Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Ban the fat from TV watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EggmanD)
    snip
    So basically you don't have to be insane to be an artist or philosopher

    You find me a decent/influential musician, comedian, author, scientist, politician, activist, philosopher, businessmen or inventor who is perfectly sane and ill take back everything ive ever said.
    And you didn't take **** back, instead you tried to argue otherwise.
    In short you aren't man enough to admit when you are wrong making arguing with you utterly futile.
    You also have yet to address my original post which shows fat people have a negative influence on the health of others. :top:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James4d)
    Being overweight is essential for certain characters on screen (what would a stick thin Hagrid look like?)
    I know this was posted a week ago but the thread came up in the discussions tab and I haaaad to answer this :p:

    Hagrid is half giant and as such is technically big boned and not fat

    :ninja:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    You also have yet to address my original post which shows fat people have a negative influence on the health of others. :top:
    I fail to see your logic.

    Over the years I've been friends with overweight and obese people and I don't think it negatively affected me or the other friends in the group.

    I became (slightly) overweight due to factors out of my control and this hasn't affected others.

    In fact standing next to someone smoking does me more damage then standing next to an obese person.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Your anedotal evidence doesn't suddenly disprove statistically significant peer reviewed work :facepalm: Plus the figure isn't 100% in the paper is it? :facepalm2:
    You need to work on your logic.
    Well no, I don't need to work on anything.

    My logic isn't flawed and apparently neither is yours, perhaps I should also insert a facepalm smiley to try and belittle your point too? :facepalm:

    Fact is smoking is not part of a persons physical appearance, insulting those who smoke is like insulting those who consume caffeine drinks, it's negligible. Being overweight or fat is part of somebodies appearance and no amount of 'scientific' research you've quoted wherever can change the fact that what you are saying hurts people's feelings.

    By your logic, junk food should be banned from TV not overweight people. Smoking isn't shown on TV any more, doesn't mean that smokers aren't.

    Maybe we should ban all ugly people from the TV, you know, in case we catch it :rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    "Fat" is not something you do, it's something you are. That's the main difference between being fat, and smoking.

    If a kid saw someone smoking on TV, they might think "That's a cool thing to do, let me try it", so it's reasonable to prevent such things from appearing on TV. Whereas if a kid saw a fat person on TV, they're not going to think the same thing.

    If we were to follow through with this analogy, we would have to ban those activites which make you fat from appearing on TV (e.g. eating junk food) rather than being fat itself; in the same way that we might ban the activity which gives you lung cancer (i.e. smoking) from appearing on TV rather than actually having lung cancer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaykiie)
    Well no, I don't need to work on anything.

    My logic isn't flawed and apparently neither is yours, perhaps I should also insert a facepalm smiley to try and belittle your point too? :facepalm:

    Fact is smoking is not part of a persons physical appearance, insulting those who smoke is like insulting those who consume caffeine drinks, it's negligible. Being overweight or fat is part of somebodies appearance and no amount of 'scientific' research you've quoted wherever can change the fact that what you are saying hurts people's feelings.

    By your logic, junk food should be banned from TV not overweight people. Smoking isn't shown on TV any more, doesn't mean that smokers aren't.

    Maybe we should ban all ugly people from the TV, you know, in case we catch it :rolleyes:
    My logic is reiterating statistically significant findings in peer reviewed work.
    Your logic is based on anecdotal evidence whilst also not actually contradicting the above as the paper never claimed fat people always have a negative influence...
    Who gives a **** if it hurts someone's feelings? Fact is health is far more important than mollycoddling a fat person to think their shape is acceptable. Frankly they know they look like **** and are unhealthy thanks to a)Mate Selection Theory and b)the side effects of being fat (blood pressure etc)

    Junk food will only make someone fat IF they have a bad diet and do little exercise. Junk food can exist and not be a problem. Fat people however have a negative influence on those around them.
    Nice juvenile retort there. Go away, read the paper and learn how science works. Until then your view is nothing but childish jibberish.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    "Fat" is not something you do, it's something you are. That's the main difference between being fat, and smoking.

    If a kid saw someone smoking on TV, they might think "That's a cool thing to do, let me try it", so it's reasonable to prevent such things from appearing on TV. Whereas if a kid saw a fat person on TV, they're not going to think the same thing.

