the role of metabolic function.

Did you dare to dream for a second that I was going to link to something about 'obesity'? Lols. If you can delay gratification no further, give yourself a mental massage by putting weight in place of height, or more specifically, fatter in place of taller.

Here's what stood out,

The creation of height is automatically acknowledged as METABOLIC
.....taller people have a larger number of cells in their body......
Metabolism is in essence, the anatomy, processes and pathways that create maintain and destroy the cells of your body. Weight is just a more active aspect of metabolic function, so it is even more apt that it should be centered around what creates and maintains it. Like hunger though, this erased by 'obesity' promotions inc.

Metabolism is referenced in a very accessible way.

It is gradated for hoi polloi. First mentioning that tall/er people have a greater number of cells. Then onto the processes of the production and growth of those cells, honing in on an active aspect of that- growth hormone.
“We know that in humans growth hormone not only stimulates bone growth during our growing years, but stimulates cell growth in general and blocks cell death. So the level of growth hormone someone has could affect cancer risk by pushing up cell numbers,” 
 My emphasis. Four lines is all it takes.
An earlier study showed that people with genetic dwarfism had very little cancer. “People with genetic dwarfism have a mutation in their growth hormone receptor and we know that growth hormone and growth hormone receptor are critical to tumour growth too,” he said."
A study on mice where their genes were manipulated to make a high or low level of growth hormone was said to increase and decrease their cancer rates accordingly. Which brings me to another fundamental point.

Height is easily acknowledged as a SCALE

Each end of any scale informs understanding of either by comparison and all in between. "From 100cm (3ft 3ins -225cm 7ft 6ins)", one scale produced by the same anatomical processes. The shortest i.e. dwarfism automatically informs the taller end. Weight is the same, the thinnest informs the fattest and vice versa. Segregated focus creates an obstacle. There are bound to some at one end and some at the other.

Immediate and repeated reassurance

Taller men and women need not worry.
Swedish study sheds new light on link between height and disease – but smoking, obesity and poor diet are still greater risks
Indeed they need not. That would only do them harm. Don't be put off by the usual false equivalence. The point is to note is the keen desire to avoid upsetting tall/er people.

It's clear about the source and quality of the information.
despite taller men and women being more likely to develop cancer, according to this study of 5.5 million people born between 1938 and 1991
No declaration of "proof" from a dozen people. No confounding factors were included in the study, so how good this is, may be up for some question. That's made clear. If you are making emphatic claims, quality is requisite

Tallness is not framed as some abnormal growth happening to a 'normal' body

a) That is the construct that is 'obesity' and b) Tallness could lend itself just as well to such a faux pas, or not.

No false moralism is invoked

I include concern trolling about "stigma". The real and apt sense of morality is in the reverence for any potential impact of this news on tall/er people. This sense of potential consequence is very humanistic. Despite mentioning "higher energy intake" they go out of their way not to mention food showing how pronounced that obsession is elsewhere.

It is possible to mention higher intake without invoking that great meter of objective diagnosis- the 7 deadly sins

Perhaps the acme of this for me is,

The current state of knowledge is freely acknowledged along with the need for MORE RESEARCH 

And of what kind.
The mechanisms for this effect are not clear and are worth further study. They may relate to the fact that the growth hormones related to height also are in some way stimulating cancer cells, but details are lacking.”
Not junk science such as increased risk according to your bedtime, but not hours sleep. WTH? Obviously not designed to be of any use. Except to those getting paid [well done].

The findings are properly contextualized.
Dr Jane Green, clinical epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, said: “In general, I would caution against interpreting a link as causal – however for height and cancer there is considerable evidence that suggests that the link is not explained by other known factors.
Context also lends itself to pacifying potential anxieties. Special mention to,

No problem with paradox
“ is worth noting that taller people have lower risks for heart disease and a lower risk of death overall."
Paradox is often a fundamental part of reality fact and truth-it doesn't require special categorization.

