NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard about people that claim to be disabled because of gross obesity. I am wondering if you personally believe that a person too fat to move deserves disability status.

Please post your reasoning. There are no reasons too absurd, except those that are too absurd. Please don't flame others. I get to do that. Just joking, but please keep this respectful, and I must insist, objective. Your personal issues as a reason are not welcomed. Your personal experiences as an illustration are welcomed.

So please, POST!

Only if you're counting self-inflicted disability, which should not permit you to use the handicap spaces or get a free extra seat on the airplane.

Extreme obesity, yes. And self-inflicted disabilities certainly count. It's about what the person can do, not compensating for past injustice.

Extreme obesity, yes. And self-inflicted disabilities certainly count. It's about what the person can do, not compensating for past injustice.

So we're going to pad the problem instead of motivating the cure? There should be special parking spots for the morbidly obese. At the far end of the parking lot.

Where's "Fat and proud!"?

Where's "Fat and proud!"?

Stuck to a couch somewhere, perhaps?

I don't believe that they should be classified as disabled. I have heard the argument that some people or geneticly predisposed to be obese. Now part of this makes sense if your obese statistacly speaking it is likely your children will suffer similiarly. However, this all falls apart when you look at these same people and think but I wonder what this persons ancestors looked like a 1000 years ago, I'd bet my worldy possesions that in most cases you'de find the majority of these peoples ancestors were let us say average sized. It must be incredibly hard to be obese i.e. the airplane seat issue etc. however, changing our rules and calling them disabled, I can't help but feel is a step back. We should be encouraging people to lose weight not keep it. Let's not be PC here it is very hard for a chronicly obese people to lose wieght but lose it they must because most medical research links obesity to multiple things that will kill you i.e. heart disease diabities etc. Nutritionists believe that nearly 95% of people who are obese are that way due to lifestyle changes i.e. eating too much, not excersing. Further more doctors say that losing weight will help conditions allready preasent in said individuals.

shouldnt there be a reverse disabilty law, that requires them to park all the way on the opposite side of the parking law. making them walk at least a 1/4 mile within their day?

No, it does not equal a disabilitiy. Healthy living isn't too hard. Work out a little here and there, and minimize junk style foods and becoming that fat is impossible.

There might be issues outside of one's control.

For example, I was in good health, normal weight, physically active and all, until I busted my knee and two ribs skiing. I was laid up for a good month after that, and the only thing I really did was go to school and lay in bed. I ate like normal, and drank massive amounts of pop, after that month, i'd gained something like twenty pounds, and I've never been able to get it off.

Of course, I'm not obese, just a bit fat (actually I'm described as looking like I've never lost my baby fat) but still, that was a circumstance a bit outside of my realm of control.

There might be issues outside of one's control.

For example, I was in good health, normal weight, physically active and all, until I busted my knee and two ribs skiing. I was laid up for a good month after that, and the only thing I really did was go to school and lay in bed. I ate like normal, and drank massive amounts of pop, after that month, i'd gained something like twenty pounds, and I've never been able to get it off.

Of course, I'm not obese, just a bit fat (actually I'm described as looking like I've never lost my baby fat) but still, that was a circumstance a bit outside of my realm of control.

twenty pounds is no big deal. Maybe you were pleasantly plump for a while. I expect you could still (barring your actual injury) walk, maybe even jog. certainly you could hustle.

There might be issues outside of one's control.

For example, I was in good health, normal weight, physically active and all, until I busted my knee and two ribs skiing. I was laid up for a good month after that, and the only thing I really did was go to school and lay in bed. I ate like normal, and drank massive amounts of pop, after that month, i'd gained something like twenty pounds, and I've never been able to get it off.

Of course, I'm not obese, just a bit fat (actually I'm described as looking like I've never lost my baby fat) but still, that was a circumstance a bit outside of my realm of control.
Yes, but that stint of having a broken knee did not cause you to become too obese to function like a normal person.

