Looking back at this argument, I think it got sidetracked from the topic title: "Too fat to graduate?" isn't the right question. A BMI of 30 isn't "fat," it's clinically obese. Anything above 23 is considered overweight, but at 30+ there are serious health risks. I feel I touched on this earlier, but by that point the topic had basically run its course.
Statistics: Posted by Tahu 1000 — February 17th, 2012, 5:12 pm
]]>
Your views have really changed in the past two years.
lander, in the Ron Paul topic wrote:
Indeed they have. A person can grow a lot in two years. I'm somewhat ashamed of that argument, the only valid thing left of it is that the university has a right to include whatever they want in their curriculum. *shrugs*
It's kind of pitiful that you'd revisit old topics created by me to tear down *that* argument and/or compare it to my current one...
As I said, I don't see the harm in asking students to take a fitness class that's required to graduate. If they'd rather not, they can switch schools. Who's more right? The university to decide what's included in the curriculum, or the student to not have such classes imposed on them? I still maintain that the university is in the right.
Overall, though, my views have changed incredibly. I don't really care about fat people, they can do whatever they like. As I said, I'm now ashamed of most of this argument as it is just ridiculous and even offensive on some levels.
It just struck me as a little pathetic that so many people were complaining about the class. But it hardly matters.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — February 17th, 2012, 12:27 pm
]]>
Landerpurex wrote:
What if I want to kill someone else for fun? It's my right of pursuit of happiness versus their right of life? Why does their right of life overtake my right to the pursuit of happiness?
Because the right to the pursuit of happiness is given to you by the U.S. constitution and as written explicitly forbids it.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
An inalienable right enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, in addition to life and liberty; the right to pursue any legal activity as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
By the way, as a side note, I'm totally amazed to see you incriminating and persecuting fat people and condoning the idea of action for the common good when it comes to being fat while simultaneously arguing for individualism and isolationism defending the use of illegal drugs and their legalization. In fact, your attitude and ideaology towards this issue is almost a complete and total 360 from your perspective on the drugs issue, even though the two issues are not really that different.
Statistics: Posted by Proletariat — February 17th, 2012, 1:39 am
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Tokuman — December 24th, 2009, 12:25 pm
]]>
]]>
Eadwulf wrote:
I merely find such a requirement to be superfluous, for in the western world, when does the common man actually ever have to work where a fit body is required anymore?
Trade jobs, factory maintenance workers, etc.
Basically the jobs that no one wants to do anymore, because it does require physical labor.
I have been to other countries and in other countries physical labor is more blue collar than US. . . from my experience.
Statistics: Posted by Tokuman — December 18th, 2009, 1:24 pm
]]>
I merely find such a requirement to be superfluous, for in the western world, when does the common man actually ever have to work where a fit body is required anymore?
Trade jobs, factory maintenance workers, etc.
Basically the jobs that no one wants to do anymore, because it does require physical labor.
Statistics: Posted by Suicide Messiah — December 17th, 2009, 3:45 pm
]]>
Many things are unenforceable. . . so we can please both parties by saying "gotta stop obesity" then turn around to the other party and say "sup, this rule is irrelevant, it won't work" - Good idea. . well actually, that's a horrible idea.
I don't like the idea - no matter how well it fights (or doesn't fight, ROFL!) obesity.
We should all be able to decide what body weight is best for us and no one should pay for or make our decision either way.
By the way, Zilla absolutely has a good point..
Statistics: Posted by Tokuman — December 10th, 2009, 1:53 am
]]>
But yeah, what Ead said is true. Best not to dwell on it.
~Paidea
Statistics: Posted by Paidea — December 9th, 2009, 5:37 pm
]]>
]]>
This should be an elective class or be required for everyone. You have 2 students with the same major. They take all of the same classes except the fat guy has to take an extra class because he is fat. I highly doubt this class is free, so fat guy has to spend extra time and several hundred dollars more than thin guy to graduate. All for something that is not remotely related to his field of study or academics in general. It simply isn't fair. As the article said, health experts don't think the method is right or that it will even necessarily help anyone long term.
Statistics: Posted by Zilla — December 9th, 2009, 9:24 am
]]>
~Paidea
Statistics: Posted by Paidea — December 8th, 2009, 11:54 pm
]]>
Singling those out who don't meet a certain academic requirement is wrong and is offensive. How would you like to be tested and then required to take the remedial class? I can't imagine that is a good feeling for anyone.
...
Likewise, being "singled out" isn't wrong or offensive unless it's taken that way. Students can't meet basic skill levels in academics, they're placed in special classes. It's the same concept with weight. The school is requiring those who need this sort of class, whether they want to admit it or not (just like remedial students who insist they don't need their classes...), to take a course which is designed to help them.
~Paidea
That makes no sense. Academics is kind of the whole point of school, so separating those out who need extra help to learn is logical. Weight loss is not the purpose of school.
Statistics: Posted by Zilla — December 8th, 2009, 9:57 pm
]]>
Wait a minute, the government's job is to babysit you and spoon feed you. You have no rights! Lander KNOWS what is right for you. . . . wait, no. . . what happens when WE know what is right for him and gain political power and force our hypothetical views upon him? It would totally become a rights issue.
