You ridiculed fat people by saying: “No, they aren’t. They’re wishing that they were thinner, but they aren’t *trying* anything, or trying things that are so ridiculous (See your comment about “billion-dollar business” above.) that they may as well not.”

In no way does that comment acknowledge the tremendous efforts people take to lose weight. You dismiss their work, saying “they may as well not” even try, so that you can continue to insult them, saying that they “mire themselves in excuses, self-pity, and misdirected energy on things beyond individual control.” This, even after I made the point about diets that patently contradicts such an ignorant statement.

You’re not winning this argument, buddy. Dropping out was a wise move.

@Avery: That’s an extremely common phenomenon. You might be interested in the book “The End of Overeating” by David Kessler, here: http://www.amazon.com/End-Overeating-Insatiable-American-Appetite/dp/1605297852/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255377726&sr=8-1.

Taking the one word “ridiculous” from what I said out of the context of my response to your statement, in which I essentially agreed with your statement about the diet industry selling stupid shit to fat people? You’re just not even trying to discuss ideas, are you?

“Finally, don’t tell me I am dismissing personal responsibility. If i say I’m not, then I’m inherently not.”

If this is the kind of reasoning you’re bringing to the table, which, from the rest of your statements, seems all you’re capable of, I’m done with you. Keep blathering your nonsense, I’m done replying.

I actually laughed at your explanation of what an enabler of poverty is. Yes, I do in fact understand that people (like you) believe that social services are “enablers” of poverty. What I also understand is that to use the word “enabler” is to imply that being poor is a personal choice, which it is not. And that the purpose of using such a word is to derail the conversation from the importance and efficacy of social services. But you and I will never agree on that, and I will agree to disagree if you will (or even if you won’t).

Finally, don’t tell me I am dismissing personal responsibility. If i say I’m not, then I’m inherently not. I am, however, desperately trying to get people to acknowledge other influences. Because, generally, the people who say “people need to take personal responsibility” or “welfare enables laziness among the poor” are the people who oppose medicare and social security, who oppose laws that regulate food companies, who, ultimately, have no interest in helping because, duh, if you stop helping them they’ll be forced to work their way out of poverty or being fat, won’t they? As far as I’m concerned, they are these people: http://politicalirony.com/2008/08/08/a-concise-history-of-black-white-relations-in-the-us/ (feel free to replace ‘white’ and ‘black’ with ‘rich’ and ‘poor’)

PS, I find it hysterical that you call people who go on diets “ridiculous” and dismiss their efforts. They just can’t win, can they?

Think of someone who earns just enough money to qualify for government handouts. What motivation does he have to work harder for a raise? Why would he try to save money, and earn more, when it’s going to cost him “free” money? There was an article in the newspaper last week about a family of six who gets $1200 a month in food stamps, and they were complaining because the 4 kids are going to miss out on 17 school lunches a year due to cutbacks. They can’t feed a family of 6 on $1200 a month? Really? And what motivation do they have to work their way out of their poverty, when it would cost them $14,400 a year (tax-free, mind you) if they saved money or got a raise? Why would they clip coupons or shop for cheaper deals, when they have to use it or lose it?

There’s your enabler of poverty.

I’d say it’s because people are looking for easy solutions rather than doing what’s necessary.

“Go talk to these people you bash. Work with them. You might learn something.”

Find one instance where I bashed anyone in this discussion, and I’ll consider it.

“Losing weight is not a matter of “eat less, exercise more.” It’s emotional, it’s visceral, it’s behavioral.”

And at the end of all that emotional, visceral, behavioral [whatever], if we separate thsoe who lose weight from those who didn’t, guess what the difference is? Those who lose weight ate less calories than they spent, one way or another.

“Assuming that fat people are lazy is unrealistic and ignores human nature.”

You keep bringing up “lazy,” and I don’t know why.

“Moreover, if the food conglomerates and insurance company lobbyists have nothing to do with our obesity problems, as so many people insist”

Throughout your response, you’ve made up a number of straw men, citing arguments that were never made. It leads me to believe you simply aren’t listening to anything anyone’s saying because you’re blinded by your self-righteousness.

“I’m not dismissing personal responsibility.”

Yeah, actually, you are.

“Most overweight people are trying to lose weight, as they should, and they must keep trying.”

No, they aren’t. They’re wishing that they were thinner, but they aren’t *trying* anything, or trying things that are so ridiculous (See your comment about “billion-dollar business” above.) that they may as well not.

“I am simply acknowledging that we can’t put the blame on the strength of their characters.”

I’m saying blaming anyone or anything is a waste of time and energy.

“Let’s acknowledge that there are many, many factors to this, and that, as Ramit has said before, “eat less, exercise more” is effectively a useless statement.”

Let’s not, because no matter how you end up doing it, that’s the only way you’re going to lose weight, short of terminal illness or gastric bypass.

“(PS: there’s no such person as an “enabler” of poverty. Berk.)”

I might be offended if I knew what “Berk” meant.