    If we were to follow through with this analogy, we would have to ban those activites which make you fat from appearing on TV (e.g. eating junk food) rather than being fat itself; in the same way that we might ban the activity which gives you lung cancer (i.e. smoking) from appearing on TV rather than actually having lung cancer.
    You chose to smoke, you chose to be fat. You are a smoker. You are fat. Both are self inflicted.
    Why aren't they going to think being fat is cool? That's just you having the preconceived notion that being fat isn't cool, whereas young children nowadays see people like Adele come out with comments like there is no need to lose weight. So why may they not think "fat people are cool" or "there is no problem in being fat"?
    As I've stated many a time the difference with smoking is that you can have a smoker on TV and yet the audience is no wiser to this fact as long as the person doesn't smoke, meaning that smoking is not being promoted. However with a fat person, their simple appearance is promoting being overweight - they do not need to eat junk food to promote being overweight.
    Plus junk food =/= fat. As long as you have a balanced diet and exercise, junk food isn't inherently a problem, unlike smoking.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    You also have yet to address my original post which shows fat people have a negative influence on the health of others. :top:
    So if something has a negative influence on others then we can form a decent case to ban or at least protest that something?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    My logic is reiterating statistically significant findings in peer reviewed work.
    Your logic is based on anecdotal evidence whilst also not actually contradicting the above as the paper never claimed fat people always have a negative influence...
    I'm sorry, but my anecdotal evidence is not a 'one off', the majority of people would likely agree with me. Fact is neither of us is 100% right.

    Who gives a **** if it hurts someone's feelings? Fact is health is far more important than mollycoddling a fat person to think their shape is acceptable. Frankly they know they look like **** and are unhealthy thanks to a)Mate Selection Theory and b)the side effects of being fat (blood pressure etc)
    A lot of people give a **** if it hurts people's feelings. Self esteem is key to success and by belittling people for being overweight, something they will be completely aware of, you are jeopardising a person's daily life.

    Of course they know that they are unhealthy, but bombarding them with insults and making it a taboo subject to talk about will only worsen the situation.

    Junk food will only make someone fat IF they have a bad diet and do little exercise. Junk food can exist and not be a problem. Fat people however have a negative influence on those around them.
    Nice juvenile retort there. Go away, read the paper and learn how science works. Until then your view is nothing but childish jibberish.
    Again, 'fat people' do not always have a negative influence on those around them so stop shouting it from the rooftops. Good for you, you found something that backs up your point, doesn't make you correct. Peter Trudgill's theories on colonial dialects in New Zealand is an interesting read, doesn't make it the be all and end all on the topic.

    Not a juvenile retort, just an example of how idiotic you sound. Perhaps you should concentrate less on insulting people and more on your own life. I don't like football, I believe it has a negative effect on people's personalities and well being with all the fights that occur with rivalry. However, I don't watch football and there you go, it doesn't bother me any more. 'Fat' people aren't exactly shoved in your face on TV.

    I wonder how many academics insult those who disagree with their research :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaykiie)
    I'm sorry, but my anecdotal evidence is not a 'one off', the majority of people would likely agree with me. Fact is neither of us is 100% right.

    A lot of people give a **** if it hurts people's feelings. Self esteem is key to success and by belittling people for being overweight, something they will be completely aware of, you are jeopardising a person's daily life.

    Of course they know that they are unhealthy, but bombarding them with insults and making it a taboo subject to talk about will only worsen the situation.

    Again, 'fat people' do not always have a negative influence on those around them so stop shouting it from the rooftops. Good for you, you found something that backs up your point, doesn't make you correct. Peter Trudgill's theories on colonial dialects in New Zealand is an interesting read, doesn't make it the be all and end all on the topic.

    Not a juvenile retort, just an example of how idiotic you sound. Perhaps you should concentrate less on insulting people and more on your own life. I don't like football, I believe it has a negative effect on people's personalities and well being with all the fights that occur with rivalry. However, I don't watch football and there you go, it doesn't bother me any more. 'Fat' people aren't exactly shoved in your face on TV.

