Obese Man to Sue NHS for letting him get fat.

[Blondie]

Coito adds nothing valuable to the discussion except "Well that's not so because I think it's not so!"

Why the fuck would I care what you think? Whine about Wiki? They link to the science, follow it back. It's a damn sight better than your garbage link, as it doesn't appear to be fucking lying.

Not all fats are the same. Not all cholesterol is the same. When you write that fat and cholesterol contribute to heart disease, you're equivocating. Cholesterol in your blood stream and cholestol in your stomach are two different things. LDL cholesterol in the blood stream is caused by high insulin levels, in turn caused by high carb intake.

Maybe, just maybe, it's fucking annoying when a dumb fuck posts garbage then whines that you're "batshit crazy" because you actually care what real scientists say in peer reviewed papers, not what a bunch of PETA-funded vegans say?

Now go do some fucking research, nitwit.

What's up wit dat?

Are you always this pleasant or are you permanently on the rag?

[Cunt]

I think it's addiction as soon as you lose the slightest bit of control. I say you can be very slightly addicted, and that just grows, eventually into a major problem.

Addiction doesn't 'just grow', though. This is another place where you show your ignorance to anyone who cares to look.
Many who are in you description 'very slightly' addicted will not grow their problem. Some who overindulge slightly will correct their own behaviour.
You can call it 'addiction', but you would be joining religious groups (like AA) in your use of the word. The medical professionals have distanced themselves from that word (and I think for good reason).

This is where you show incredible ignorance of what is right in front of your eyes.
I did not say that a slight addiction ALWAYS grows into a major one.
If you want to take issue with stuff I didn't actually say, the world is your bloater.

No, I skipped the part where your definition of 'addiction' seems to include people's 'problem' growing. If it only happens sometimes, why call it addiction?

I really prefer dropping the word for another reason. It is used in so many different ways that it surely would have lost all meaning if it had any to begin with.

Addiction is just about as slippery a word as sin. Why not drop it in favour of clearer descriptions of what you mean?

Just looking at what 'help' is usually offered to the addicted should be motivation enough, clarity is another good one. Have you got a clear idea where along the road from one extra cookie one Monday to gorging myself every day all day the 'addicted' line is drawn?

[mistermack]

Hi Cunt, well firstly, I get my information from my own case mostly, so I don't have intimate experience of other people's eating patterns.
If I was really fit, in perfect shape, I would weigh about 175 pounds,
or 80 kilos. I'm actually about 210, or 95 kilos.

I would like to be closer to 175, and I know EXACTLY what to do, to lose weight, having done it before, without great pain.
So I would say that by my definition, I'm a bit addicted to eating too much. (and the wrong foods).
I wouldn't say that as an excuse, as I don't really care what anyone else thinks. It's just how it appears to me.

I say a bit, because obviously it's not a major problem. But I have to admit that I'm not in total control of my eating, or I would be 175, which would be my ideal weight.

(I'm losing weight quite well at the moment, but I would still rate myself as a bit addicted, because I know what I would do, if I just ate what I fancied).

If you consider addiction is only major dependence, then we just disagree about the meaning of the word. Maybe there is a better word, for someone who would like to eat less, but finds they can't?
All suggestions gratefully recieved.

If I got to my ideal weight, and kept it there, I would still say I'm a bit addicted, because I know that I'm having to control my eating urges. If I didn't care, didn't particularly want to lose any weight, I wouldn't class myself as addicted in any way. But I can't imaging being overweight, and not wanting to lose it.

Have you got a clear idea where along the road from one extra cookie one Monday to gorging myself every day all day the 'addicted' line is drawn?

Well, I'm arguing that there is no line, just shades of grey that get darker, the farther you go. (or I go). So of course I can't say where the line is.

It is perfectly possible to be addicted, but to keep on top of it.
Most reformed alcoholics will tell you that they NEVER stop being alcoholic, even if they haven't had a drink for ten years.

That would be me, if I was 175 pounds, and kept it there for years.
I would still be a bit addicted, because like the alcoholic, it would just be willpower that kept me from ballooning.

In another life, if I was a postman, or something, where I had to walk miles every day, and didn't need willpower to keep the weight off, perhaps I wouldn't class myself as even slightly addicted.
And like I said earlier, we evolved from extremely active hunter-gatherers. We ate a lot in times of plenty, to gain weight which might help us in the lean times. So it's not surprising many of us feel the need to eat more than our body needs.

