University forces fat students to take fitness class to graduate

[maverick83]

It does make sense from the fact that a lot of self-respect is dependent on the attitudes of others. If a person lives in an environment where they are looked down upon because of something like being obese, then they are less likely to have as much self-respect.

A possible defense of this particular policy is that pushing obese students to work off some weight would improve their appearance, improving the way people treat them, and in turn, improve their own self-respect.

I can't argue with that, but there's also the harsh reality that people are going to judge you because of your appearance whether you like it or not. On the one hand, it's important to not be overly concerned about the opinions of others, but on the other hand, a certain level of concern for their opinions is practical.

For example, how well you do at a job interview is partially tied to appearance. If you're considerably heavier than the average person, that might hinder you somewhat in your first impression to a potential employer. Of course, they'll never tell you that, but that is what goes on in the minds of many employers. Weight obviously doesn't mean much in a practical sense for most jobs, but instinctually, we do tend to still judge people partially upon visual features.

No offense, man, but, ass. backwards. I cannot support any part of that statement, as it would violate every principle I have. I don't believe in treating people differently, because of their physical appearance. And accepting it as an inevitable standard is only encouraging it. Sure, some people, maybe a lot of people, will judge me by my appearance. But anyone who does isn't worth my time, and anyone who is worth my time, won't.

 

[kis123]

Um, I wasn't looking for someone to agree with me, I was looking for someone to address it. I find it much more interesting when people disagree since it provides a different perspective and can spark a good discussion

I acknowledged earlier that someone taking a remedial class doesn't mean they should be, and likewise not everyone who exempts out of a class actually has the requisite knowledge. That's life. Pragmatism would still dictate that the courses exist, unless you feel that the courses themselves are bogus. I'm guessing that referring to it as "hockey wad" or whatever that you are of that opinion. Your example however, actually contradicts your argument in my opinion. You watched someone have a seizure while taking your exam and couldn't concentrate, and were STILL mere percentage points below the line. So that suggests to me that the remedial classes are designed for people who struggle in a certain area. You were an exception, but think about what happened to you; it IS an exception.

But I wasn't an exception; I was stuck with a bunch of courses I didn't need and they weren't even available in the same semester which meant that it would delay my graduation date. Well, that was until I transferred to another school.....wasted my time at this college anyway.

It's generally hard to conceal what courses you're taking in college. I mean in high school it was well known which students were in "special education" and I observed that it definitely hurt their self-esteem. The question is, would they be better served in the long run if they were put in the ordinary course which they could not handle? I don't know the answer to that. Regardless, I'm not sure colleges generally have remedial classes as the student body is supposed to be relatively homogenous. I point more towards the students who exempt out, so I suppose those that don't are akin to the remedial argument, though not in an embarrasing manner.

High school classrooms and college campuses are two completely different things. If you go to a large campus, you'll just be happy to find your classroom, let alone anyone knowing your course schedule so I'm going to disagree on your argument here. Someone taking remedial classes has much more privacy than someone who's taking a fitness class just because the powers that be pointed them out to be fat. Besides, obesity is the one issue most easily identified because it's more easily seen from the outside. The smokers, drinkers, drug addicts, and promiscuous can hide their problems. Maybe taking a health and fitness class wouldn't be such a bad thing for them either.

Now, I would ask you, would an overweight person who was not forced to take a class suddenly be perceived as an "unhealthy blimp that is fat and worthless" because of this unique program? That seems unrealistic to me. Perceptions are formed about people's appearances independent of a new class they might have to take. Enrollment wouldn't make a light bulb go off to the rest of the student body that a particular student is fat.

Uh......yes it would.

It doesn't even have to be a weight issue; it could be the color of one's skin (happens in the black community all the time unfortunately), someone's height, or any other appeareance issue can be used to ridicule and abuse someone and rob them of their self-esteem long before they get to college and have to pay to be abused again because once again, someone is calling them fat. How about this; why don't they throw in a diversity class for good measure and make everyone take that? Instead of forcing people to conform to so-called societal standards, my money would be better invested teaching people to learn to live around people no matter how they look.

The size of your body doesn't determine your worth or value, agreed. Neither does being good at calculus or understanding Faulkner. It is an institutional decision of qualifications they want their graduates to walk away with. And, once again, I don't agree with this program, i just happen to disagree with certain statements being made about it.

I understand that thin people can be unhealthy and larger people can be healthy. Just as sometimes the dumb kids get exempt and the smart kids have to take that boring statistics class, these things happen. But, while smoking drinking and drugs might be more dangerous than obesity, why argue against a slippery slope in the right direction?

Because it's about personal choice, not enforced legalism that bothers me. Everyone isn't expected to be a size 2 and not everyone that's a size 22 is unhealthy. To be exact, until about two years ago, my doctor told me that I tested healthier than her and I'm a lot bigger than her. Now I can definitely afford to lose some weight, but the reasons for it are my personal ones, not societal ones. Until society has to pay my medical bills and take care of me, it can kiss my big butt for all I care!

As someone else mentioned, if they start with the fat folks, who will they target next? When it lands on your personal doorstep, will you still think they're doing it for your own good or will you think they're in your personal space?

 

[kis123]

I think this is is a fantastic idea.

The problem is, not including other unhealthy habits in this kind of thing makes a bunch of people bitch and whine (mostly the overweight folks) about how unfair the policy is.

The way I see it, an unhealthy habit that makes you more prone to needing expensive healthcare and therefore puts a burden on society has one of two causes - you're a moron or you have something physically wrong with your body that should be addressed. You cann't possibly tell me that the obscenely large percentage of American's that are overweight (63%...sixty fucking three percent) ALL have a chemical imbalance or a thyroid deficiency that keeps them from losing weight.