So we're going to pad the problem instead of motivating the cure? There should be special parking spots for the morbidly obese. At the far end of the parking lot.

Just because we're helping with the cure, doesn't mean we can't also facilitate day-to-day existence. The distance across a parking lot every weekend has almost no excercise effect, that sort of requirement would just be petty. If people can't successfully navigate day-to-day life, they need help doing it, and that help can come both in immediate help and long-term aid in curing the problem.

Yes, but that stint of having a broken knee did not cause you to become too obese to function like a normal person.

No, but I'm saying that someone could easily have an equivelent experience that might result in them gaining even more weight than I did. And God knows how tough it is to take it off, espescially now that I can't run because of my knee.

O.K. Several replies, time for my thoughts.

I believe that obesity, in any form, is a direct result of lifestyle habits. If you feel depressed, DO NOT GO TO THE FRIG!!! Go run instead. It's healthier, it will make you feel better, and it gets out of that whiny, pathetic cycle of "I eat b/c I'm fat, I'm fat b/c I eat." Give me a break. I am healthy. I bike and swim constantly. I max-out 120% of my body weight on the bench. A fat guy that does not keep himself healthy does not deserve to be called "disabled" and thus receive checks in the mail for his capacity to eat. A woman on the plane that can't fit into one seat, or even two (God save me, I've seen this) should be charged for the seat when that person prevents another from sitting comfortably. And I especially oppose the rise in insurance costs resulting from certain customers getting fat then requiring special treatment at my expense. It's called a gym. Or push-ups. Try it.

O.K. Several replies, time for my thoughts.

I believe that obesity, in any form, is a direct result of lifestyle habits. If you feel depressed, DO NOT GO TO THE FRIG!!! Go run instead. It's healthier, it will make you feel better, and it gets out of that whiny, pathetic cycle of "I eat b/c I'm fat, I'm fat b/c I eat." Give me a break. I am healthy. I bike and swim constantly. I max-out 120% of my body weight on the bench. A fat guy that does not keep himself healthy does not deserve to be called "disabled" and thus receive checks in the mail for his capacity to eat. A woman on the plane that can't fit into one seat, or even two (God save me, I've seen this) should be charged for the seat when that person prevents another from sitting comfortably. And I especially oppose the rise in insurance costs resulting from certain customers getting fat then requiring special treatment at my expense. It's called a gym. Or push-ups. Try it.

And the insurance company pays for the gym, and costs go up.

i know a guy who weighs 600 pounds. he's actually a complete SOB, he's a loudmouth know it all who has ripped off anyone who he can, and somehow just weaseled his way out of a possession with intent to deliver cocaine charge. but on the other hand he's managed to go this far down the road to eating himself to death, i'm not sure what kind of productive work he can do. he's not especially bright(he has a dirtbag sort of cunning, but he's a functional illiterate ) and he really can barely get out of his apartment anymore. if he doesn't get some sort of government help he'll just die one way or the other in the near future. he's not a good man, but having managed to destroy virtually all his options for gainful employment, shouldn't a compassionate government try to do something to help him?

i know a guy who weighs 600 pounds. he's actually a complete SOB, he's a loudmouth know it all who has ripped off anyone who he can, and somehow just weaseled his way out of a possession with intent to deliver cocaine charge. but on the other hand he's managed to go this far down the road to eating himself to death, i'm not sure what kind of productive work he can do. he's not especially bright(he has a dirtbag sort of cunning, but he's a functional illiterate ) and he really can barely get out of his apartment anymore. if he doesn't get some sort of government help he'll just die one way or the other in the near future. he's not a good man, but having managed to destroy virtually all his options for gainful employment, shouldn't a compassionate government try to do something to help him?

Nopers. Governments shouldn't be compassionate anyways.

And the insurance company pays for the gym, and costs go up.

Gym memberships are preventative, provided one excercises properly and uses correct form. Plus, gym memberships are less expensive than surgeries or scheduled massages of fat deposits along the legs. Given the choice, I'd pay more for every person to have a gym membership and use it rather than have a select, but growing, group of people get special treatments for dumb choices.