[Cunt]

Hi Cunt, well firstly, I get my information from my own case mostly, so I don't have intimate experience of other people's eating patterns.
If I was really fit, in perfect shape, I would weigh about 175 pounds,
or 80 kilos. I'm actually about 210, or 95 kilos.

I would like to be closer to 175, and I know EXACTLY what to do, to lose weight, having done it before, without great pain.
So I would say that by my definition, I'm a bit addicted to eating too much. (and the wrong foods).

I wouldn't say that as an excuse, as I don't really care what anyone else thinks. It's just how it appears to me.

I say a bit, because obviously it's not a major problem. But I have to admit that I'm not in total control of my eating, or I would be 175, which would be my ideal weight.

(I'm losing weight quite well at the moment, but I would still rate myself as a bit addicted,

What is the purpose of using 'addicted' here? If you left the word out (grammar aside) you would be saying the same thing. This word accomplishes little, but does much damage.

because I know what I would do, if I just ate what I fancied).

If you consider addiction is only major dependence, then we just disagree about the meaning of the word. Maybe there is a better word, for someone who would like to eat less, but finds they can't?
All suggestions gratefully recieved.

Look at the language it spawns. Your words say that someone would like to eat less, but can't. Who the fuck can't? Anyone can, the trouble is that people don't.

Another thing that adds to the aroma of bullshit around addictions: If someone claims they are addicted, any behaviour can be used to verify the claim, and no behaviour can be used to falsify it.

I think it has something to do with people (like me) not wanting to admit that they make bad decisions. There simply HAS to be SOMETHING we can blame it on. Sin was good for awhile, but without that, there has to be something else to blame it on.
Addiction, a word nearly as slippery as sin (the word, not the imaginary crime).

The only contribution 'addicted' seems to make to the conversation is to give some vague psychological excuse for making bad choices.

It certainly doesn't seem to help people quit anything.

This character in the OP would have likely agreed with you, though...blame someone...[/i]something[/i]...

[mistermack]

Well, Cunt, I don't think you have any experience of addiction, if you think it's as simple as that. That people CAN beat it, but choose not to.
That's not addiction.
The whole point of addictive tendencies is that it actually changes your mind, influences your thinking, and effectively makes choices for you. So saying that people choose this or that is missing the point entirely.

An alcoholic can decide never to drink again in the morning, can promise his wife never to, and MEAN IT, but find it impossible to pass a pub that same evening.
Of course it's PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to pass the pub. But not for him, there and then.

It's not an excuse for not wanting to.

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

Another thing that adds to the aroma of bullshit around addictions: If someone claims they are addicted, any behaviour can be used to verify the claim, and no behaviour can be used to falsify it.

I think it has something to do with people (like me) not wanting to admit that they make bad decisions. There simply HAS to be SOMETHING we can blame it on. Sin was good for awhile, but without that, there has to be something else to blame it on.
Addiction, a word nearly as slippery as sin (the word, not the imaginary crime).

Whether or not it is appropriate to use the term addiction for some at least some obese people, addiction itself is definitely real. Whether it be nicotine, heroin, prescription tranks or alcohol, there are real mind and body pressures involved, and real pain in the withdrawal symptoms that accompany ceasing to consume. Sure, there may have been early bad decisions, but once you are solidly hooked, it is very difficult to quit unaided (although by no means impossible).

It is not a matter of using addiction as an excuse, shrugging your shoulders and giving up, but it does involve (usually) some solid professional help to break the addiction.

The question of whether extremely obese people who want to lose weight are addicted still remains moot, I suppose. Personally, I think that many in this situation will experience at least some of the issues that those addicted to various substances do, and therefore may benefit from similar assistance programs.

[Cunt]

Well, Cunt, I don't think you have any experience of addiction, if you think it's as simple as that. That people CAN beat it, but choose not to.

You are quite mistaken about my experience.

That's not addiction.
The whole point of addictive tendencies is that it actually changes your mind, influences your thinking, and effectively makes choices for you. So saying that people choose this or that is missing the point entirely.

An alcoholic can decide never to drink again in the morning, can promise his wife never to, and MEAN IT, but find it impossible to pass a pub that same evening.
Of course it's PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to pass the pub. But not for him, there and then.

It's not an excuse for not wanting to.