    I wonder how many academics insult those who disagree with their research :rolleyes:
    :rofl:
    Learn how papers work dear, then come back. I'm right/the paper I quote is right, your anecdotal evidence is meaningless.
    So feelings are more important than health?
    I'm suggesting a way of reducing the amount of overweight people. How is this a bad idea and make things worse?
    Go to university, learn how a scientific paper works, and then rethink your argument. Until then your argument is pointless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malism)
    So if something has a negative influence on others then we can form a decent case to ban or at least protest that something?
    Removing something which may have a detrimental effect to the health of the nation seems a good idea.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Why aren't they going to think being fat is cool? That's just you having the preconceived notion that being fat isn't cool, whereas young children nowadays see people like Adele come out with comments like there is no need to lose weight. So why may they not think "fat people are cool" or "there is no problem in being fat"?
    They might think that being fat is cool. But so what if they do?

    As I said, the difference is that smoking is something you do, while fat is something you are. If they see someone smoking, they might copy this action. But if they see a fat person, there is no action to copy really.

    Plus junk food =/= fat. As long as you have a balanced diet and exercise, junk food isn't inherently a problem, unlike smoking.
    In that case, TV should simply promote having a balanced diet and exercise, and discourage an unhealthy diet combined with a sedentary lifestyle?

    Surely it should discourage the behaviour that leads to obesity (so that children do not attempt to replicate this behaviour) rather than simply banning fat people from appearing, where there is no real behaviour for children to replicate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    They might think that being fat is cool. But so what if they do?

    As I said, the difference is that smoking is something you do, while fat is something you are. If they see someone smoking, they might copy this action. But if they see a fat person, there is no action to copy really.

    In that case, TV should simply promote having a balanced diet and exercise, and discourage an unhealthy diet combined with a sedentary lifestyle?

    Surely it should discourage the behaviour that leads to obesity (so that children do not attempt to replicate this behaviour) rather than simply banning fat people from appearing, where there is no real behaviour for children to replicate.
    Because being fat is unhealthy, effects those other than just the fat person while causing a drain of healthcare resources.
    Why aren't they going to copy the fat person? "Hey, he clearly doesn't exercsie, so I'm not going to." Why could this not happen?
    Figures from different countries show that removing cigarettes from TV reduced the amount of smokers. Is it far fetched to claim that to remove fat people from TV could help reduce the amount of overweight people?
    The difference is there is not one behaviour to replicate but a combination. Either way it doesn't really matter as when someone starts becoming overweight they could simply go "Well X on the TV is fat so why should I not be fat?" etc.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    :rofl:
    Learn how papers work dear, then come back. I'm right/the paper I quote is right, your anecdotal evidence is meaningless.
    So feelings are more important than health?
    I'm suggesting a way of reducing the amount of overweight people. How is this a bad idea and make things worse?
    Go to university, learn how a scientific paper works, and then rethink your argument. Until then your argument is pointless.
    I'm not even going to entertain another actual reply to you. You obviously don't have the mental capacity to see beyond your own nose and as such, arguing with you would be a waste of time.

    I will say that insulting my intelligence just shows your inability to see other points of view. You also seem to have selective reading problems.

    Grow up and try to think of better ways to insult someone other than consistently telling people to 'go do some scientific research'.

    Pathetic :facepalm:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaykiie)
    I'm not even going to entertain another actual reply to you. You obviously don't have the mental capacity to see beyond your own nose and as such, arguing with you would be a waste of time.

    I will say that insulting my intelligence just shows your inability to see other points of view. You also seem to have selective reading problems.

    Grow up and try to think of better ways to insult someone other than consistently telling people to 'go do some scientific research'.

    Pathetic :facepalm:
    Because my nose is peer reviewed work.
    :rofl:
    TSR, you crack me up with how many people are armchair scientists.
    The fact is you have merely demonstrated:
    1)Your inability to read the paper. It did not say 100% of all fat people have a negative influence.
    2)No understanding of what statistically relevant evidence is.
    3)No understanding of what anecdotal evidence is.

    Grow up? How about you come back when your argument isn't meaningless? :rofl:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Because my nose is peer reviewed work.
    :rofl:
    TSR, you crack me up with how many people are armchair scientists.
    The fact is you have merely demonstrated:
    1)Your inability to read the paper. It did not say 100% of all fat people have a negative influence.
    2)No understanding of what statistically relevant evidence is.
    3)No understanding of what anecdotal evidence is.

    Grow up? How about you come back when your argument isn't meaningless? :rofl:
    I don't think I've claimed to have scientific knowledge :rolleyes: If pretending that I have helps your self esteem then go ahead and claim I've said things which I haven't.