When there's a debate going on using personal attacks and sarcasm is the sign of a poor arguer.
Tweedy wrote:
That's because schools educate children. What is reasonable to impose upon a child sounds ridiculous when imposed on an adult. Maybe they're lazy...maybe they have some genetic predisposition which makes it difficult for them to lose weight...maybe they're addicted...maybe they're too embarrassed to do anything as Tanks astutely noted. Whatever the reason, universities should focus on giving their students an education, not on attempting to impose a new lifestyle on them.
When are we technically not children anymore? Because in high school if you haven't taken your phys ed class yet and you're an eighteen year old senior, you still have to take it to graduate.
Is there a rights violation going on there? Should we get rid of gym class, have every sort of food imaginable in the cafeteria so everyone can fulfill their pursuit of happiness by being able to eat whatever they want at school, etc? The bottom line here is that we have hundreds of "rights violations" imposed on us that are also good. tweedy wrote:
Look, I think it'd be grand if less people were obese/overweight, but I don't want bureaucrats forcing people to lose weight. Maybe people value food more than the ability to exercise? It'd sound ridiculous to most people (me included) but that's their choice and who are you to tell other people how to live?
True enough, but again, I will reiterate that it's the RIGHT of the UNIVERSITY to choose their curriculum, just like it's the right of the student to choose not to attend the school. I will also repeat that the students don't have to lose weight or lower their BMI at all, they only have to participate. Everyone is debating the student's rights, but as I said before, there are a thousand parallels to be made that people accept without any fuss. When it comes down to it, like I said, it's all about semantics, not what's good or bad for anyone. Who's to tell them what's good for them? I don't know, the government's job is to do things for the common good and it could easily be argued that this is one of them, with deaths related to obesity being in the "obscene" range. What if I want to kill someone else for fun? It's my right of pursuit of happiness versus their right of life? Why does their right of life overtake my right to the pursuit of happiness?
As far as singling them out goes, I can agree that making everyone take the class would be an ideal way of doing it. But then again, Paidea put it really well and I don't think I can say it any better myself. On the other hand, with the class being only for overweight people, the instructor can focus a lot more on their type of problems whereas if the class were a mix of everyone, the scope of the content would have to be more wide. Less people also means smaller classes, and smaller classes mean more special attention. Also, there's no real point in making the kids who are already fit take the class, it's simply a waste of resources.
Bottom line, if the kids are ashamed of their weight and ashamed of being singled out, maybe they BELONG in the class?
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — December 8th, 2009, 6:57 pm
]]>
...
Likewise, being "singled out" isn't wrong or offensive unless it's taken that way. Students can't meet basic skill levels in academics, they're placed in special classes. It's the same concept with weight. The school is requiring those who need this sort of class, whether they want to admit it or not (just like remedial students who insist they don't need their classes...), to take a course which is designed to help them.
~Paidea
Statistics: Posted by Paidea — December 8th, 2009, 4:38 pm
]]>
"If Lincoln truly is concerned about everyone being healthy, then everyone should have to take this gym class, not just people who happen to be bigger," she said.
This says it all. I would have no problem with this if it was required for all students. I mean, come on. How many people become overweight AFTER college? A lot. What about those students who are not overweight but who drink themselves stupid every night? Is there a required class for that?
Good health habits should be taught to everyone if the school is so concerned about it's students. Singling those out who don't meet a certain BMI requirement is wrong and is offensive. How would you like to be measured and then required to take the fat class? I can't imagine that is a good feeling for anyone. Maybe the school is trying to motivate them by making them feel like crap about themselves but I don't think that is fair. There is a lot more to a person than how much they weigh.
Statistics: Posted by Zilla — December 8th, 2009, 3:59 pm
]]>
You won't find a single fat person who's not resistant to insulin. You won't find a single fat person who has a hummingbird metabolism like mine. You WILL find a split between these people, though, on whether it's more genetic, or more self-induced.
People who will become obese no matter what they eat or how they work out shouldn't be subject to being told "You're fat for bad habits". Yes, they can work to better themselves, but can only really do so by going against their own DNA.
With that single point of genetics vs choice aside and a false hope that someone somewhere will read this post and realize "We need to sort through the people who are unlucky and the people who are choosing this", I don't see this as a bad idea. Teach kids (and people in general) why they gain weight, teach kids (and people in general) what they can do about it, and by all means, don't shove it down their throats that they have to be some stick-thin magazine-cover bodied people. While this isn't the intention of many people, it's the message portrayed. >_>
Statistics: Posted by Kikori — December 7th, 2009, 4:59 pm
]]>
You can't be the cynical response! That's my shtick!
It's like dividing by zero
Statistics: Posted by Blackmage172 — December 7th, 2009, 1:39 pm
]]>
Eadwulf wrote:
Chet wrote:
Eadwulf wrote:
I merely find such a requirement to be superfluous, for in the western world, when does the common man actually ever have to work where a fit body is required anymore?
Yes, and what about that says "work" to you?
I was just being the cynical counterpoint. And you'd be surprised all that happens in that industry. I know a couple girls in it and I have *no* idea how they deal with the pressure.
Because they're told to.
You can't be the cynical response! That's my shtick!
Statistics: Posted by Eadwulf — December 7th, 2009, 12:39 pm
]]>