I don't see anyone in this thread (myself included) claiming chemical imbalance across the board so I'm not even sure why you made that statement. But chemical imbalances certainly do exist; the situation with my son was one example of that. There are medications that mess with body chemistry and make it easy to gain weight or very difficult to lose it.

Programs like this that force those who are just plain damned lazy to get up and do something about their conditions are GREAT ideas, but they need more thinking - the same organization that funds the program should also fund full-panel testing and evaluations to determine who, of ALL the participants, actually does have a physical problem that keeps 'em fat. Also, the program should make damn sure to be following up on the progress of those who are working to get fit, monitoring their achievments and ensuring the program doesn't only help them pass, but also makes them healthier as a result.

Why do people tend to categorize overweight people as lazy when it's the exact opposite? I have to do the same things my skinny counterparts do when I go to work; there is no special "fat folks" section in my job that requires less work from me than others. The fat=lazy argument has always been a wad of horse crap and I spend way too much time proving myself since society has the same mindset you do. There are times I wonder which is worse; the race sterotypes or the weight ones.

I dare someone to live in my world for thirty days then tell me (provided they manage to survive it) that I'm lazy. In your's and other's eyes, I might look lazy, but it's one of the biggest percieved myths in the world because I'm a far cry from it.

And how do you really know that a person ends up healthier because of exercise? My grandmother never exercised a day and died at 92; my mother worked like a dog most of her life and died at 68. It certainly has its benefits and positives, but no guarantees for a longer life.

Here's a question for you Viper:

What if there was a way your job could find out about your fetish life then forced you to go to special classes telling you the benefits of being vanilla? Now, if you don't go, then they have the right to fire you--would it be bitching and whining now that it's landed on your doorstep?

 

[ViperGTS]

kis, you're twisting the original question around - not being allowed to graduate and being fired from a career are two extremely different things, the latter of which is illegal, as personal fetish preferences (as long as they are kept behind closed doors and are not interfering with work) are protected under United States labor law as a protected characteristic, along with race, religious preference, and other things.

Secondly, bondage and tickling fetish preferences do not affect work performance or health. Being overweight and being high risk to potentially having high blood pressure, diabetes, increased risk of a heart attack or stroke, etc, is a work-related problem. They are two extremely different circumstances, and since your question in no way relates to the thread, I choose not to answer.

Since you're not lazy, kis, why are you overweight? Do you enjoy it?

All your points could be said for smoking and drinking. It's a program at a private university no one will be followed and no one will "achieve" anything. They will do what they have to do to get the degree they want through the place they want and then go back to those bad old habbits.

Right...which is why, as I said, these programs can only work with the proper follow up and funding.

 

[kis123]

kis, you're twisting the original question around - not being allowed to graduate and being fired from a career are two extremely different things, the latter of which is illegal, as personal fetish preferences (as long as they are kept behind closed doors and are not interfering with work) are protected under United States labor law as a protected characteristic, along with race, religious preference, and other things.

I'm not twisting a thing around, it is just the same as making you take special anti-fetish classes to keep a job as it is to make certain students (not all students) take a class just because they're listed as fat. My statement about stereotypes is just that, a statement; you're the one twisting that one around.

I don't know about your state, but mine is an "at will" which means they can fire you at will without giving reason. They could even fire you if they found out about your fetish life and not even give you a reason for it. Fetishists are not a federally protected group and I have no idea where you got the idea that they are unless you're going the "sexual orientation" route. Even then it's not a very strong argument and hope you never have to use it someday to find that out. I knew once I landed a scenario on your doorstep you'd sidestep, but even though you haven't answered the question in print, you did answer it---thanks!

The bottom line is unless you are working in a job that has physical requirements (i.e. the military, police/fire, etc) then a person shouldn't be discriminated against anywhere including a publicly funded college campus.

Secondly, bondage and tickling fetish preferences do not affect work performance or health. Being overweight and being high risk to potentially having high blood pressure, diabetes, increased risk of a heart attack or stroke, etc, is a work-related problem. They are two extremely different circumstances, and since your question in no way relates to the thread, I choose not to answer.

Yes it does, and you choice to dodge the bullet is okay with me.

So there are only fat folks in the clinics, hospitals, and the cemtary right? I know thin folks with health problems like diabetes, high blood pressure, and have had heart attacks and never been overweight a day in their lives Viper. Can you account for that because I certainly can. Weight is only one factor--not the exclusive factor you and those with your mindset use when you're hating on fat folks. I know plenty of healthy big people, they're just fat----so what? But how does one account for all those unhealthy thin folks since with your words only fat folks are high risk candidates?

At the end of the day, weight is used by the medical community and insurance companies but in RL it is a statistic NOT a guaranteed qualifier for health problems. Name me one disease that is exclusive (not "prone" or "high-risk") Viper.....EXCLUSIVE to the obese and I'll get in line for that gastric bypass surgery all us lazy fat folks use as the easy way out!

Since you're not lazy, kis, why are you overweight? Do you enjoy it?

There are so many responses to this obvious attempt to insult me but I'm going to go with what I've printed below and not grab the bait, if you know what I mean........

I don't care if I was 500lbs; still doesn't make me lazy....it makes me overweight. In other words.....the two aren't synomomous. I know some thin folks that don't even get off the couch unless you make them and some of the most active fat folks ever again disproving your less than interesting argument wrapped up in an insult!

Besides it gives the men in my life enjoy something soft to hold onto and I've NEVER gotten a complaint about it. So I guess in that respect.....I enjoy the hell outta' it!

 

[kis123]

Ouch.

I've never been overweight all my life, but that statement honestly hurt my eggs.

I stopped letting that nonsense bother me a long time ago; best to make like a duck in water and let it roll off my back.

I could say a multitude of other things, but I'm not going to be responsible for derailing this thread. I don't agree with the college's actions but this has been good discussion to this point.