The effort to jettison potential false causality
Clearly, adult height is not itself a ‘cause’ of cancer, but is thought to be a marker for other factors related to childhood growth.
Rather than the use of this to continue pathologization. Nor is there any pretense that a generalized catch all risk relates the same to each individual-innumerate as much as anything. 
just because a woman is tall, doesn’t mean they will definitely develop breast cancer,” said Carolyn Rogers, clinical nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care.
For the record,
“We must stress that the biggest risk factors for developing breast cancer are being female, getting older and for some, a significant family history of the disease.”
This is pretty much how I see weight. It is 'obesity' that is deviance from basic rational standards. It doesn't take genius to work out that the absence of the above standards are malicious in intent.

Friday, 9 October 2015

Obese Extremist

A priceless lesson in how the fake evil of pathologization punctures perception of true evil. If you turn people into a joke, you cannot become serious about what them via the same source.

Perversely, only through re-humanizing them-dropping the 'obese construct' -can the truth of the evil a person does come to the fore unimpeded by slapstick.

Witness DM's extraordinary ability to do something I didn't think possible. To make 'obese' sound cool.
Every single one sounds like one of those fascinating anti-heros.

I stand corrected.

Up until this point the evil acts of ISIS have only chilled me to the bone. That is now over thanks to the DM who've managed to contrast themselves with a pre obese-stimming consciousness. Terrorists apparently nicknamed this "tubby" executioner the "Bulldozer".

A mainstream news organ ends up sounding like those who sark any horror.

Strangely this is one of the first times the DM has failed to redundantly insert 'obese' into its headline. The need to disconnect you from this person is removed by their own actions. It reads: "ISIS's masked 20st monster."*

Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't provoke much emotion. The whole point of neuro-typical obese stimming is to present fat people as monsters, beasts. I've been called that numerous times, not to mention the frequent terminology using large mammals (such as mammoths) favoured by banal trolls.

To make it clear this particular "obese extremist", who has tortured and murdered people, execution style. It's not the usual reference to a self aware kind of "obese extremist". This terrorist amputates the healthy body parts of those who do not fit into his particular worldview. He and his cohorts feel they need to have parts of them missing in order to fit in. 

How extraordinary.

He's also described memorably as "one of ISIS's most unsightly executioners", there was a beauty contest to decide: Mr ISIL? Note the order in that quote and tell me again that "body dysmorphic disorder" comes out of nowhere like a 'disease' or is induced by how many likes your selfies garner.

The "unsightly" nature of this "obese individual" is used to serve as reflection of his evil. As with Bond villains, there's confusion here. And no, I'm not going to act like I need to prove anything by hastily adding how deeply against this or that I am. That too has been debased. I'll take for granted that you can tell.

If only I hadn't reacted so much to the insistence that Freud was science all those years ago, then I'd be able to say with authority rather than instinct that this reads Freudian-like with the shadow of size=beauty (or absence of)=morality replacing sex or the pleasure principle as motivational subtext.

This conflation of morals with size doesn't explain "healthily weighted" ISIS.

It brings back the way 'obese' finally alerted me to one way socio/psychopathy can be invoked in a person. By convincing a child that they're evil, when later child catches on that they aren't, their feeling about real malice and evil can be undermined, blunted. Because they believed they were evil and now they know that real feeling wasn't

Like exposure to constant friction creates a callous that numbs the area.

I'm neither, but I must confess, evil doesn't feel quite the same as it did before the extent of fake evil became obvious. If that sounds odd or even a little shocking, that's because it hasn't become so to you.

The person writing this article couldn't find a way to talk about a fat person any other way. Seems they felt that this because this person was actually bad, saying their worst would be apt. That 'worst' is not what hurts people.  Fat phobia causes hurt because people are upset that you are upset with them. They hurt because you appear hurt. They hurt because of love not hate.

Remember fat isn't evil.  It's not even a misdemeanour. Hatred is a product of the mind of the hater, not a reading of truth. It's an act of imagination.

This maniac is not.

Only in the last two paragraphs does this article retain gravitas commensurate with the of evil it reports, when it focuses on one of this man's victims. A 14 year old boy who had both his hand and foot cut off with a sword, in front of an audience.

Its final paragraph forgets weight all together and concentrates on a murderer, killer and psychopathic zealot. Something those who aren't can only yearn for. 