Fences on top of a cliff before an ambulance way at the bottom.

Nopers. Governments shouldn't be compassionate anyways.

Yes, if no one's counted by the government as disabled, then obese people shouldn't be either. That's not really the point of this thread.

Nopers. Governments shouldn't be compassionate anyways.
well he is a complete piece of shit, his girlfriend didn't come into work today and i asked the boss, "what's up.. did wally die?" no such luck, their kid was sick... she probably can't leave the kid alone with him in that condition, if she can't get away he'd probably eat her before lisa got back to feed him again.

Alright, alright... I'm going to say something that... Some people may define as "horrible", but stay with me.

People on this thread have been saying that obesity is a direct correlation to lifestyle (and usually this is true) and they should get no government help. (I haven't made my mind up about this yet. Sooooo, considering obesity is a direct consequence of lifestyle, should other disabilties be excluded if it's due to a lifestyle choice, I.E. a military career? What I'm saying is, does a soldier, who under his own free will joined the army, and during their course of combat got dismembered in some way that prevented him from gainful employment, deserve government assistance? True, there is a HUGE difference between morbidly obese people and veterans. And yes, the soldier actually was contributing to society while the obese person ate potatoe chips. And yes, obese people can lose the weight but a soldier cannot grow a limb back. But, it was the soldiers choice to join the army. Believe me, I'm not trying to be an a-hole and say that veterans are the equivelant of obese people, but no one forced that soldier to enlist. It was under their own free will. Dismembermants are very costly. I don't know... Please don't throw things at me.

True. A soldier did decide. But there are fundamental differences. First, the soldier was contributing to society, defending his country. That act alone obligates a country to take care of a soldier. Additionally, it is (often times) not the soldier that shoots himself. But it is the man that ingests potato chips. Soldiers are trained to preserve their lives. But conditions are not always to their best advantage. A person, without a recent or disabling injury, could always go run. A person does not have to eat to excess. That is the distinction.

On first glance at the title "Does Obesity=Disability?" I was quite confused why some newb would post a poll equating me with obesity.... :confused:

On topic, yes, there are issues outside of one's control that can cause obesity, and should be treated as such - Prader-Willi syndrome and hyperthyroidism for example. However, they aren't anywhere near common enough and genetic propensity is currently an over-used and widely abused excuse.

So we're going to pad the problem instead of motivating the cure? There should be special parking spots for the morbidly obese. At the far end of the parking lot.

Oh so the extreme obesity cases are only after a free parking spot. :rolleyes:

As an overweight fellow...

The answer is not only no, it's hell no. Anyone who is overweight is overweight because they haven't made the effort yet to lose the weight they have. Except in a few really outlandish cases where people's bodies gain weight significantly out of nowhere (I remember one particular case where a man went from 120 to 600 or something at an amazing rate).

Yeah, losing weight is a pain in the ass, but that doesn't mean that we should be giving the lazy and overweight a free-pass to happiness.

But we also need to stop impeding people from being overweight if they want to. Health food Nazi's have no right to tell others how to live. Doctors do, but that's a strictly Doctor-patient thing to deal with, not a public issue.

It's an issue of everyone letting everyone else live the way they want to and not throwing a hissy fit about how overweight people need to get special treatment/forced to lose weight.

The fact that we can choose to offer various assistance in some cases of disability seems to me a very poor reason to change the definition of disabled.

How or why someone is disabled does not define whether or not they are disabled, how the government and/or other institutions choose to deal with disability ought not determine whether or not someone is disabled. By inserting how we respond morally to disability into the definition of disability all we are doing is impoverishing our ability to communicate.

Whether or not someone is disabled and what (if anything) we ought to do about such a disability are two entirely different things. Equally whether or not someone is disabled and the level of accountability they should incur for their status (as disabled) doesnt determine whether or not someone is disabled. What determines disability is restricted/absent abilities, not government benefits or moral responsibility.

