No, I'm not advocating getting rid of anti-discrimination laws, I'm just pointing out that people discriminate based on all kinds of stupid things, I don't think we can legislate the stupidity out of humans.

I agree with that sentiment, big time.

I can't say whether or not I have ever been discriminated against on a job. I think I have; once I lost out on a copywriting job to a guy that looked like a copywriter in the movies (think the fun-loving Tom Hanks character in that movie he did with Jackie Gleason). On the other hand, I looked like a bald fat guy.

I knew him and I knew he wasn't all that creative, but he definitely had it on me in looks and personality. He got the job. Was it because I was fat? No idea. I think so. How would I prove it? What if client contact was part of it? I know he'd have been better at that.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether or not people are arguing that we should have anti-discrimination protection for the obese or not. I hate the fact that we're discriminated against, but as a class, it would be difficult to quantify. I don't think it's all right that the fat are discriminated against at all.

I am also not sure that legal protections similar to what disabled people get are appropriate for the fat. That wouldn't make me automatically someone who might have tried to impede civil rights, would it?

That's an awfully broad, impossible-to-prove, and terribly unfair generalization, in my opinion.

Saying "you can't legislate stupidity out of humans" is essentially arguing that anti-discrimination laws are a waste of time. In fact, it's saying a whole raft of laws are a waste of time. Why have any legislation at all? After all, "you can't legislate the stupidity out of humans," so what's the point?

Of course, the problem here is the argument is a straw man. No one is trying to "legislate stupidity out of humans;" what we're talking about is preventing people from behaving with stupidity and prejudice, however stupid and prejudiced they may remain underneath. People are stupid. And guess what? Anti-discrimination laws work, have been working since they were passed (back then the argument was "You can't legislate morality," made by Barry Goldwater and the Dixiecrats in defense of Jim Crow laws). If "you can't legislate the stupidity out of humans," yet anti-discrimination laws work....?

Are you suggesting we pass a law to make it illegal to discriminate based on ear-hair? Personally, I think that would be silly. What are we going to have, ear-hair hiring quotas?

Prejudice is not against the law as long as it doesn't exclude certain categories of people based on race, religion, age and a few other things I can't recall off hand.

But I think its fine to discriminate based on other things, like intelligence, offensive body odor, hygene.

If it were found that discrimination was happening on something like eye-color and it was pervasive, I'd be all in favor of adding it to the list.

I'm just curious how you would go about eradicating all forms of discrimination?


No, I have never, nor would never, say that. I think they're very necessary to combat human behavior that shouldn't be tolerated. I think they've gone a long way toward ensuring a more equal playing field between genders, races, ages and so on. But I think there's a limit to how far you can make it work. For instance, if we disallow discrimination on blind people, what do we do when someone decides they want to be a taxi driver, but they can't see?

"colds, flu, gastrointestinal problems, migraine, allergy and back pain, none of which can be directly tied to a person's weight".

Lisa the problems you cited could almost ALL be made worse by being overweight. Gastro problems? Allergy? BACK PAIN?

Why would you need to see a study to know that being overweight is less healthy than being at a healthy weight? Have you not seen enough "studies" that were manipulated to show whatever the researchers felt like "proving"?

As for what causes lost time at work, I'd say colds and flu probably dominate around here. And I'm not sure if being overweight would make you more susceptible to those. But it wouldn't make you LESS susceptible, so if you throw diabetes on top of that then it makes sense that you are going to be gone more.

Descrimination is limited to things that you can't do anything about. Not to things you won't do anything about. You can't quit being a woman, but you can quit being overweight.

He77 why are we even talking about descrimination against overweight people? Look around. WE ARE THE MAJORITY NOW. If anything I would predict a backlash against the skinny in coming years.