More ironically still, the comment section is not unpleasant to read, featuring only one attempt at humour. 

* This has been subject to subsequent amendment the whole headline now reads
ISIS's masked monster: Revealed, the tubby jihadi executioner dubbed The Bulldozer who's part of terror group's 'Chopping Committee' bringing horror to captured Iraqi towns
Again "tubby jihadi" derails the seriousness of what the headline is talking about. The history is indicated in the address bar.

Monday, 28 September 2015

Another Metabolic Outlier Pays the ultimate price for the 'obesity' crusade

Samantha Packham died in hospital this July. She was 20 years old, weighed 40 stones/560lbs/254kgs. She had fierce hyperphagia at 8 years old according to her parents Jan and Michael,
“She would eat her dinner and then she would just go to the fridge and help ­herself to more food. “We tried to tell her she’d just had her ­dinner and didn’t need anything else, but she would fly into a rage. “She would swear and once she even pulled the hinges off the doors – she was that strong at the age of eight.
That 'rage' by the way is a profound distress that jumps out at you from your very nerves, your mind becomes aware of it. So what next?
"We took her to the doctors but they did absolutely nothing.”
That sums up what the 'obesity' crusade is all about. Put tremendous pressure on people to do something they aren't designed for and give them no help to even give it a good go. If you want people to deal with hunger of this magnitude, why not work on switching hunger down? Meaning doctors could have demanded this of researchers.

They've gone out of their way not to. The whole 'obesity' crusade and its acolytes have consistently argued against objective research, claiming that just gives people "excuses". It "over-complicates" things, yes you read that. More knowledge of something you clearly no little about =over-complication.  The only thing left is spontaneous recovery.

This should all be getting a tad familiar. Samantha also had learning difficulties and went to special school like Carl Thompson. Her body's level of energy conservation seemed to be even worse than his.

There's no doubt the 'obesity' is slowly being encroached by the voices of experience. There's a slow dawning realization of the mess we have been put in by this 'obesity' narrative. The Mail's original headline was,
obese daughter who weighed 40 stone and was put into care as a teenager because her parents could not control her eating dies aged 20
First off, when you write 40 stone in a sentence, you do not need to write 'obese' or 'overweight', as it was subsequently altered to-'cos that's supposed to be more polite. It isn't. I'm sure DM journos are expensively educated enough to recognize the difference between a problematic moniker and a problematic construct. I'm guessing, they expect their readers to be too low in reason to notice the difference.

No joking about the Mail readership now, that is quite contemptuous, well, why should that all be on fat people? To reiterate for the peanut gallery, it doesn't matter what you name this weight construct, it is what you are naming that is the problem. Changing terms makes no difference.

Back to that headline, how defensive is it?!
.......because her parents could not control her eating
Someone doth protest way too much. Samantha was snatched by a state agency because her parents could not control her eating eh? Now you know that is disingenuous, none such is said to the parents of children/teens wasting from anorexia nervosa. The hunger of a human being, child or not is in the body of that person, not in the head of others, whether parents, a societal bullying campaign or strictures on industrial food.

This extent of defensiveness makes it clear to me that they know on some level or t'other that the overall insistence on diet or death is the real killer here, not Samantha's parents. She was described as the youngest victim of the 'obesity' crisis. In a sense that is correct, when you consider this conceit of denying people any real means to alter the regulation of their weight, regardless.

That sets up a diet or death scenario, as I've made clear this is the latter part. I wasn't hyping, I was pointing to the obvious implication of describing something as lethal, then denying any means of altering that course.

It's called consequence, something fat phobes so shield themselves from that they've lost all sense of their own actions creating effects of their own. There's no guarantee that Samantha would have made old bones, but, there's no question that the greatest avoidable responsibility lies with those who use their hold over the discourse on weight to argue against proper scientific investigation of metabolic function.

That is those who are fixated on trying to trap people into a life of starvation and hunger blocking. All those who insist weight is "your fault/ your choice/lifestyle choice"-'obesity' wallahs, medics, amateur fat phobes, yep, you've hastened the end of people like Samantha who could not defend themselves from your self indulgence.

You are also why there was little her parents could have done except contact a specialist in a condition that they may have had no idea their child might potentially have had.