 

[kis123]

I know what you mean, Kis, and it's not your fault. I had an obese friend. But I find it harsh and I am hurt by it. Never mind anyway.

Yes it was harsh and at one time in my life, it would've hurt. I'd love to live in a world of true diversity and complete acceptance, but that's more like a utopia than anything these days.

I don't want to go off topic so I don't have much more to say about it. Us big folks are merely targets for some to take their life aggressions out on. The so-called fat=unhealthy argument really goes to how a person looks and how it offends them; not necessarily guaranteeing that all fat people are unhealthy time bombs ready to explode..............

I've lived long enough to learn to do my own thing and not bow to other's opinions. It's served me well and I have no intention of ever changing that regardless if someone finds my fat butt offensive to them.......too bad for them I guess!

Thanks for your support and now it's time for me to get back to the OP.....

 

[Bohemianne]

Okay, back to the OP. Any physical obstacle should really not stop people from dreaming and getting what they aim for life. Weight has nothing to do with intelligence anyway. Let them finish the schooling.

Yes it was harsh and at one time in my life, it would've hurt. I'd love to live in a world of true diversity and complete acceptance, but that's more like a utopia than anything these days.

I don't want to go off topic so I don't have much more to say about it. Us big folks are merely targets for some to take their life aggressions out on. The so-called fat=unhealthy argument really goes to how a person looks and how it offends them; not necessarily guaranteeing that all fat people are unhealthy time bombs ready to explode..............

I've lived long enough to learn to do my own thing and not bow to other's opinions. It's served me well and I have no intention of ever changing that regardless if someone finds my fat butt offensive to them.......too bad for them I guess!

Thanks for your support and now it's time for me to get back to the OP.....

 

[ViperGTS]

I'm not twisting a thing around, it is just the same as making you take special anti-fetish classes to keep a job as it is to make certain students (not all students) take a class just because they're listed as fat. My statement about stereotypes is just that, a statement; you're the one twisting that one around.

No, it isn't the same. Sexual preference and a physical state which can cause a financial burden on the people around you are NOT the same and cannot be compared to each other, so your question and argument do not apply. Sorry.

I don't know about your state, but mine is an "at will" which means they can fire you at will without giving reason. They could even fire you if they found out about your fetish life and not even give you a reason for it. Fetishists are not a federally protected group and I have no idea where you got the idea that they are unless you're going the "sexual orientation" route. Even then it's not a very strong argument and hope you never have to use it someday to find that out. I knew once I landed a scenario on your doorstep you'd sidestep, but even though you haven't answered the question in print, you did answer it---thanks!

That's precisely what I meant. It's a sexual preference or orientation and therefore it is federally protected. It doesn't matter how "weak" you think the argument is, as your opinion holds no water against the federal government.

And for the record, I'm not sidestepping anything - you just need to think out the scenario you propose before you submit it. If, on the other hand, you were to ask me how I would feel if my boss decided to fire me because of my spare tire (I have a bit of a beer belly). I'd reply with, "Then I'll just have to get off my ass and get back into shape."

The bottom line is unless you are working in a job that has physical requirements (i.e. the military, police/fire, etc) then a person shouldn't be discriminated against anywhere including a publicly funded college campus.

How is requiring overweight people to excercise considered discrimination? Seems more like a proactive approach to the nation's weight problem to me. If they were being told that because they were fat they can't graduate, that's discrimination. They're being given a specialized curriculum that, in the end, might help them be healthier people.

So there are only fat folks in the clinics, hospitals, and the cemtary right? I know thin folks with health problems like diabetes, high blood pressure, and have had heart attacks and never been overweight a day in their lives Viper. Can you account for that because I certainly can. Weight is only one factor--not the exclusive factor you and those with your mindset use when you're hating on fat folks. I know plenty of healthy big people, they're just fat----so what? But how does one account for all those unhealthy thin folks since with your words only fat folks are high risk candidates?

Funny, I don't remember inferring any of this nonsense. You're putting words in my mouth, kis, and that's highly disrespectful.

I believe what I said was that overweight people are at higher risk for health problems. The world isn't black and white or cut and dry, so there's always a variable out there that makes deviations from the tendencies.

At the end of the day, weight is used by the medical community and insurance companies but in RL it is a statistic NOT a guaranteed qualifier for health problems. Name me one disease that is exclusive (not "prone" or "high-risk") Viper.....EXCLUSIVE to the obese and I'll get in line for that gastric bypass surgery all us lazy fat folks use as the easy way out!

Nothing is guaranteed except death and taxes. However, where would we be if we didn't follow the tendencies laid out before us?

There are so many responses to this obvious attempt to insult me but I'm going to go with what I've printed below and not grab the bait, if you know what I mean........

No, if I wanted to insult you, it'd be pretty clear. I'd call you a fat fuck or a lazy bitch or something like that - but I didn't say anything like that, did I? Nor am I that kind of person. I simply asked you to explain why you're still self-admittedly overweight if you're so active. Besides, I hold no malice towards you, so I have no reason to cast insults.

I don't care if I was 500lbs; still doesn't make me lazy....it makes me overweight. In other words.....the two aren't synomomous. I know some thin folks that don't even get off the couch unless you make them and some of the most active fat folks ever again disproving your less than interesting argument wrapped up in an insult!

No, what makes someone lazy is the fact that they do little or nothing to improve their physical health, even thought they know it's a problem for them. Yes, it is possible to live a long, healthy life if someone's fat - but it's much less likely. If you think that being overweight doesn't put you at higher risk for health problems, you're simply diluted and ignorant...

Besides it gives the men in my life enjoy something soft to hold onto and I've NEVER gotten a complaint about it. So I guess in that respect.....I enjoy the hell outta' it!