I'm looking -- hard -- and I don't see anyone in this thread advocating that blind people be allowed to drive taxis. Do you? I also don't see anyone (besides yourself) talking about ear hairs, which is a rather bizarre and pointless reducto. What we are talking about is irrational and arbitrary discrimination. Not hiring someone for a job they are otherwise perfectly qualified to do because they are overweight is irrational and arbitrary. Not hiring a blind taxi driver isn't. See the difference? There are laws in place that say soldiers, for example, have to meet certain height and weight requirements. I have nothing against those laws -- they aren't arbitrary and irrational; soldiers need to maintain a certain amount of conditioning to do their jobs.

I hope that helps clarify where I stand. I also hope it puts an end to attempts to drag the discussion into the bizarre world of ear hairs.

Umm...we do disallow discrimination against blind people (see the Americans With Disabilities Act) but the job has to be one that they can safely perform with their disability. Obviously, driving would be out for a blind person and no reasonable person would argue that point.



But you're not in favor of adding weight to the list even though it is pervasive?

Thanks for the laugh.

[QUOTE=But I think there's a limit to how far you can make it work. For instance, if we disallow discrimination on blind people, what do we do when someone decides they want to be a taxi driver, but they can't see?[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that it is illegal to discriminate against the blind. But your question is actually not applicable... Anti-discrimination employment laws are there to curb discrimination for those who are otherwise qualified for a particular position. So, a blind person would not be qualified to be a taxi driver, becuase one of the job requirements is being a currently licensed driver, so not hiring them would not be discrimination. However, denying a blind person a job they are otherwise qualified for just because they are blind, and you think blind people are lazy or ill-kept, or (and I love this one) defeated by life, that is unfair discrimination and is illegal.

I've lost out on jobs, more accurately promotions since I've been overweight. Fortunately, I have now been promoted in a company and by a boss who does not discriminate based on appearance. I am finally doing something that actually makes use of my talents. More telling, I have a friend who is very slim and attractive. She was able to get a job for which she was completely unqualified because of her appearance. In fact, though, in the end she ended up being fired because she was simply not able to perform what was required of her, slim and undefeated by life though she may have appeared.

Unless you're trying to get a job as a fashion model or some other job in which your looks ARE your job, then your appearance should not make a difference. It has been documented that tall people make more money and get better jobs than short folks, thin more that fat, attractive more than ugly. It's really quite ridiculous but a sad fact of our increasingly "lookest" society. This kind of discrimination, if it can't be legislated, should at the very least be strongly discouraged by our society. Instead, this kind of bigotry is celebrated, and perpetuated by views as stated above, such as fat people have bad posture and look defeated by life.

It's really a sad commentary on the people who actually believe such things, but I have hope that one day, maybe when we've evolved for another 10,000 years or so, that this kind of ridiculousness will have been bred out of our species.

I never stated whether or not I thought discrimination based on weight should be illegal or not. I think it would have to be dependant on the job. In some areas, like fashion modeling, how would you not discriminate based upon all sorts of the most superficial things that would be horrifying to discriminate on in other jobs?

I think the EOE laws as they currently stand address conditions that people can't change or shouldn't be expected to change. I don't think adding weight to that list would be a bad thing. Ear-hair, no. I'm putting my foot down no matter how passionately you argue, Kwikdriver.

But as Tom pointed out, the majority of Americans ARE already fat. So who exactly will be doing the fat-discrimination?

So far no one has offered me the CEO position since I've lost weight. *sigh* Ah! It must be my age or gender!

Because a number of articles are questioning the truth of that statement and if an employer is going to discriminate against the overweight based on health risk, they had better have some hard data behind it:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...t=obese+healthy

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...t=obese+healthy
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...t=obese+healthy
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...t=obese+healthy

Yeah, they'd better compare it with hiring parents of young kids who spread colds and flus not only to their parents, but everyone else at the work place! Boy, o boy. I don't think that's a can of worms anyone should open.

People discriminate for personal reasons.

Every person can and will be a trip sometimes!

If you can't beat em join em, as the saying goes.

While in Rome do as the Romans do, as that saying goes too.

i knew this was true in the old days but now I think it would be the opposite with more Americans becoming larger so larger will become the normal and skinny people will be discriminated against