First photos since weight loss

Beverly wrote:
"Dally" wrote in message
...

Rogue wrote:


Dally wrote:

And it's our policy to pay disability for brain damaged or mentally
retarded people, too. I mean, it makes sense that people too stupid to
live should get disability payments.


Dally,
I've always read and admired your progress in the weight loss area but the
above statement makes me furious. I happen to have a mentally impaired
daughter who receives disablilty benefits and I certainly don't think she's
"too stupid to live".

Well, I probably wasn't entirely clear there. SINCE it makes sense to
support the mentally impaired it ALSO makes sense to support people who
aren't mentally impaired but just make choices that reveal they are too
stupid to live (and hense their stupidity is killing them.)

My opinion is that a civilized society takes care of their own, which
includes all of those "there but for the Grace of God go I" type
illnesses. I don't think your daughter is too stupid to live. I think
she deserves to be taken care of.

But I'm talking about the situation where someone with emphysema needs
to go on disability so they can continue to afford their
three-pack-a-day habit despite not being able to hold a job because
their smoking is so bad.

Or the 400 pound person who can't walk anymore and chooses not to
address the issue.

How compassionate do we have to be?

My best friend was in a car accident four years ago. It was her fault.
She didn't get a single scratch, but the guy she hit went into the
windshield because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. He is suing her
because he doesn't feel her insurance company has adequately supported
him in the lifestyle that he prefers now. She KNOWS she was to blame
for this accident, she feels bad that he got hurt, but is she supposed
to support a man on full disability for the rest of his life because he
a.) didn't follow the law that requires seatbelt use and b.) isn't doing
anything to aid his recovery?

At what point do we allow sloth and poor choices to entitle people?

Dally

Dally wrote:

At what point do we allow sloth and poor choices to entitle people?

This is the eternal Left-Right debate: how to help the deserving
without indulging the undeserving. The Left emphasises the view
that people in need deserve help, despite the mistakes they make,
the unhelpful things they do, or the hand they were dealt, because
we are not perfect beings. The Right thinks self-reliance and
tough-love gets the best results. Of course it is a continuum,
with workable solutions at various points in-between.
Empathy, honesty, carrots, and sticks. All four are often needed.

I've noticed a predominance of right-wing views in misc.fitness.weights.
Perhaps this is just a case of the fittest feeling they are best
advantaged by a survival-of-the-fittest philosophy.

Dally wrote:
[...]
At what point do we allow sloth and poor choices to entitle people?

Let me get this straight: a person with an eating disorder who ends up
*under weight* deserves sympathy, but one with an eating disorder who
ends up overweight is merely slothful?

You know, I think I'll have to seek support elsewhere. If this sort of
cruel and petty attitude is tolerated here (and it seems to be), then
sadly, this is a place where I'd rather not be.

Rogue

It's Usenet. I wouldn't let the OPINION of ONE chase me away Rogue.
Baby/bathwater cliché comes to mind here. You will find a TON of
support and great advice here, not to mention make great friends.

Susan
260/195/140

"Rogue" wrote in message
om...
Dally wrote:
[...]
At what point do we allow sloth and poor choices to entitle people?

Let me get this straight: a person with an eating disorder who ends up
*under weight* deserves sympathy, but one with an eating disorder who
ends up overweight is merely slothful?

You know, I think I'll have to seek support elsewhere. If this sort of
cruel and petty attitude is tolerated here (and it seems to be), then
sadly, this is a place where I'd rather not be.

Rogue