Her parents were not given a fighting chance at helping her is the truth. And not because of 'healthy eating', no one should die for following or not following someone else's ideas of a pure diet. The idea of a correct diet equalling a correct weight is just another of many facile attempts to save calories in/out model.

To be fair the press including the DM have been increasingly making a show of playing both ends, featuring fat acceptance 'role models' and such. Face it though, FA was not the answer here. FA's for removing iatrogenically induced problems. It's not a cure for true metabolic derangement, hyperphagia, overriding energy conservation, hypothalamic disorder- require actual study and unravelling.That means letting go of blame culture and putting this aspect of the body's self regulation back on a completely objective footing.

What is required is proper full investigation into metabolic function, free of the tiresome irrelevance of the 'obesity' construct. 

Heavily featured is the so called guilt of the parents who predictably blame themselves and confess to their negligence. What half decent parent would not be wracked with feelings/wishes that they could have done 'better'?

To help illustrate a truer valuation of this, I hereby confess to being the one on the grassy knoll. Despite neither being male, being able to shoot a gun or even being born. It is of course not even being accepted fact that there was a second gunman. Anyone can confess to anything, ask police investigating murders. Stop tormenting people who are dealing with the horrific situation of burying their own child.

If anyone bothered listening to them, they knew the score,
“It was like an eating disorder. 
An understatement of epic proportions. A hunger disorder isn't quite that, you could say it disorders eating-obviously-by signalling excessively, it was undoubtedly a malfunctioning that needed relieving. Forget the supposed consequence of weight, experiencing an constant excess of hunger causes unnecessary suffering of its own.

For example, ask anyone who's developed a hyperactive bladder how they feel about the excessive signalling and feeling the process at a much earlier stage, or never feeling they've emptied? 

Nor is using people like Samantha as a poster for 'obesity' justified in anyway, except to illustrate just how out of control people can get when they get drunk on the ability to abuse people at their will.

Sober up fat phobes.

Tuesday, 15 September 2015

Your so-called sympathy is not required

Sympathy, sympathy, I've heard that one too many times lately as in "I've no sympathy for fat people." Thanks for that nugget, I can assure you, everyone really gives a shizz.

This particular response to any request for reason in the area of weight has always been real irritating, setting up failure to be a smidgen less than an absolute raving arsehole to fat people as some kind of extravagant act of kindness. Typical nauseating self flattery du fat phobes.

I also dislike it when fat people themselves ask for 'sympathy', using this exact framing, allowing  grotesque impudence to be(come) a 'neutral' stance, whilst acknowledging it as far from by requiring something as elevated as (true) sympathy to mitigate it.

Lucky I'm not a particularly suspicious character, or I'd have to wonder a lot more about that sort of thing. It seems so obvious and so easy to stop once pointed out, even if it isn't so clear beforehand.

No, people do not "deserve sympathy", we all require courtesies and rights. They are not "deserved" they are part of the mechanics of how we wish to run society. That's why we observe them with those who most certainly do not deserve them. Like people who do hateful stuff.

If we deny them fundamental courtesies and rights, we risk undermining them from the rest of us.

'Deserve' is for the birds.

Don't ask for courtesies, take them for yourself. Be courteous to yourself. Respect your energies and your time. Do not waste your heart and nerves setting up fat acceptance as a vehicle to fly in the face of freely chosen hate. Stop pretending people don't choose to participate in fat phobia of their own free will.

After a recent fit of exasperation with this wretched mis-use of the term, I realised I don't remember that being a consideration in seeking to uncover the best answers. Did I have this self important need to feel "sympathy"? I noted that I did not.

I feel sympathy for those who find they have faulty wiring that brings repeated episodes of psychosis. What do I think is the best route to a solution for them? Objective study of their condition to find the best way of relieving, treating or blessed be, curing it.

I don't feel sympathy for paedophiles, not even those whose perversion is developmental.  What's my view on the best route to stopping them from hurting others? Objective study of their condition to find the best way of suppressing, or resolving it permanently.

If you believe fat is the devil that needs to be gotten rid of, your sympathy for fat people is not a consideration.