...but if you're healthy and enjoy your physical state of being, then there's nothing wrong! One shouldn't base an opinion of themselves on what other people think. However, despite what you like to think, your opinion is not universal - and to clarify my stance, I'll say this: If someone is overweight, has no chemical or physical imbalance that is keeping them that way, and refuses to take up a habit or alter their lifestyle in a way that will assist them with losing weight, they have no right to complain about being overweight or about programs that encourage better excercise habits and health.

To boil my opinion down to the basics: If you're fat and happy or don't care, great - live your life and enjoy yourself and fuck what anyone else says. If you're fat and unhappy, do something about it or shut the hell up. If you're able but unwilling to take steps to fix a problem you have, you've got no right to bitch about it either, nor do you have the right to bitch about other people trying to help you fix it.

edit: to add more witrhout double posting

Okay, back to the OP. Any physical obstacle should really not stop people from dreaming and getting what they aim for life. Weight has nothing to do with intelligence anyway. Let them finish the schooling.

I agree 100% - weight and intelligence are entirely unrelated. However, what else can be used as motivation to make sure people complete this kind of program?

What I would love to see happen is instead of talking how horrible these kinds of things are or how unfair they are, maybe we should try to make one work - how would it be structured if we were in charge of it's planning?

I don't want to go off topic so I don't have much more to say about it. Us big folks are merely targets for some to take their life aggressions out on. The so-called fat=unhealthy argument really goes to how a person looks and how it offends them; not necessarily guaranteeing that all fat people are unhealthy time bombs ready to explode..............

You will never hear anyone say any of what you just typed out. You're over-simplifying - the concept is that being overweight can make someone have a higher risk for many other health problems that are much less likely to occur to someone who is not overweight.

 

[kis123]

No, it isn't the same. Sexual preference and a physical state which can cause a financial burden on the people around you are NOT the same and cannot be compared to each other, so your question and argument do not apply. Sorry.



That's precisely what I meant. It's a sexual preference or orientation and therefore it is federally protected. It doesn't matter how "weak" you think the argument is, as your opinion holds no water against the federal government.

The scenario is still the same Viper because at the end of the day just because someone is obese, it does not GUARANTEE that they are unhealthy. The reverse applies as well; just because someone is thin it doesn't mean they're healthy. We place entirely too much on asthetics and not enough on reality.

The school targeting the obese and holding graduation over their heads is the exact same as targeting people with alternative lifestyles esepcially in the job scenario they don't even have to tell you why they fired you in the first place.

And for the record, I'm not sidestepping anything - you just need to think out the scenario you propose before you submit it. If, on the other hand, you were to ask me how I would feel if my boss decided to fire me because of my spare tire (I have a bit of a beer belly). I'd reply with, "Then I'll just have to get off my ass and get back into shape."

I used the scenario because I wanted to stand on your doorstep and get into your personal space which is what Lincoln did to a specific population of their students. Obviously you're not overweight so that scenario wouldn't pertain to you. Your lifestyle choices do directly pertain to you. How about that response now??

How is requiring overweight people to excercise considered discrimination? Seems more like a proactive approach to the nation's weight problem to me.

If they were being told that because they were fat they can't graduate without taking this special course, that's discrimination.

Since everyone can benefit from exercise, simply require the course from all students and I'm out the way. Only requiring obese students to exercise when everyone can benefit from it is discriminatory Viper.

Funny, I don't remember inferring any of this nonsense. You're putting words in my mouth, kis, and that's highly disrespectful.

Yes you did when you pulled the fat=unhealthy card then the fat=lazy card, then decided you'd take it to the workplace and call it a workplace problem. Are you trying to tell me that thin people don't drain workplace resources? They don't call off sick or use their healthcare benefits? Just the fat folks?

Oh..btw...I'm still looking for that disease that's exclusive to being overweight. But I won't be holding my breath for it because we both know it doesn't exist. You could go to your doctors office today and find out you have one of those fat folks high risk diseases, now couldn't you?

I believe what I said was that overweight people are at higher risk for health problems. The world isn't black and white or cut and dry, so there's always a variable out there that makes deviations from the tendencies.

Yes, like thin folks having the same health problems as fat folks, or fat folks not having health problems at all. I couldn't agree with you more........

No, if I wanted to insult you, it'd be pretty clear. I'd call you a fat fuck or a lazy bitch or something like that - but I didn't say anything like that, did I? Nor am I that kind of person. I simply asked you to explain why you're still self-admittedly overweight if you're so active. Besides, I hold no malice towards you, so I have no reason to cast insults.

Okay, another backhanded lob, but I'll play.

It's about what one considers active; it's not just about sports and exercise activity you know. It's about my ability to do what's done in a given day. My weight does NOT interfere with any of those activities. I go to work, I run errands, I hold an active and loving relationship with my children which includes attending any special events they may have. I do not hide myself in a corner because someone may find my size offensive to them. I'm out in public because it doesn't matter to me what anyone else thinks. Am I stared at? Probably. Are people talking about me? Maybe. But it doesn't stop me from being active in the public realm and it never will.

No, what makes someone lazy is the fact that they do little or nothing to improve their physical health, even thought they know it's a problem for them. Yes, it is possible to live a long, healthy life if someone's fat - but it's much less likely. If you think that being overweight doesn't put you at higher risk for health problems, you're simply diluted and ignorant...

Now there we go with the name calling again....so unnecessary. Life is all about risk Viper, you can put your slim self into a car and have an accident on the way to work. People take risks every day so really what is your point here??

...but if you're healthy and enjoy your physical state of being, then there's nothing wrong! One shouldn't base an opinion of themselves on what other people think. However, despite what you like to think, your opinion is not universal - and to clarify my stance, I'll say this: If someone is overweight, has no chemical or physical imbalance that is keeping them that way, and refuses to take up a habit or alter their lifestyle in a way that will assist them with losing weight, they have no right to complain about being overweight or about programs that encourage better excercise habits and health.

