So you know that all morbidly obese people are that way because they “can’t control their eating habits”?
Sorry to contradict your no doubt extensive study of morbid obesity, but I know someone who has this as a result of a physical (genetic) condition. Despite careful control of eating habits, exercise, etc.
I think I agree with samclem.
Posts like these do make you sound immature. You might want to consider thinking more and posting less. Or thinking longer before posting. Otherwise people here will tend to be rather harsh to you.
I don’t doubt there are conditions that make it more difficult to lose weight, but it is not possible for someone with a calorie deficit to stay at the same weight. Are you saying that genetics can override the laws of physics? If you do not lose weight it is because you are consuming at least maintenance calories. Period.
I know this is not the politically correct or sensitive thing to say but it is true. It’s simply easier to abdicate responsiblity and say that it is a genetic condition that is out of your control.
Which goes to the heart of my argument that people should not be given handicapped stickers for something that is a result of choices they make. An obese person is NOT in the same category as someone in a wheelchair, a veteran, or someone with MS.
Ridiculous!
Many people are in wheelchairs as a result of (stupid) choices they made, like driving a motorcycle while drunk, or diving into a lake without checking the water depth first. (I have relatives who were disabled by both of those.) Should they be denied a handicapped parking sticker because their disability was caused by their own bad choices?
And what about all the lung cancer patients on oxygen tanks, who smoked their way into lung cancer? Should they be denied handicapped stickers, too?
Or diabetics who failed to avoid candy all their life?
You seem to think that handicapped stickers are some kind of a reward given to people whose disability was caused by something you consider morally acceptable. And the stickers should be denied to disabled people who are somehow at fault for their disability.
The current system leaves ideas of ‘morality’ out of it, and just gives handicapped stickers to people who need one (as certified by their doctor) . What caused their disability doesn’t enter into it, just the existance of the disability and the need for the sticker. It seems to work fine as a neutral system, without any ‘morals clause’ requirement for handicapped stickers.
P.S. What does “a veteran” have to do with this anyway? I don’t know of any state that gives you a handicapped sticker just because you are a veteran. And certainly most veterans are not handicapped at all, and would resent any such implication.
Not exactly “less walking”, but walking with care and/or for short lenghts, certainly.
Gramps had a mild stroke recently. So he’s under orders to not go out on his own and sit down the instant he starts feeling weak or dizzy. This is Mr. Macho, whose apendicitis had been bothering him for 5 days by the time he was in so much pain he better go see a doctor (when he arrived they opened him up almost before the anesthesia kicked in and discovered abscessed peritonitis, yay!); this was 57 years ago but he still does most of his thinking with his lower brain.
Mom’s had bone problems since she was at least 15; apparently a sequel of the pneumonia she survived at age 3 (in post-war Spain). The diagnosis has changed along the years, but in any case she’s the kind of person who finishes faster by telling you which parts don’t hurt than which ones do. Years ago she was told to go on walks only in places where she’d be able to sit down if she needed to.
That’s absolutely ridiculous! My sister has a thyroid disorder that accounts for her weight problem. She’s tried eating a THOUSAND calories a day. A thousand! FAR below the recommended daily average, and she still remains very large. I really think you should investigate the problem you’re making judgments on before you throw out these unsubstantiated claims. You just sound like a hate-monger otherwise, and it’s really foolish. If calorie decreases were all that was required for losing weight, you wouldn’t have thousands and thousands of people who tried Weight Watchers, ate less food/calories, and gained weight! Heck, when I was about 18, I was about twenty pounds overweight and tried Weight Watchers, reducing my calorie count by about 1/4, as well as very closely monitoring fat and sodium. After a month, I went to a meeting and weighed in on a scale at 5 pounds more.
Get your facts straight. Calorie decreases are not the end-all, be-all of weight loss, and you might actually know that if you’d ever been obese. As it stands, it just seems like more anti-fat propaganda. Next time you see an obese person with a handicap placard, I suggest you ask them why they have it. I’d bet you ANYTHING that it’s because of another health problem.
