Anonymous #1 6w

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

2

Anonymous #2 6w

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.

0

Anonymous #1 6w

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…

2

Anonymous #2 6w

… than it is for the average person basically

2

Anonymous #2 6w

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.

0

Anonymous #2 6w

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.

0

Anonymous #1 6w

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.

2

Anonymous #1 6w

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

2

Anonymous #2 6w

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.

0

Anonymous #1 6w

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

4

Anonymous #3 6w

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 6w

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.

2

Anonymous #3 6w

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.

0

Anonymous #1 6w

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

5

Anonymous #2 6w

. . . 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.

0

Anonymous #1 6w

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

6

Anonymous #1 6w

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

4

Anonymous #2 6w

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.

-2

Anonymous #1 6w

The way I see it if you can’t function on your own as a normal human being for example walking around then you are technically by definition disabled whether it’s your own fault or not. Disabled can be mental or physical impairment, so yeah, it’s technically a physical impairment

4

Anonymous #1 6w

I’m talking about people who are like so obese that they can’t even stand up straight. Once again, they are technically by definition, physically, impaired and disabled. Even though it is their own fault.

3

Anonymous #1 6w

I have POTS syndrome. I can still stand up, run, and so on but it takes a lot more effort. POTS syndrome is still a disability. I don’t see your point here

1

Anonymous #2 6w

Did you choose to have POTS no oh okay but most obese people chose to be overweight and ignorant about their health factors so it’s not a disability just a disease.

1

Anonymous #1 6w

no one would consciously choose that. and how would that make it less impactful on their day to day lives

1

Anonymous #4 6w

But people consistently chose to eat themselves into an early grave and have poor management of their health, so why should I care more it’s less impactful because they put themselves into that predicament, it’s a disease but it’s not a disability. And 60% it’s their fault for it, food taste good but it don’t taste 600lbs good.

1

Anonymous #1 6w

Okay well people with lung cancer ‘chose’ it in your opinion and they can breathe just not as well. Ur argument is kinda falling apart here

1

Anonymous #1 6w

Nope in America it isn’t all their fault actually. The super processed foods are the cheapest and we don’t have good nutrition education here. Also almost nothing is walkable and many people have to sit at a desk all day working. It’s a recipe for disaster and why we have one of the highest rates. Obesity = environment + personal choices, not just the latter

1

Anonymous #1 6w

Okay ain’t noticed you said 60% so nevermind

1

Anonymous #2 6w

Well no because I said lung cancer caused by smoking is chosen, lung cancer due to poor ventilation at work sites isn’t a choice but that faults of project managers and project owners or due to mold, or even mesothelioma isn’t chosen. No one chose to be employed by cheap work sites that ignored the health of the workers, or failed by systems that made them sick.

1

Anonymous #1 6w

Just like obesity due to diet is chosen, obesity due to underlying health conditions isn’t. Both disable them in the same way. There’s really not much of a difference here. You could also argue the workers may have “chosen” to work at those sites. It seems like you’re attaching moral value to disabilities when there isn’t one.

1

Anonymous #2 6w

But there is, the percentage of obesity caused by underlying health conditions, it’s not high. Choosing to work at a site isn’t the same as choosing the conditions on the site which groundsmen don’t. There is moral value to diseases, you getting hep b or hiv from shooting up with shared needles is not the same moral value from contaminated blood that you weren’t made privy to. I don’t understand do you think after 2 days I’m going to change my stance obesity is a disease but it’s not disability

1

Anonymous #1 6w

You may not have changed your stance but you admitted obesity impairs day to day life. The definition of a disability is “a physical, mental, or cognitive condition that limits a person's ability to perform certain tasks and engage in daily activities, often involving interactions with environmental barriers”. Therefore obesity is a disability even if you feel like a disability has to be caused by outside factors. Being caused by outside factors isn’t in the definition and you as one single…

1

Anonymous #2 6w

… person with no medical background don’t get to change what that definition is.

1

Anonymous #1 6w

Also it doesn’t matter what percent are due to underlying and what aren’t. 90% of people with lung cancer used to smoke or were in an environment with a large % of smokers. That doesn’t mean that lung cancer isn’t cancer, or that cancer isn’t an illness, or that lung cancer isn’t a disability.

1

Anonymous #1 6w

Well you did change your stance bc you made fun of people calling it a disease at first by comparing it to another disease and now you're saying it is one. Your argument is all over the place. Whether obesity is a disease, whether it's a disability, whether it's the same as other diseases and disabilities, and whether you have sympathy for obese people are four entirely separate questions and you're conflating all of them for your own convenience

5

Anonymous #3 6w

I never changed my I said it was a disease I hush said they weren’t disabled, I also said doing something slowly isn’t the same as not doing something at all. It’s not you want me to consider them disabled and they aren’t.

1

Anonymous #2 6w

You don’t know my background and you don’t know me so why assume. I know what the definition of a disability is I also know for claiming disability, obesity isn’t a factor they can’t state on its own. Obesity is a disease but a disability not so much especially if they can complete 4/7 daily tasks required to say a person can function at a normal condition.

1