• CH3DD4R_G0B-L1N@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Since it seems your use of obesity is causing some concern, perhaps it’s more appropriate to say “financial gluttony” as a more accurate phrasing?

    • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      A distinction without a difference. One is the process, the other its outcome.

      Obesity is a problematic state for an entity to be in, and attempts to reframe it as normal only manifest as harm.

      Where I see potential validity in criticism is the flawed definitions used for medical classification, but that’s an issue for the medical profession to reckon with and address.

      • CH3DD4R_G0B-L1N@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        With the silly reactions to my suggestion even though I have no issue with your wording, I feel stupid trying to hold a discourse here, but regardless…

        The distinction is gluttony is an active action, a decision, to consume more than needed, and a sin in religious contexts.

        Obesity is a state of being, correct, but can be out of a person’s control medically, I believe (I’m no doctor).

        I’m sure the rhetoric brigade will attack this as well, though. So much for quality interactions of the fediverse.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 hours ago

          It can be out of a person’s control… and it’s still bad for them. Nobody here is saying that fat people are bad people, people are saying that fat is bad for people.