Wheezing, fat Canadian feminists want to make the obese a protected class LOL
 

http://i.imgur.com/KgYpSoS.jpg

Put the fork down, sugartits :1orglaugh

almost makes me doubt the awesomeness of usury

Is this fuckin' true?? Damn...

I feel bad for the surgeons who have to open that shit up...Must smell like vomit and the town dump.

in north america you can get in front of a podium and say pretty much anything. doesn't mean anything is going to happen.. also, those quotes sounds like made up stories to push something that isn't there.

Sucks if people are being passed over for jobs cos of their weight, but some surgeries are too dangerous for the surgeon to perform if the patient is too obese. That's not discrimination, that's just reality.

"A friend of mine who worked at a fitness facility here in Winnipeg was told no one would want to look like her; therefore, no one would want to train with her, and a project was given to a younger, slimmer colleague of hers."


Hi. I'm your fitness consultant.
\
http://i.imgur.com/zpgbM5f.png

i want to be a protected class...

Yeah, that makes sense. If you're going to work in the fitness world, it would seem natural that a requirement would be that you must be physically fit. :2 cents:

On the other hand, if you're trying to get a job as an accountant, then your level of physical fitness shouldn't matter since that's irrelevant to your ability to do the job.

try any woman's w/r on a uni campus, total vomitoria. it's actually really sad what young women feel the need to do to be 'attractive'

I agree on face. I've usually been underweight (and a heavy smoker) and encountered the same issues in the past. I had to gain 10lbs to get my tubes tied, even after I successfully fought for the surgery on age grounds the surgeon wouldn't operate on me unless I gained weight- and then promised to stop smoking for 24 hours before surgery. The smoking was easy to lie about tho =)

point is I wasn't shamed or treated like a failure for being thin. if anything doc was concerned as to why and didn't treat it like a personal failing on my part. and actually went out of his way to offer supports to help if I had needed them.

overweight women absolutely experience cruelty (including by doctors) and unfair discrimination based on size and that is so fucking wrong. on that tip I am 100% on board with fat acceptance movements.

I don't think it belongs in the human rights code though. how would one even begin defining that designation?

if we just stopped being assholes to each other there would be no need for anyone to be a 'protected class'

a chica can dream I guess :upsidedow

even worse is being a dietitians, I know a girl who has a degree in that field... she is a bit overweight and for some unknown reason has difficulty finding employment in that field... :(

I think they need to be protected from food. Or maybe food needs to be protected from them.

It is sort of like those "Save the Whales" commercials you used to see everywhere.

from a health standpoint it is not ok to be overweight but these people don't want to hear that and call it some form of prejudice. its really just not wanting to face reality. if you enjoy being fat, thats no problem for me but if you want to deny the realities of the troubles it causes in life, then you are just living in denial. being fat is not like being black or gay or something.

In Canada everyone has a say - whether it actually changes laws in another thing but at least they are heard

Mark my words, if it's not in place already it will soon be illegal to put "Must be physically fit" as a job requirement to work at a gym.

And this is the problem with a society that does not have a clearly defined grip on property rights.

Anyone with "feels" can attempt to grab the gun of the state, and wave it around in people's faces based on their subjective preferences.

How about this? "Mind your own business", let's institute that as the official mantra of how we treat businesses and the rights of others.

If I own a business, then it should be my right to hire whoever the fuck they want. I'll hire only redheads if I wish, or fat bastards, or skinny people; it doesn't matter, it's my property.

If I'm a doctor and the hospital allows me to call my own shots in terms of who I work with, yeah, if you're an obese bastard and put my name at risk because you might croak on the table, fuck off you're not getting treated.

This will quickly lay to rest any of these fuckfaces who thinks it's moral to boss people around at the end of the state's gun.