Encouraging....one thing;having it forced down your throat is another. My only problem with the rule is that only overweight students have to take the class. What about the thin and unhealthy Viper? If everyone has to take the class then they can start working on their unhealthy lifestyle choices too. Why is that such a difficult thing for folks to understand? Make the class across the board and everyone benefits. Target a certain group of people and you're just shaking the apple cart and pissing a lot of people off!

To boil my opinion down to the basics: If you're fat and happy or don't care, great - live your life and enjoy yourself and fuck what anyone else says. If you're fat and unhappy, do something about it or shut the hell up.

Agreed....CHOOSE to do something not be forced to. If weight requirements are standard for a job, then I'd agree, but there is no weight requirement to attend college.

If you're able but unwilling to take steps to fix a problem you have, you've got no right to bitch about it either, nor do you have the right to bitch about other people trying to help you fix it.

It's not the college's place to determine who is or is not unhealthy. The better approach would've been to have all take it since all can benefit from it. At first glance, an English major wouldn't benefit from a calculus class and an engineer doesn't get much benefit from a poetry class. However it's part of a well rounded education. That being the case, the fitness class benefits all students not just the fat ones. I have every right to bitch about that which is why I'm doing exactly that, thank you very much!

Again, if the college gets away with this, then who's next on the target list?

 

[vladtickleman22]

Right...which is why, as I said, these programs can only work with the proper follow up and funding.

I hate having to repeat myself. It's a private university they are not going to bother spending money on following up people who are no longer in the university. Neither would any other university or college. All they care about is what you do when you are there. Once you leave you no longer matter to them.

 

[Bohemianne]

I agree 100% - weight and intelligence are entirely unrelated. However, what else can be used as motivation to make sure people complete this kind of program?

What I would love to see happen is instead of talking how horrible these kinds of things are or how unfair they are, maybe we should try to make one work - how would it be structured if we were in charge of it's planning?

The program is useless because they are imposing it at a very late stage. They should start at nursery level, or much better before even a child is born.

They should address the issue at wider terms and not on a minority. Obesity is not localized anyway, and they should also address other factors, research more, and make the best program for the common good.

 

[kis123]

The program is useless because they are imposing it at a very late stage. They should start at nursery level, or much better before even a child is born.

Now this is something I could wrap my support around, not slamming folks at the university level and make them pay (very expensively) for a mandatory fitness course for fat folks to graduate.

They should address the issue at wider terms and not on a minority. Obesity is not localized anyway, and they should also address other factors, research more, and make the best program for the common good.

I agree to a certain point but the common good is one of the reasons this issue is a problem; you know the old "slippery slope" thing.

 

[ViperGTS]

The scenario is still the same Viper because at the end of the day just because someone is obese, it does not GUARANTEE that they are unhealthy. The reverse applies as well; just because someone is thin it doesn't mean they're healthy. We place entirely too much on asthetics and not enough on reality.

I am unable to comprehend why you insist on saying it's about how someone looks. When someone is fat their heart has to work harder to pump blood to their body - their lungs need to work harder to oxygenate that blood - the normal accumulation of cholesterol and fat is multiplied by the fat cells that already exist in the body - clotted blood vessels and arteries are more difficult to find and repair is someone who is overweight - what does ANY of this have to do with how someone percieves one's fatness? It's about the physical state of the body, not looks. The reality of being overweight is that it places one at higher risk of weight-related health problems.

That doesn't mean that someone who is slim or skinny or emaciated can't die of a heart attack - it just means they are less likely to.

I used the scenario because I wanted to stand on your doorstep and get into your personal space which is what Lincoln did to a specific population of their students. Obviously you're not overweight so that scenario wouldn't pertain to you. Your lifestyle choices do directly pertain to you. How about that response now??

Obviously? By what definition do you use the word "obviously"? Because, I am, in fact, overweight. Not by much - I am not fat or obese, but I am overweight and I am not thrilled about the spare tire I carry around. However, I am responsible enough to man up to the fact that I've been lazy about losing weight, and therefore, I don't complain about my overly fleshy bits.

If they were being told that because they were fat they can't graduate without taking this special course, that's discrimination.

Okay, you're right. For whatever reason I didn't simplify it enough to look at it that way, and you're correct.

Since everyone can benefit from exercise, simply require the course from all students and I'm out the way. Only requiring obese students to exercise when everyone can benefit from it is discriminatory Viper.

This sounds fair.

Yes you did when you pulled the fat=unhealthy card then the fat=lazy card, then decided you'd take it to the workplace and call it a workplace problem. Are you trying to tell me that thin people don't drain workplace resources? They don't call off sick or use their healthcare benefits? Just the fat folks?

I would like for you to please quote me where I said that "all fat people are unhealthy."

I did say that the overweight that are not chemically or physically imbalanced are all lazy, though that is not what I was intending to get across. Since my original posts I have clarified that statement.

Oh..btw...I'm still looking for that disease that's exclusive to being overweight. But I won't be holding my breath for it because we both know it doesn't exist. You could go to your doctors office today and find out you have one of those fat folks high risk diseases, now couldn't you?

You enjoy looking for it. I never claimed there was one.

Yes, like thin folks having the same health problems as fat folks, or fat folks not having health problems at all. I couldn't agree with you more........

And people who get lung cancer but never smoked a day in their life. Just because you don't have the predisposition for it doesn't mean you'll never get sick, and just because you have the right risk factors for it doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get it - it just changes how likely you are or are not to have that problem.

kis, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Okay, another backhanded lob, but I'll play.

It's about what one considers active; it's not just about sports and exercise activity you know. It's about my ability to do what's done in a given day. My weight does NOT interfere with any of those activities. I go to work, I run errands, I hold an active and loving relationship with my children which includes attending any special events they may have. I do not hide myself in a corner because someone may find my size offensive to them. I'm out in public because it doesn't matter to me what anyone else thinks. Am I stared at? Probably. Are people talking about me? Maybe. But it doesn't stop me from being active in the public realm and it never will.