How silly is it to say 'we will determine government benefits based on disabilty, therefore we must now determine disability on the basis of government benefits? That's worse than circular reason, it's just plain wack!

but aren't most disabling injuries that adults suffer the result of some bad descision or group of bad descisions on their part. would you make people disabled from accidents only eligible for disability if they can prove they weren't in anyway their fault?

As an overweight fellow...

The answer is not only no, it's hell no. Anyone who is overweight is overweight because they haven't made the effort yet to lose the weight they have. Except in a few really outlandish cases where people's bodies gain weight significantly out of nowhere (I remember one particular case where a man went from 120 to 600 or something at an amazing rate).

So people with Prader-Willi syndrome (http://www.ipwso.org/what_is_pws.html) "just haven't made the effort"? Bullshit.

I've heard about people that claim to be disabled because of gross obesity. I am wondering if you personally believe that a person too fat to move deserves disability status.

Please post your reasoning. There are no reasons too absurd, except those that are too absurd. Please don't flame others. I get to do that. Just joking, but please keep this respectful, and I must insist, objective. Your personal issues as a reason are not welcomed. Your personal experiences as an illustration are welcomed.

So please, POST!
Hmm, let's say someone is speeding in a car and gets in an accident which leaves them paralyzed below the waist. Well, they knew they were doing something hazardous to their health. But they certainly qualify for disability.

Poor diet and exercise are just some of the many stupid things Americans do all the time. Hell, if I'm messing around with fireworks and blow my hands off, I could probably still get disability. There's not really any reason to make morbid obesity stand out as the one bad choice that you can't get disability for.

So people with Prader-Willi syndrome (http://www.ipwso.org/what_is_pws.html) "just haven't made the effort"? Bullshit.

You'll notice I note that there are cases where what I said is not true.

Christ... What is it with people and basic reading comprehension? Do you read the first sentence of each paragraph and ignore the rest?

You'll notice I note that there are cases where what I said is not true.

Christ... What is it with people and basic reading comprehension? Do you read the first sentence of each paragraph and ignore the rest?

i usually read the first paragraph, then ignore everything else... i think it gives me a slightly better take on the post than the first sentence route... that's also why all my posts are one paragraph long, just of varying lengths.

i usually read the first paragraph, then ignore everything else... i think it gives me a slightly better take on the post than the first sentence route... that's also why all my posts are one paragraph long, just of varying lengths.
I have found the very fountainhead of the disease which afflicts NSG.

You'll notice I note that there are cases where what I said is not true.

Not quite. You said:
Except in a few really outlandish cases where people's bodies gain weight significantly out of nowhere

Which is not the same as saying there are people who are actually genetically predisposed to obesity.

Christ... What is it with people and basic reading comprehension? Do you read the first sentence of each paragraph and ignore the rest?

Say what you mean to say and we won't have trouble reading what you mean. If you want to say there are reasonable exceptions, say so. Don't that people magically suddenly put on weight w/o reason.

I have found the very fountainhead of the disease which afflicts NSG.


oh sure i'm a carrier but i can't claim to be patient zero, just an active nexus for various pathogen vectors

oh sure i'm a carrier but i can't claim to be patient zero, just an active nexus for various pathogen vectors
I know. I was saying that I found the pathogen which causes the phenomenon known as NSG.

Not quite. You said:


Which is not the same as saying there are people who are actually genetically predisposed to obesity.

Say what you mean to say and we won't have trouble reading what you mean. If you want to say there are reasonable exceptions, say so. Don't that people magically suddenly put on weight w/o reason.

You are correct. However, the tone you took in the origional post was still far too agressive to be reasonable, since I had made it clear that I was aware that there were other circumstances.

I know. I was saying that I found the pathogen which causes the phenomenon known as NSG.

ADD?

You are correct. However, the tone you took in the origional post was still far too agressive to be reasonable, since I had made it clear that I was aware that there were other circumstances.

Fair enough. My apologies.

Fair enough. My apologies.