It's not impossible for him to pass the pub. Lots of people prove it is not impossible - going from street drunk to sober as a judge. You and I both know this happens.

Load up the language all you like, it IS about choice.

-------------

Cunt wrote:

Another thing that adds to the aroma of bullshit around addictions: If someone claims they are addicted, any behaviour can be used to verify the claim, and no behaviour can be used to falsify it.

I think it has something to do with people (like me) not wanting to admit that they make bad decisions. There simply HAS to be SOMETHING we can blame it on. Sin was good for awhile, but without that, there has to be something else to blame it on.
Addiction, a word nearly as slippery as sin (the word, not the imaginary crime).

Whether or not it is appropriate to use the term addiction for some at least some obese people, addiction itself is definitely real.

Perhaps, JimC, but real what exactly? Real evidence that some choices are tougher than others?

Whether it be nicotine, heroin, prescription tranks or alcohol, there are real mind and body pressures involved, and real pain in the withdrawal symptoms that accompany ceasing to consume. Sure, there may have been early bad decisions, but once you are solidly hooked, it is very difficult to quit unaided (although by no means impossible).

The thing is, the 'addictionary' used by addicts and their converts is full of shit. Look at the language and there is bullshit everywhere (like saying that an alcoholic is someone who cannot quit drinking - if that is true, everyone who has ever successfully quit is NOT an alcoholic)

It is not a matter of using addiction as an excuse, shrugging your shoulders and giving up, but it does involve (usually) some solid professional help to break the addiction.

Careful with that 'usually', JimC. I think the various treatments for addictions have about the same success rate as the spontaneous remission rate.

Solid professional help is tough to come by. There are plenty of non-professionals willing to tell you they are helping though.

The question of whether extremely obese people who want to lose weight are addicted still remains moot, I suppose. Personally, I think that many in this situation will experience at least some of the issues that those addicted to various substances do, and therefore may benefit from similar assistance programs.

I think it is okay to say that there are psychological problems associated with changing habits, even to the point of 'life-or-death' struggles.

Call a fat guy addicted and nothing is gained (as far as I can tell). As I said before, any behaviour can be used to verify the diagnosis, and no behaviour can be used to falsify.

We do make bad choices, and some of them very bad. Do we have to imagine some sinister agency (addiction) or can't we just take responsibility for ourselves?

[Coito ergo sum]

It appears that mistermack's definition of addiction would include anyone who wants to lose weight but doesn't. Is that fair?

I don't think rejecting that definition means that anyone is suggesting anything is easily done. Even though I don't accept the usage of the word addiction propounded by mistermack, I certainly recognize the great difficulty people have in losing weight.

Cunt makes a fair point about the lack of precision of mistermack's usage, and its unfalsifiability. Any weight gain is an addiction when the person is dissatisfied with their weight. And, any personal difficulty in losing weight demonstrates addiction.

[mistermack]

Cunt, if you have any experience of addiction, you obviously didn't learn anything from it.
Coito, if you don't accept that you can be a little bit addicted, and only recognise it as a word that applies solely to major dependence, then we will never agree.

So here is my question. Is it possible to be slightly addicted or not?

[Coito ergo sum]

Cunt, if you have any experience of addiction, you obviously didn't learn anything from it.
Coito, if you don't accept that you can be a little bit addicted, and only recognise it as a word that applies solely to major dependence, then we will never agree.

So here is my question. Is it possible to be slightly addicted or not?

The word in common English usage doesn't mean what you use it to mean. I'm willing to accept your usage, but I am not willing to accept that you are using it in the prevailing sense of the word in the English language.

Are you suggesting that if someone wants to stop doing something, but it's a bit difficult to do it, that they are "addicted" to that thing? If so, you are radically altering the meaning of the word "addiction."

I don't need us to agree. Frankly, I agree with cunt when he says that the way you use it, it is an unfalsifiable concept and is thereby rendered all but useless.

[GreyICE]

Coito adds nothing valuable to the discussion except "Well that's not so because I think it's not so!"

Except that I back up my assertions with evidence. You just talk out your ass.

Yeah, this characterizes everything that's going to happen. I post links to studies and multiple sources that show you post bullshit. You say "You're just talking out of your ass!"

Yeah, fuck off, Coito. I somehow expected this, but you are such a fucking cockbag.

You never read anything, you never listen to any suggestion you're wrong, just go choke on a bag of dicks and die.