As I said, it has nothing to do with what other people think of you. If you're happy with yourself, that's all that matters. If you choose not to do anything about a problem you have because you don't consider it to be a problem, then you won't ever see me telling you that you need to fix it.

Now there we go with the name calling again....so unnecessary. Life is all about risk Viper, you can put your slim self into a car and have an accident on the way to work. People take risks every day so really what is your point here??

I didn't call you a name. However, if you truly believe that being overweight does not put you at any higher risk for certain diseases or sicknesses, then those names may apply to you.

And I do agree about the risks everyday life presents us. We can't prevent other people from doing things that put us at risk but what we can do is take steps to minimize the risks that we put ourselves in, such as driving carefully, staying in good shape and not making choices that out us in a position for bad things to happen.

Encouraging....one thing;having it forced down your throat is another. My only problem with the rule is that only overweight students have to take the class. What about the thin and unhealthy Viper? If everyone has to take the class then they can start working on their unhealthy lifestyle choices too. Why is that such a difficult thing for folks to understand? Make the class across the board and everyone benefits. Target a certain group of people and you're just shaking the apple cart and pissing a lot of people off!

Like I said, I agree, after having thought about it some more.

The program is useless because they are imposing it at a very late stage. They should start at nursery level, or much better before even a child is born.

They should address the issue at wider terms and not on a minority. Obesity is not localized anyway, and they should also address other factors, research more, and make the best program for the common good.

A very good point; one I hadn't thought of until before making this post.

EDIT: Wait, the students at the university need to pay for the program? I must have missed that. I think that's bullshit.

 

[MrMacphisto]

No offense, man, but, ass. backwards. I cannot support any part of that statement, as it would violate every principle I have. I don't believe in treating people differently, because of their physical appearance. And accepting it as an inevitable standard is only encouraging it. Sure, some people, maybe a lot of people, will judge me by my appearance. But anyone who does isn't worth my time, and anyone who is worth my time, won't.

I applaud your principles, but I think you'll find that most people operate in the way I described. Not everyone reacts the same way, but we naturally judge others by appearance -- whether as a result of culture, experience, or instinct.

It would be nice if humans were purely logical, but since we aren't, sometimes policies must reflect the emphasis on appearance that is important for social and sometimes economic mobility.

 

[kis123]

I am unable to comprehend why you insist on saying it's about how someone looks. When someone is fat their heart has to work harder to pump blood to their body - their lungs need to work harder to oxygenate that blood - the normal accumulation of cholesterol and fat is multiplied by the fat cells that already exist in the body - clotted blood vessels and arteries are more difficult to find and repair is someone who is overweight - what does ANY of this have to do with how someone percieves one's fatness? It's about the physical state of the body, not looks. The reality of being overweight is that it places one at higher risk of weight-related health problems.

That doesn't mean that someone who is slim or skinny or emaciated can't die of a heart attack - it just means they are less likely to.



Obviously? By what definition do you use the word "obviously"? Because, I am, in fact, overweight. Not by much - I am not fat or obese, but I am overweight and I am not thrilled about the spare tire I carry around. However, I am responsible enough to man up to the fact that I've been lazy about losing weight, and therefore, I don't complain about my overly fleshy bits.



Okay, you're right. For whatever reason I didn't simplify it enough to look at it that way, and you're correct.



This sounds fair.



I would like for you to please quote me where I said that "all fat people are unhealthy."

I did say that the overweight that are not chemically or physically imbalanced are all lazy, though that is not what I was intending to get across. Since my original posts I have clarified that statement.



You enjoy looking for it. I never claimed there was one.



And people who get lung cancer but never smoked a day in their life. Just because you don't have the predisposition for it doesn't mean you'll never get sick, and just because you have the right risk factors for it doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get it - it just changes how likely you are or are not to have that problem.

kis, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.



As I said, it has nothing to do with what other people think of you. If you're happy with yourself, that's all that matters. If you choose not to do anything about a problem you have because you don't consider it to be a problem, then you won't ever see me telling you that you need to fix it.



I didn't call you a name. However, if you truly believe that being overweight does not put you at any higher risk for certain diseases or sicknesses, then those names may apply to you.

And I do agree about the risks everyday life presents us. We can't prevent other people from doing things that put us at risk but what we can do is take steps to minimize the risks that we put ourselves in, such as driving carefully, staying in good shape and not making choices that out us in a position for bad things to happen.



Like I said, I agree, after having thought about it some more.



A very good point; one I hadn't thought of until before making this post.

EDIT: Wait, the students at the university need to pay for the program? I must have missed that. I think that's bullshit.

Today has been long and exhausting and I don't feel up to addressing every issue you posted. But since you took the time to respond to me it deserves some sort of response back.

There are several issues where my only response is "agree to disagree." If you go back to your first post in this thread, you'll better understand why I even quoted you in the first place. You call yourself overweight, but I have the feeling that you may be 20 lbs at best; that doesn't get you thrown into a class and declared fat and unfit.

It is extremely easy for a college to point out what it sees as unhealthy-and whether or not you or others admit it, we tend to go by appearences-a fat person appears unhealthy even without proof that the person has an illness. But they're glossing over (and even ignoring) the entire student population who could very well benefit from gaining knowledge of health and fitness. Maybe some of them will choose a healthier lifestyle because of it.

Oh, as for your edit........yes they have to pay for it and depending upon how many credit hours, it can cost quite a bit. I'm not sure how much per credit hour Lincoln's tuition is, but hell yeah, it comes out of the students' pockets just like any other class.