Not a problem...

Now where's my bribe? :p

Hell no!

Should it count as a disability?

Only if you have thyroid cancer or some other condition of that nature.

If you're fat because you eat too much and don't exercise enough, shut the fuck up and start walking. You're not special.

I've heard about people that claim to be disabled because of gross obesity. I am wondering if you personally believe that a person too fat to move deserves disability status.

It depends what the cause of their fatness is. If it is caused by a genetic flaw, sideeffect of medication etc - something out of their control: yes, they seem eligible.

If they are fat because they deliberately stuffed themselves... too bad. Though I would not consider it unreasonable to give those people some psychiatric therapy.

shouldnt there be a reverse disabilty law, that requires them to park all the way on the opposite side of the parking law. making them walk at least a 1/4 mile within their day?

In case of people who are extremely obese, that would be utterly pointless, as they are not able to walk that far.
Sure, you can argue that this is self-inflicted. In much the same way that paraplegia after an accident while bungee-jumpning is self-inflicted. The difference being of course that obesity can be "cured", meaning that it is possible for some obese people to lose that weight again.
But that simply doesn't change the fact that a forced walk of 1/4 of a mile is actually impossible to a person with severe obesity.

I would consider most obese people to be temporarily disabled, in the same way someone with broken legs would be temporarily disabled.

Gym memberships are preventative, provided one excercises properly and uses correct form. Plus, gym memberships are less expensive than surgeries or scheduled massages of fat deposits along the legs. Given the choice, I'd pay more for every person to have a gym membership and use it rather than have a select, but growing, group of people get special treatments for dumb choices.This makes sense to me, as it isn't only the overweight who need to exercise more.

shouldnt there be a reverse disabilty law, that requires them to park all the way on the opposite side of the parking law. making them walk at least a 1/4 mile within their day?

No. Besides, what about people who were already disabled before they were obese, with other problems, or people who are making serious efforts to lose weight but are not yet at the point where they can successfully walk 1/4 of a mile in one go?

Extreme obesity, yes. And self-inflicted disabilities certainly count. It's about what the person can do, not compensating for past injustice.

agreed.


disability isn't about how you got there, it's about not being able to do things.

My mom had a surgery (cosmetic) on her foot, it went badly, now she is unable to walk more than 25 feet without resting, in addition to that she is unable to work due to severe circulation issues caused by the botched surgery.

When we go places and she parks in the "handicapped" place, we get rude looks and comments, people assume she is "fine", she may look normal, but she is in intense pain, if she were to take off her shoe and show you her foot you would understand. She is lucky in that, there are people who have other disablities that can't show them to you, they may look fat, but their real disability may be heart problems or lung disease.


It's not nice to assume.

These threads always motivate me to go to the gym!
Several other thoughts:

Anything that significantly interferes with ability, is a disability. Doesn't matter how or why the ability is interfered with.

If the person is truly too fat to move at all, as stated in the OP, then absolutely that person is disabled! They're unable to move!! That said, such a condition SHOULD be self-correcting (if you can't move, you can't naturally get anything to eat, causing weight loss). When it's NOT self-correcting, there is another problem: That problem is whoever is feeding them so much that they stay too fat to move.

That said, only some of the commonly thought-of disability laws are of use to obese people. Handicapped parking spaces aren't really relevant. Obese people are the masters of finding the first legal space as it is. Anyone who would normally park 2 spots away from the door is just picking nits to go for that handicapped tag just to get one spot closer.

The most beneficial disability law for obesity wouldn't be a physical accomodation per se: It'd be laws that prevent discrimination in hiring. Ironically, the jobs that would be the most help for losing weight are often those which discriminate the most: Those which would cause a decent, but not overwhelming, level of physical activity. When the only jobs that will hire a person, are those that require that person to stand or sit in one spot all day, that's actually FORCING the person to remain sedentary for 40 hours/week or more. Certainly not a help for weight loss or physical flexibility!