    I didn't read the paper full stop. Not everybody goes through an entire thread reading every link before commenting and in this case I hadn't. After reading the paper your point is still ridiculous. The paper states that there was no effect amongst neighbours, showing that the effect was in close relationships. What makes you think there would be an effect on people watching overweight people on TV if watching the person next door has no effect?

    Again, no argument is meaningless. Anecdotal evidence is evidence whether you agree or not. If there was a 'scientific' study that said all cats are white and I said my cat was black and tan, it wouldn't be incorrect. It might be a weak example but an example it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Removing something which may have a detrimental effect to the health of the nation seems a good idea.
    I totally agree. I understand where you are coming from and i do support your ideas. However, the problem i have with your method is your lack of understanding and compassion for the people you are focusing on. Forced change, even if that change is considered by the majority to be positive, will be met with aggression. By alienating overweight people (be they the stars of an obesity episode or someone with a just few excess pounds) with such a blunt proposal you are creating more problems and more anguish than if you adressed the root causes. A lack of decent exercise and a poor diet are the only two real factors when it comes to overweight people, if you support a good diet and promote exercise without causing upset you will see a positive change.

    Some of your views are quite benighted, for example labelling people who are content to be overweight as having a screw loose is insulting and i think only someone who has never overcome social challenges in their life can make such a callous point.

    The spread of obesity could be blamed on increased advertising, advertising and products aimed at children, the price and ease of fast food over decent home cooking or simply the lazy culture we find ourselves surrounded by today. Im not trying to challenge this source as it is very valid but it does not address every single possible issue regarding to the spread by only concluding that' Network phenomena appear to be relevant to the biologic and behavioral trait of obesity, and obesity appears to spread through social ties.' The spread of anything has deeper root causes beyond social interactions.

    You WHO source identify overweight people as those with;

    'a BMI greater than or equal to 25 is overweight
    a BMI greater than or equal to 30 is obesity.'

    Some evidence that has been used to challenge this (from the very flippant 'EggmanD') states that someone with a BMI of over 25 can be physically fitter if they exercise regularly than someone who has a BMI of less than 25 who does not exercise. If you wish to tackle fitness you cannot write off this fact. Aside from the BMI statistics the WHO also state that 'Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health.' Being slightly overweight can impair health depending on fitness and diet but being physically inactive and having a poor diet will directly impair health, it is just not visible as excessive fat.

    I do sound like i am supporting overweight people and i guess in some way i am as i believe in free choice, even if i do not like that choice. I would like to see a healthier population and i think that can be achieved with a decent proposal, perhaps more awareness of how food and exercise effect morbidity and mortality rates, maybe even some more information on the back of processed food so people know how it will effect them if they over consume.

    I dont think banning fat people from television will have a positive effect considering that most fat people feature in factual documentaries explaining the issues with being unfit and overweight and most 'how to look good naked' themed shows are in the midday slots to give overweight people a self esteem boost are aimed at middle aged and older men and women, most of which have had children or now have beer bellies!

    The issue of an overweight population needs to be tackled at its root causes, you make a compelling argument but, as i have said, i believe there to be more rooted causes.

    PS - As you brought up China, having a few extra pounds in that culture (as well as in Africa and India) is a sign of prosperity, that is an issue that a simple television ban will not effect
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaykiie)
    I don't think I've claimed to have scientific knowledge :rolleyes: If pretending that I have helps your self esteem then go ahead and claim I've said things which I haven't.

    I didn't read the paper full stop. Not everybody goes through an entire thread reading every link before commenting and in this case I hadn't. After reading the paper your point is still ridiculous. The paper states that there was no effect amongst neighbours, showing that the effect was in close relationships. What makes you think there would be an effect on people watching overweight people on TV if watching the person next door has no effect?

    Again, no argument is meaningless. Anecdotal evidence is evidence whether you agree or not. If there was a 'scientific' study that said all cats are white and I said my cat was black and tan, it wouldn't be incorrect. It might be a weak example but an example it is.
    The paper is on the first ****ing page. Nice on on showing you commented on a thread without reading what the thread is about.
    Yet the paper states there is a connection between friends of friends etc which you don't actually have to have any contact with. The paper wasn't proof in itself that fat people shouldn't be on TV, but proof that the overweight can't use the excuse of "so what, it doesn't hurt anyone else".
    Now if we also then consider that TV does influence people, shown by the decrease in smoking seen in numerous countries when smoking was removed, this shows that people are influenced by TV. Therefore they could easily be influenced by seeing fat people on TV.