Them chicks is fine

why would this anger you so much? it's been repeated that this is not a consideration into any law, it's just 2 people at a podium.. and your examples are literal examples of discrimination and you would open yourself up to law suits so that is a ridiculous response.

wanted to address this point as it was what I was trying to get at earlier but couldn't articulate. gracias for that

it's not a matter of enjoyment or wanting the world to throw huzzahs at one's lifestyle choices, it's about not wanting to be treated like shit for not conforming to social norms of beauty/acceptability. whether one aspires to that or not.

honestly you think most peeps 'enjoy' being overweight? it's absolutely not something to pity but at the same time most who are overweight didn't exactly aspire to it. just life happened. and some peeps are overweight for the same reasons some peeps are underweight. we're humans and we're imperfect.

also not discounting that men experience the same, if without the twist of misogyny. I realize I did that in my prior post and wasn't my intent.

studies have consistently shown that in n/a as a culture today we attribute unfair negative characteristics to bodies we see as fat or 'ugly'. how could we not expect that cultural framework to not seep into our practice when engaging with peeps in this world?

I agree with you, don't think this should be a part of the human rights code. the issue is real though and we can stop it if we want to. we don't need legislation to be decent.

realizing that peeps who are asking to not be treated unfairly are not a threat is a good place to start?

if this presentation causes a few more people to be a bit kinder it's served a purpose, suspect mostly preaching to the choir but who knows



:1orglaugh:1orglaugh I totally thought I had misread the post first scan. this is what an amygdala on overdrive looks like I think

you are missing the point... it's not this particular situation, but the general trend... each year more and more laws are created that strip away people's rights, strip away their free choice, etc... you don't even realize it, you call it "progress", but each year our lives are more and more controlled by the government...

"discrimination" has become some derogatory term, but it's nothing more than making a choice that you feel is best for you... if you feel a skinny redhead is best for your company, why should the government have the right to tell you that you need to hire an overweight blonde? it's your company, you will be the one paying her, so it should be 100% your choice...

Social norms exist so that people who live in a society conform to them. Otherwise there would be chaos and anarchy. Like sociopath, sexual predators and other deviants demanding to not be judged/treated like shit.

Being fat is not normal. Stop pushing it on people and deal with it.

100% your choice, but if your choice violates the 14th amendment you will not only get fined but be subject to lawsuit... and if you aren't american most civilized countries have the same set of laws in their constitution as well.

I'm all for less government interference, i'm all for less pc nonsense like this example in the op but lets choose our battles a little better shall we? Ripping apart constitutional rights just so you can 'dowhatchawanna' isn't reason enough for that to be changed.

Like you, a minarchist, I also placed great emphasis on the constitution, as if it were some sort of divine document.

But then I realized it's just a piece of paper, with scribbligs on it by a bunch of dead guys.

Instead of subscribing to this document, it's best to abide by a simple set of first principles.

1. It's wrong to initiate or threaten the initiation of force against a person or their property.

2. Self-ownership includes property (we own our bodies), and scarce resources are subject to property ownership through original appropriation or voluntary exchange.

All we need is #1, and #2.

This is known as the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and #2 is simply property rights.

So if we look at issues through the scope of #1 and #2, we can see that a business owner (their property) should be able to hire whoever they wish, based on whichever preferences they have. And that's because to *not* hire someone, for any reason (brown black green fat redheaded, what have you), is not a violation of #1 (The NAP). To not hire someone is not an initiation of force, or the threat thereof.

You can look at a whole slew of hot topic issues in society through the scope of #1 and #2 and make concrete determinations as to whether they're "right" or "wrong", or fall within the scope of being criminal or not.

Taxation for instance breaks #1 (The NAP), because a group of individuals called the government threaten the initiation of force (and act on it) if you don't relinquish a portion of your property.

Not wearing seatbelts does not break the NAP, therefore there should be no "rights" of law enforcement to steal your money (ticketing).

Prostitution does not break the NAP, therefore it should be legal.

Smoking crack, or doing heroin, or ingesting gasoline; all acts that within themselves, do not break the NAP; therefore they should be legal.


If at any point during any of the above acts, you break the NAP yourself (initiate or threaten the initiation of force against another person or their property), *then* you've crossed the line.

Hopefully this rant will help a few minarchists out and come on over to the side of reason; anarchism.