Accomodation-wise, elevators and even ramps are a great help for knees that would otherwise be asked to try to lift hundreds of extra pounds up stairs, and either outright wouldn't be able to, or will hurt like hell trying. It's not laziness to take an elevator when stairs cause so much pain that just not going to the other level is preferable to the stairs option!

I've heard that some obese people actually advocate for wider seats. While that sounds great at first, it'd be embarrassing as all hell to take the Fat Seat! I can't imagine that many would really want to take THAT special seat... As for free plane tickets, no, tough. Each seat is supposed to make $X and if you take 2, you pay for 2, that's just fair. And an economic incentive for weight loss.

I go to the gym (yes, I'm working on losing my extra weight), and their treadmills are upstairs. And damn right, I'm one of those weird-seeming people who take the elevator--which is there because of the Americans w/Disabilities Act, I'm sure--to go up and exercise. Making it harder for me to get to the upper level would not help my weight any. The obese guys I see gamely trying to take the stairs up, like people say to, usually disappear after a couple of weeks.

I think disability law, when it comes to obesity, does have a place. Not always the same place that d-law does for people in wheelchairs, but a place. Things which would interfere with the ability to get more exercise--taking into account the limited abilities of those who have just started to exercise--should be eliminated. If the person can't overcome the hurdles that are there at the START of an exercise program, they won't be able to progress any further with it.

EXERCISE:

As for being able to just go run? No. Cardiac arrest would be the sure result of "just running" without months or even years of milder exercise to prepare the body for such a thing. Every year here, regular-weight, average-fitness people have heart attacks simply from shoveling snow. The body must be built up before it can handle strenuous exercise, and if a person's been sedentary, it takes even more time than usual.

When an exercise program is first started, the obese body perceives ANY exercise as strenuous exercise. Which it IS, compared to sitting on your ass! After a period of months or years, the body thinks ass-sitting is the "Normal" level--after all, that's all that's been required of it. Therefore, moving at first = "strenuous." When I started at the gym, my heart-rate soared and my heart pounded with only a slow walk! Only after repeated exposures to exercise does the body put that state in as the new "normal." Before that, it's an anomoly, and not only that, it's an anomoly that the body's programming reacts to as if it's something that should be eliminated.

If you feel depressed, DO NOT GO TO THE FRIG!!! Go run instead. It's healthier, it will make you feel better, and it gets out of that whiny, pathetic cycle of "I eat b/c I'm fat, I'm fat b/c I eat."Change that "run" to "walk" for obese people, and I'll agree with you. Going to the gym produces a much longer-lasting rise in mood for me. It's partly physical (endorphins, w00t!), but it's also the fact that going to the gym is TAKING CONTROL and is PRODUCTIVE.

As for how much walking, that depends on the current level of fitness.

Not only does giving the obese disability because of their extra weight have risks, but so does not giving them disability stuff because "it's all their fault.

The cons of giving disability:
1. You risk a slippery slope effect. If you allow one thing, then you'll "have" to allow something similar to that and something similar to the thing similar to that. Soon, if all goes wrong, laziness will be a disability because "their lack of will power cripples their chances of success in life"

2. You risk encouraging those who gorge themselves. You risk telling them that it's okay to eat yourself fat. After all, why should they risk injuring themselves by exercising. Why should they "butcher" their "way of life and persuit of happiness"?

not giving them disabilities:
1. slippery slope. Like the previous argument, except instead of granting even more disability, you end up not granting any disability to anything.

2. You risk hurting those who can't help getting fat. I'm not talking about those with a severe laziness handicap. I'm talking about those whose metabolism and whatnot are in constant survival mode* because of a germ or something.

Then again, maybe if we stopped trying to prevent perfectly natural ways of dying, we'd stop creating new ways to perish. After all, if certain over-the-counter pills weren't made, people wouldn't overdose on them. Hear that, people trying to keep people from dying: You can't win. Better off with the evil you do know than the evil you don't.

