Anonymous #1 20h

Imo yes they are and I say this as someone w two chronic illnesses who’s on the thinner side. It doesn’t mean that it’s “the same” as people who have illnesses they can’t help but big people 100% have limitations on what they can and cannot do. If I exercise, eat well, sleep 10 hours a night and take my meds my disabilities are a LOT less prevalent but that doesn’t mean I’m not disabled yk

1

Anonymous #2 20h

Being obese is self-inflicted after a certain age, during childhood its neglect by the parents for poor nutrition and nourishment. But in adulthood it’s self inflicted and I understand being underweight has its own problems that can cause health issues. But any calling obese a disease is like when people try to get me to understand alcoholism as a disease it’s self inflicted. Someone with lupus didn’t choose to be sick but someone did chose again and again to turn to the bottle.

1

Anonymous #1 20h

And as someone who didn’t ‘choose’ to be sick I’m telling you that being obese is still a disability because they’re unable to function like the average human being. How the disability came about is irrelevant. If I cut my own leg off I’d be just as disabled as someone born without a leg even though only one person chose it. Also alcoholism is a mental illness, I’m not getting into that but ur brain’s different from everyone else’s if you have it and it makes alcohol way way more addictive…

1

Anonymous #2 20h

… than it is for the average person basically

1

Anonymous #2 19h

To you not to me, the origin of the disability does matter; a type 1 diabetic never intended to be sick their whole life vs a type 2 who is either predisposed because of type 2 runs in the family or poor management of health. I understand there are 6 or 7 different types of diabetes but only one you are born with and two you are inflicted with outside of your control. Regardless of your feelings alcoholism isn’t the same disability as deafness or blindness for example.

1

Anonymous #2 19h

Yes some people are more genetically and environmentally predisposed to being addicts and those with addictive personality disorder but it’s on them to not pick up a habit that is destructive to the body.

1

Anonymous #1 19h

It not being the “same” kind of disability doesn’t mean it isn’t one. In your own example you list diabetes one and two, both of which are disabilities (that isn’t just me saying it, that’s US federal law and the law of most countries with good healthcare as well). Diabetes two can be self inflicted but even if it is it’s still a disability.

1

Anonymous #1 19h

It isn’t that simple tho. They don’t know they are predisposed often until it’s too late. People with AUD have lower grey matter volume BEFORE they start drinking. Even people who chose to stop drinking struggle and have persistent temptation and desire to drink again that the average person wouldn’t struggle with

1

Anonymous #2 19h

That’s just not true many know they are predisposed and still took the risk, I knew I was predisposed; grandfather is an alcoholic, drank so long so much it trigger alcohol induced dementia, my father is an alcoholic and a gambler and the only thing he quit was drinking but he gambles everyday still, I knew if i even tried to binge for weekend it’d be my life. And I’d be addicted and I was my addiction was shopping and drinking. Every day I struggle not to do it but I don’t.

1

Anonymous #1 12h

I don't think being outside of the patient's control is a necessary part of the definition of a disability or disease

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Considering I don’t know what you are saying, I also believe you missed the point of my first response to #2. I said during childhood it is the parent’s obligation and responsibility to ensure their child is being properly cared for, well-nourished therefore educated about food prior to adulthood. If you are a big person and have kids, you have to understand your child is more likely to be a big child, it’s your job to combat it.

1

Anonymous #1 12h

Nothing you're saying matters in the context of this post if I am correct that being outside of the patient's control is not a necessity part of the definition of a disability or disease.

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Oh okay I kinda see where you are coming from and but I still don’t agree; most diseases and disabilities are always outside of someone’s control, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, cancers besides lung cancer induced from smoking, Alzheimer’s, deafness, blindness, limp reduction. These are not chosen ailments but obesity is not taking care of yourself, alcoholism knowing you are susceptible to addiction. I don’t see these as disabilities/disease.

1

Anonymous #1 2h

So is lung cancer not cancer because the smoker brought it upon themselves?

1

Anonymous #2 1h

. . . You clearly missed where I said “cancers besides lung cancer induced from smoking”. It’s still cancer it’s still awful still a disease but it’s self-inflicted disease like obesity so I have less sympathy. You don’t have to smoke cigarettes that’s a choice, nicotine is a choice that in many states you have to be 21 to get so yes it is self-inflicted.

1

Anonymous #1 1h

So then if the degree of self-infliction is irrelevant to if someone has cancer or not, then we agree that obesity is a disability

1

Anonymous #1 1h

Because that’s all I’m saying here. How much personal sympathy you have isn’t relevant to my argument.

1

Anonymous #2 1h

Obesity isn’t a disability which is what OP posted, it’s a disease but not a disability. Just because they are less physically inclined to do things doesn’t mean they are completely unable to do things. Disease doesn’t correlate to disability and disability doesn’t correlate to disease.

1