What's up wit dat?

Are you always this pleasant or are you permanently on the rag?

Aww, how cute, it's a little Coito-bot! Hey Coito, you have little buddies! Maybe someday they can grow up to be village idiots too!

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito adds nothing valuable to the discussion except "Well that's not so because I think it's not so!"

Except that I back up my assertions with evidence. You just talk out your ass.

Yeah, this characterizes everything that's going to happen. I post links to studies and multiple sources that show you post bullshit. You say "You're just talking out of your ass!"

Yeah, fuck off, Coito. I somehow expected this, but you are such a fucking cockbag.

I posted links, and citations to peer reviewed journals, like the Journal of the American Medical Association. You posted "wikipedia."

You never read anything, you never listen to any suggestion you're wrong, just go choke on a bag of dicks and die.

You are one of those folk that grossly underestimate your own intelligence. You are of a dangerous ilk.

What's up wit dat?

Are you always this pleasant or are you permanently on the rag?

Aww, how cute, it's a little Coito-bot! Hey Coito, you have little buddies! Maybe someday they can grow up to be village idiots too!

Continue on, GreyICE. You are demonstrating the quality of your argument quite well. Keep it up.

[mistermack]

So here is my question. Is it possible to be slightly addicted or not?

The word in common English usage doesn't mean what you use it to mean. I'm willing to accept your usage, but I am not willing to accept that you are using it in the prevailing sense of the word in the English language.

Are you suggesting that if someone wants to stop doing something, but it's a bit difficult to do it, that they are "addicted" to that thing? If so, you are radically altering the meaning of the word "addiction

I don't need us to agree. Frankly, I agree with cunt when he says that the way you use it, it is an unfalsifiable concept and is thereby rendered all but useless.

I know I'm a bit slow sometimes, so I need help here. Was that a yes or a no?

[Coito ergo sum]

So here is my question. Is it possible to be slightly addicted or not?

The word in common English usage doesn't mean what you use it to mean. I'm willing to accept your usage, but I am not willing to accept that you are using it in the prevailing sense of the word in the English language.

Are you suggesting that if someone wants to stop doing something, but it's a bit difficult to do it, that they are "addicted" to that thing? If so, you are radically altering the meaning of the word "addiction."

I don't need us to agree. Frankly, I agree with cunt when he says that the way you use it, it is an unfalsifiable concept and is thereby rendered all but useless.

I know I'm a bit slow sometimes, so I need help here. Was that a yes or a no?

I asked you first - are you suggesting that if someone wants to stop doing something, but it's difficult to do it, are they "addicted" to that thing?

But, I'll answer your question. I doubt you'll answer mine, though.

Sure - there are gradations of addiction. One may have a mild addiction to opiates, or a severe addiction to opiates. In that sense, one may be slightly addicted.

[GreyICE]

Coito adds nothing valuable to the discussion except "Well that's not so because I think it's not so!"

Except that I back up my assertions with evidence. You just talk out your ass.

Yeah, this characterizes everything that's going to happen. I post links to studies and multiple sources that show you post bullshit. You say "You're just talking out of your ass!"

Yeah, fuck off, Coito. I somehow expected this, but you are such a fucking cockbag.

I posted links, and citations to peer reviewed journals, like the Journal of the American Medical Association. You posted "wikipedia."

You never read anything, you never listen to any suggestion you're wrong, just go choke on a bag of dicks and die.

You are one of those folk that grossly underestimate your own intelligence. You are of a dangerous ilk.

What's up wit dat?

Are you always this pleasant or are you permanently on the rag?

Aww, how cute, it's a little Coito-bot! Hey Coito, you have little buddies! Maybe someday they can grow up to be village idiots too!

Continue on, GreyICE. You are demonstrating the quality of your argument quite well. Keep it up.

Oh I already had a quality argument. You had no response to it except "Hey I'm Coito, and I can act like a cunt and hit the submit reply button a lot! I am incapable of real human emotion because I've been rejected so many times that I am numb to the feelings of others! I use my success at getting other people to stop interacting at me on the internet as a proxy for my lack of success in real life! I don't understand why they avoid me there just like people avoid me in the real world! It's obviously my overwhelming intellect, see how they flee before my constant usage of the post reply button!"

That's your usual response. The quality reply is still there, you still have yet to rebut it or address it in any way, and you're still a fucking cockbag.