    No argument is meaningless? Here's a scenario:
    Guy A goes and watches Film Y. Guy B has no idea what Film Y is about etc.
    Guy A says "Film Y was good, but nothing special. Believable acting, good camera work, great special effects but the story was filled with clichés. "
    Guy B says "FILM Y IS ****ING ****. IT'S REALLY STUPID AND LAME"
    Are you telling me guy B's argument isn't meaningless even though he doesn't have a clue about the film he is commenting on? :confused:

    No scientific study would say all cats are white without having analysed all the cats in the world. That's not how science works....
    And you need to learn what anecdotal evidence is as you don't seem to understand the definition:
    "...the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence"."
    E.g. Paper says fat people increase the chance of their friends being fat by 55%. You say "But I have fat friends and I'm not fat".
    Congratulations, you fall into the 45% not effected. Your comment showed zero problems with the claim of the paper.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Because being fat is unhealthy, effects those other than just the fat person while causing a drain of healthcare resources.
    Why aren't they going to copy the fat person? "Hey, he clearly doesn't exercsie, so I'm not going to." Why could this not happen?
    Figures from different countries show that removing cigarettes from TV reduced the amount of smokers. Is it far fetched to claim that to remove fat people from TV could help reduce the amount of overweight people?
    The difference is there is not one behaviour to replicate but a combination. Either way it doesn't really matter as when someone starts becoming overweight they could simply go "Well X on the TV is fat so why should I not be fat?" etc.
    I'm sure that removing fat people from TV could have an obesity-reducing effect on the population, because people are less likely to see it as "normal".

    But I think that promoting a healthy lifestyle, educating people on the causes and effects of obesity etc. is likely to be a more effective way of doing this, because it actually provides an indication as to what sort of behaviour a person should be engaging in. It doesn't simply say "don't be fat", but it tells you how to prevent being fat.

    As an example:
    If David Beckham appears on TV a lot in Gilette adverts etc, we all know that he's a football player, so it might inspire a few people to play football. But if lots of actual football matches are appearing on TV, I think that is far more likely to encourage people to play football, because they're actually seeing the activity taking place.

    Similarly, I think a much better way of reducing obesity is, not to simply stop showing obese people, but to actually show and promote the activities and foods etc. that are part of a healthy lifestyle.


    In some ways, I think the existence of fat people on televsion is a good thing. It can open people's eyes, and actually show them "Look, this is what will happen to you if you don't exercise and eat a lot of rubbish", if care is taken regarding the way they are portrayed. I think people are less likely to fear obesity if they hardly ever see any obese people. They won't see it as a very real problem that could easily affect them too, unless it's made clear that lots of people are obese and have to suffer its negative consequences.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I'm sure that removing fat people from TV could have an obesity-reducing effect on the population, because people are less likely to see it as "normal".

    But I think that promoting a healthy lifestyle, educating people on the causes and effects of obesity etc. is likely to be a more effective way of doing this, because it actually provides an indication as to what sort of behaviour a person should be engaging in. It doesn't simply say "don't be fat", but it tells you how to prevent being fat.

    As an example:
    If David Beckham appears on TV a lot in Gilette adverts etc, we all know that he's a football player, so it might inspire a few people to play football. But if lots of actual football matches are appearing on TV, I think that is far more likely to encourage people to play football, because they're actually seeing the activity taking place.

    Similarly, I think a much better way of reducing obesity is, not to simply stop showing obese people, but to actually show and promote the activities and foods etc. that are part of a healthy lifestyle.


    In some ways, I think the existence of fat people on televsion is a good thing. It can open people's eyes, and actually show them "Look, this is what will happen to you if you don't exercise and eat a lot of rubbish", if care is taken regarding the way they are portrayed. I think people are less likely to fear obesity if they hardly ever see any obese people. They won't see it as a very real problem that could easily affect them too, unless it's made clear that lots of people are obese and have to suffer its negative consequences.
    Good point.
    Of course could do both and kill two birds with one stone, whilst only keeping fat people on TV to promote weight loss etc. My OP wasn't a criticism of shows like "I Used to be Fat" which are great in showing people that change is possible, it was more to do with people like Adele not being openly criticised for her extremely flippant remarks to do with weight and people like Corden and Vegas not being criticised for their weight whilst having plenty of air time.
    A state ran health channel. Better than most of the BBC for sure.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.