 

[maverick83]

I applaud your principles, but I think you'll find that most people operate in the way I described. Not everyone reacts the same way, but we naturally judge others by appearance -- whether as a result of culture, experience, or instinct.

It would be nice if humans were purely logical, but since we aren't, sometimes policies must reflect the emphasis on appearance that is important for social and sometimes economic mobility.

I can agree with that, to an extent. Though I must say, I wouldn't prefer to see people be purely logical. I would think the complete absence of emotion would make things pretty boring. And I can acknowledge that there are certain times and places when appearance matters. I just don't think one should be held to a standard of appearance in order to qualify for any kind of position where appearance has nothing to do with performance. It's no different from racism. What if I said, for example, "I'm sorry, you can't be a chemist. You're black."? Wouldn't go over very well. And for good reason. And you're right, one often won't be told that the reason one was not accepted for a position is because of one's appearance, though it could have been a vital factor. And likewise, a person could be denied a position based on their race, and other excuses made up to cover for it. But just as I don't think the appropriate response to that possibility is for a person to be ashamed of their race, I don't think the appropriate response to the previous possibility, is for someone to be ashamed of their appearance. And no progress will ever be made, if that is the response we promote. Frankly, I find it especially disheartening that such a response would be promoted by an institution whose purpose is allegedly higher learning.

 

[Radiohead 7140]

I'm getting tired of hearing the line about obese people not being the only people who have health problems - that holy hell, there are unhealthy skinny people too!!!

I used to smoke. Couple cigarettes a day. It was a horrible habit and I'm happy to have kicked it. That being said, I used to get annoyed when a girl at work who was overweight would call me out for smoking due to the health effects, and then see her eat 3 slices of cheese cake after a chicken parm dinner. I thought 'he who is without unhealthy habits should cast the first stone' and obviously this far from applied to her

BUT, say my employer instituted a policy that said 'smoking is unhealthy and to promote the health of our employees, all smokers must quit or they will be fired'. I would have been pissed off and annoyed, but i would NEVER say "well that's bullshit!! The girl I work with is killing herself more with her damn cheese cake than I am with my 2-3cigarettes a day". The fact that other people are unhealthy is not a valid reason to dismiss this plan. There ARE valid reasons, and I don't like the policy, but I simply cannot comprehend this.

I believe someone said that obesity doesn't guarantee disease, or that no disease can affect ONLY the obese. Yes, obviously. As Viper said:

"Just because you don't have the predisposition for it doesn't mean you'll never get sick, and just because you have the right risk factors for it doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get it - it just changes how likely you are or are not to have that problem"

The link between obesity and health problems is, if i'm not mistaken, scientifically confirmed several times over. Obesity is, by and large, unhealthy.

Now, I am not addressing the discrimination argument, or the 'everyone should take it' argument. I already did in other posts. They are all reasonable arguments, but what keeps occurring in this thread is that someone tries to refute someone's argument with a completely different point.

The point I am taking issue with here is that the program is flawed because skinny people are unhealthy too. I think it's terribly weak. Fuck it, everyone's gonna be unhealthy in some form or another, so let's just do absolutely nothing to encourage better health. Really? Am I missing something?

 

[MrMacphisto]

I can agree with that, to an extent. Though I must say, I wouldn't prefer to see people be purely logical. I would think the complete absence of emotion would make things pretty boring. And I can acknowledge that there are certain times and places when appearance matters. I just don't think one should be held to a standard of appearance in order to qualify for any kind of position where appearance has nothing to do with performance. It's no different from racism. What if I said, for example, "I'm sorry, you can't be a chemist. You're black."? Wouldn't go over very well. And for good reason. And you're right, one often won't be told that the reason one was not accepted for a position is because of one's appearance, though it could have been a vital factor. And likewise, a person could be denied a position based on their race, and other excuses made up to cover for it. But just as I don't think the appropriate response to that possibility is for a person to be ashamed of their race, I don't think the appropriate response to the previous possibility, is for someone to be ashamed of their appearance. And no progress will ever be made, if that is the response we promote. Frankly, I find it especially disheartening that such a response would be promoted by an institution whose purpose is allegedly higher learning.

While I agree that your analogy is relevant and accurate, I believe that there is some logic to discrimination involving employees that are obese.

If the employer involved has a healthcare plan, then it is reasonable to assume that an obese candidate may have more health problems than the average candidate. This could lead to higher costs for the company in the way of health benefits.

Granted, I also realize that plenty of thinner people have health problems too. Still, there is again a difference between discriminating against someone who is of a particular race as opposed to someone who is obese. In most cases, obesity is reflective of personal choices, whereas race is not.

For those who are obese because of medical reasons, they are protected by federal laws regarding their resulting physical handicaps. If they can prove that an employer discriminated against them because of their handicaps, they can win damages from them. Granted, it is true that winning said cases can often be very difficult.

However, I believe there is a good reason why obese people without medical conditions can be legally discriminated against -- because their condition is a choice. It's the same as discriminating against someone because of how they dress or speak.

Now, logically, it makes the most sense to simply hire the most qualified candidate, but that's another discussion altogether.

How this all ties into the original discussion is that a college, whether public or private, can choose to enact policies that discriminate against anything that is not considered a federally protected class.

But again, I'm not necessarily advocating these policies.

 

[kis123]

I'm getting tired of hearing the line about obese people not being the only people who have health problems - that holy hell, there are unhealthy skinny people too!!!

I used to smoke. Couple cigarettes a day. It was a horrible habit and I'm happy to have kicked it. That being said, I used to get annoyed when a girl at work who was overweight would call me out for smoking due to the health effects, and then see her eat 3 slices of cheese cake after a chicken parm dinner. I thought 'he who is without unhealthy habits should cast the first stone' and obviously this far from applied to her

BUT, say my employer instituted a policy that said 'smoking is unhealthy and to promote the health of our employees, all smokers must quit or they will be fired'. I would have been pissed off and annoyed, but i would NEVER say "well that's bullshit!! The girl I work with is killing herself more with her damn cheese cake than I am with my 2-3cigarettes a day". The fact that other people are unhealthy is not a valid reason to dismiss this plan. There ARE valid reasons, and I don't like the policy, but I simply cannot comprehend this.