No, obesity should not generally be considered a disability. Most of the time, it's due to bad diet and lack of exercise. Yes, genes and horomones play a rôle to be sure, but are hardly the only factor. Remember that most Americans are descended from people in Europe, Africa, and Asia, none of which have the spectacularly high obesity rates of the US. Surely their genes didn't suddenly change to have a tendency obesity when entering America. There are certainly some unusual circumstances to take into account, but no, it's not generally a disorder.

No, obesity should not generally be considered a disability. Most of the time, it's due to bad diet and lack of exercise. Yes, genes and horomones play a rôle to be sure, but are hardly the only factor. Remember that most Americans are descended from people in Europe, Africa, and Asia, none of which have the spectacularly high obesity rates of the US. Surely their genes didn't suddenly change to have a tendency obesity when entering America. There are certainly some unusual circumstances to take into account, but no, it's not generally a disorder.

Ok, let me ask you the same question : Would you deny disability status to all people whose disabilities are in some way self-inflicted?
People who are in a wheelchair after an accident in extreme sports, or simply due to reckless driving?
People who have cancer after a lifetime of smoking?
People who got liver or kidney failure after abusing alcohol?

If personal fault is a qualifier for disabilities, you will have to deny that status to those people as well.

Ok, let me ask you the same question : Would you deny disability status to all people whose disabilities are in some way self-inflicted?
People who are in a wheelchair after an accident in extreme sports, or simply due to reckless driving?
People who have cancer after a lifetime of smoking?
People who got liver or kidney failure after abusing alcohol?

If personal fault is a qualifier for disabilities, you will have to deny that status to those people as well.

Are you supporting giving disability to any obesitite that somehow managed to survive a lethal dose of LDL(bad) chlorestoral, regardless if the fat came from lack of luck(having a disease that made you fat) or lack of will power and/or common sense or are you simply just revealing a fatal flaw in the argument?

Are you supporting giving disability to any obesitite that somehow managed to survive a lethal dose of LDL(bad) chlorestoral, regardless if the fat came from lack of luck(having a disease that made you fat) or lack of will power and/or common sense or are you simply just revealing a fatal flaw in the argument?

I wouldn't promote special treatment for obese people, especially since I myself qualify for that group. I'm perfectly able to live a normal and active life, though.

I do realise, however, that there are people whose obesity is so severe that they are simply unable to walk any longer distance, or even walk at all. Yes, it is most likely their "fault", or rather it was their own behaviour that led to their problem. But disability privileges are given to people who have less abilities than others, and that is the case for seriously obese people. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be in favour of compulsory programs for loosing weight going in hand with the disability privileges.

That, and pointing out the fatal flaw in the argument, of course. ;)

bump

I've heard about people that claim to be disabled because of gross obesity. I am wondering if you personally believe that a person too fat to move deserves disability status.

Please post your reasoning. There are no reasons too absurd, except those that are too absurd. Please don't flame others. I get to do that. Just joking, but please keep this respectful, and I must insist, objective. Your personal issues as a reason are not welcomed. Your personal experiences as an illustration are welcomed.

So please, POST!

I am 63 years old, 6 feet tall, and about 300 lbs. That makes me grossly obese. I do not blame anyone for my condition except myself. No, most people who are grossly obese do not deserve "special status." Some may be that way due to genetics, but I feel they are the exceptions.

Compensate them for things which they can't do (if it's getting in the way of them having a job etc.) handicapped parking of they can't walk that far, whatever. But don't fund their "addiction" ... would that be an accurate term, can you get an addiction to food, does it count? Help them work around it but ultimately it's their health and their life. But it really is disgusting to look at people here so fat they have a disability and then look at a picture of an African kid. Serious, horrible. I cannot comprehend being that starving and then seeing in America people who need help just from... a rant for another day.

Ok, let me ask you the same question : Would you deny disability status to all people whose disabilities are in some way self-inflicted?

No, but if it is possible to remedy the disability by a change of lifestyle I believe those people should be forced to change if they need the priviliges. The government should aid them with that.