One of the diseases listed in the quoted statute is emphysema. Under your “only if they didn’t bring it on themselves” theory, it should be taken off on account of smokers “bringing emphysema on themselves.” Are you prepared to make that judgment call?
And yes, still waiting for evidence that obesity is a reason for a handicap placard.
Calorie decrease isn’t all that’s required to lose weight, and AnabolicDoberman didn’t say it was. He said
If you consume 1000 calories a day and your body burns 800 calories a day, you won’t lose weight. If you consume 1000 calories and your body burns 1200, you will lose weight.
My compliments to you and your love. I’m grateful my MS seems to be stuck in the “somewhat, but not totally disabled” stage.
I’m sure there are many more ‘not obvious’ handicaps where you could look at a person and think “Why do they get this privilege?” - and I’d guess in 9 out of ten cases, the ‘perq’ of preferred parking is far outweighed by living with a disability 24/7.
I hate these. How pregnant do you have to be to use it? Do you have to be ready to deliver or can you have just taken your E.P.T. that morning? It’s stupid.
I’d much rather see them reserve spots for “Women Schlepping Multiple Children and a Cart Full Of Crap”. They’re the ones who need extra space and a shorter walk.
The whole thing pisses me off.
(For the record, I think SamClem was out of line on that Fat People call, too. Regardless of his posting history, that particular post was relevant and factual.)
I’m not sure I deserve respect just because MS ‘chose’ me, but I’ll take it nonetheless!
I’m still not sure what you were looking for in your OP, tho. Do you think too many handicap tags are being issued for minor problems, or do you think valid handicap tags are being misused?
In the strictest sense, I could be considered to be abusing my handicap tag. I 'm not confined to a wheelchair, I can (usually) walk several yards, at least the distance between a handicap parking slot and a regular slot. If parking 10 slots further from the door means I have to curtail my day, sobeit.
No doctor is going to admit to issuing spurious handicap tag authorizations, and no one using such a tag will admit to abuse of the system. Given that merely eyeballing a tag user can’t prove/disprove the validity of using the tag, do you have any suggestions on how to decrease invalid use of handicap tags?
'Cuda
I have no preconceived notions. I have heard people grumble about these spaces and allege that they aren’t necessary. I’d rather hear the facts myself before forming an opinion. That’s all.
My wife got one when she was humonguous, but you couldn’t see the tumors in her legs that interfered with her ability to walk. You only see the outward obesity, and don’t bother to think that something else might be wrong.
As far as the rest of your reply about obese people and controlling their eating habits, I’ll see you in The Pit.
I guess I did come across pro-expectant-mothers spaces in that post. For the record, that wasn’t my intent. On the other hand, I don’t think the government needs to get involved in prohibiting business owners from creating those spaces. If you really don’t like them, take your business to stores that don’t have them. My point was that these spaces are an issue of the market, not of government. There is no law requiring expectant mothers spaces.
Around here stores have “Customers with children” spaces, too. Maybe they will come to your area soon.
Did you read the whole thing, including the complications resulting from her obesity, which include osteoarthritis and asthma?
Did she bring it upon herself? Perhaps she did. But no more than a drunk driver who wraps his car around a telephone pole and ends up in a wheelchair. Or the smoker who now has to use an oxygen tank.
What difference does it make how they got to be disabled?
The links you provided were no worse than a lot of other drive-bys by a lot of other posters (should I pull out some cites too?). As pointed out one of them was even factual. It seems like you have an issue with this poster in particular.
And no, I don’t have a cite that a morbidly obese person without any other health issues can get an H-tag, because they probably couldn’t. But considering that almost all morbidly obese people have comorbid health problems that would justify the use of the tag, there’s really no point in parsing out the obesity. A 400 pound person is going to have knee problems caused by the obesity. Therefore it is factually correct to say that a “really fat person” can get a tag, even if it is not the obesity itself but the knee problems that made them get the tag.
And as for why I care about this issue, I don’t. Doesn’t faze me if someone has a tag that doesn’t need it, I don’t even drive. But I do think you’re being unfairly abusive of this particular poster, which does faze me.