I believe someone said that obesity doesn't guarantee disease, or that no disease can affect ONLY the obese. Yes, obviously. As Viper said:

"Just because you don't have the predisposition for it doesn't mean you'll never get sick, and just because you have the right risk factors for it doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get it - it just changes how likely you are or are not to have that problem"

The link between obesity and health problems is, if i'm not mistaken, scientifically confirmed several times over. Obesity is, by and large, unhealthy.

Now, I am not addressing the discrimination argument, or the 'everyone should take it' argument. I already did in other posts. They are all reasonable arguments, but what keeps occurring in this thread is that someone tries to refute someone's argument with a completely different point.

The point I am taking issue with here is that the program is flawed because skinny people are unhealthy too. I think it's terribly weak. Fuck it, everyone's gonna be unhealthy in some form or another, so let's just do absolutely nothing to encourage better health. Really? Am I missing something?

You might be tired of hearing it, but it doesn't make it any less true; there are fat folks with no health problems and thin folks who have plenty of them. That doesn't go away just because you don't like it.

You continue to say the argument is weak yet you don't elaborate; I'm looking forward to that. If you're going to force the "perceived" unhealthy to take a course that could benefit everyone including those who are thin but are physically unhealthy or live unhealthy lifestyles, then you're only singling out and discriminating and that doesn't resolve the problem--it only serves to create a hostile environment with the larger student population and potentially disrupt their college experience.

No, you're not missing anything; encourage better health by making all students take the course, not just singling out those who "appear" unhealthy. And if someone is unhealthy, something should be done about it, but should it be forced down their throats and made to pay for it too?

 

[JimmyBoy]

Lincoln University has dropped the mandatory obese fitness class...
http://news.aol.com/article/lincoln-university-drops-mandatory/777773?

 

[kis123]

Lincoln University has dropped the mandatory obese fitness class...
http://news.aol.com/article/lincoln-university-drops-mandatory/777773?

Maybe they can bring this back the right way because ALL students can benefit from the class. Just make it a part of the overall curriculum and it should be just fine in the future.

 

[meangry]

Maybe they can bring this back the right way because ALL students can benefit from the class. Just make it a part of the overall curriculum and it should be just fine in the future.

Why bring it back at all?

I mean, doesn't it invade on personal choice?

I mean, hey, lets make a big deal out of it because fat students have to partake, but lets not bat an eyelash when it essentially becomes required calisthenics for all.

People are only apathetic until their laziness is put up for question.

 

[Radiohead 7140]

You might be tired of hearing it, but it doesn't make it any less true; there are fat folks with no health problems and thin folks who have plenty of them. That doesn't go away just because you don't like it.

You continue to say the argument is weak yet you don't elaborate; I'm looking forward to that. If you're going to force the "perceived" unhealthy to take a course that could benefit everyone including those who are thin but are physically unhealthy or live unhealthy lifestyles, then you're only singling out and discriminating and that doesn't resolve the problem--it only serves to create a hostile environment with the larger student population and potentially disrupt their college experience.

No, you're not missing anything; encourage better health by making all students take the course, not just singling out those who "appear" unhealthy. And if someone is unhealthy, something should be done about it, but should it be forced down their throats and made to pay for it too?

Please stop fucking saying I don't like hearing arguments because I don't like them. I have refrained from saying that your entire argument with viper seldom showed any legitimate logic. It doesn't go away because I don't like it? Get real, if you read through my posts, and don't think I have elaborated on my points, then I just don't think you and I think in a way similar enough to even discuss something.

But stop saying I won't like what I hear from you like i'm some fucking child, and that i ignore any arguments just because it's not what i want to hear. I DON'T EVEN LIKE THE PROGRAM. I don't like what I hear from you because I don't think you make good points.

I ask this seriously - did you actually carefully read my post and consider the points? I devoted several paragraphs to my acknowledgment that there are healthy fat folks and unhealthy thin folks. Then I went on to explain why I don't think that's an inherent reason to trash this program.

I have elaborated. A lot. Throughout this thread. You seem to post the same things over and over, which further appear more driven by being personally offended than logic.

 

[kis123]

Please stop fucking saying I don't like hearing arguments because I don't like them. I have refrained from saying that your entire argument with viper seldom showed any legitimate logic. It doesn't go away because I don't like it? Get real, if you read through my posts, and don't think I have elaborated on my points, then I just don't think you and I think in a way similar enough to even discuss something.

My arguments don't always adress logically; I never said I was a logically thinking person. I leave that to the men since they are so inately logical.......

But stop saying I won't like what I hear from you like i'm some fucking child, and that i ignore any arguments just because it's not what i want to hear. I DON'T EVEN LIKE THE PROGRAM. I don't like what I hear from you because I don't think you make good points.

I always enter my disclaimer first before folks start reading my posts; that's not exclusive to you. And what's up with all the f-bomb dropping? Really, it's so unnecessary especially if we're working in the logical realm.

I ask this seriously - did you actually carefully read my post and consider the points? I devoted several paragraphs to my acknowledgment that there are healthy fat folks and unhealthy thin folks. Then I went on to explain why I don't think that's an inherent reason to trash this program.

Yes, but you've mentioned several times that the argument was weak yet you brought no argument to really support it. That's what I was waiting on, not your over emotional blurts. Now who's the one who's arguing from emotions??

I have elaborated. A lot. Throughout this thread. You seem to post the same things over and over, which further appear more driven by being personally offended than logic.

Read my response above, calm down, take a breath, and try again.............