exocrinous

Okay you're still saying someone can't be overweight and healthy, so like I promised, I'm gonna assert that there's no such thing as men's health. Being male will make a man die sooner. We need to give all men estrogen pills immediately and make sure they stick to the regimen. Being male is not okay, it's bad for you and it's driving up insurance costs for the rest of us. It's selfish. Making bad choices out of stubbornness and pride while everyone else pays. That's not okay.

Please note these are not my actual views, I'm just applying anti-HAES logic to other parts of our bodies in the same manner.

Health is relative. Health isn't an absolute boundary between healthy and unhealthy, that's silly. Health is a polydimensional spectrum. If you want to categorise health "objectively", well then seeing as men live shorter than women, we'd be forced to classify maleness as an illness and put every man in the world on estrogen pills. And that's ridiculous. No, health isn't a single standard that's the same for everyone.

Health isn't a point, it's a direction. Like South. South is a direction. I see Americans say all the time that they're from the south. They mean Texas. But I live in Australia. From my point of view, they're from the north. But it's not like they're lying. In terms of America, they're from the south. It's true.

Health is like South. If you've lived your entire life overweight with poor health, then getting healthy can mean a lot of different things. If you start jogging once a week and get healthier, well congratulations, you got healthy. It's relative. It's unreasonable for you to demand somebody in that situation meet the ideal of human health. If you do that, if you belittle their progress and say the best they've done in their life isn't good enough, you'll kill their motivation and ruin what little health they've achieved.

And if you go around saying there's no such thing as health at every size, well then I'll tell you there's no such thing as men's health, because being a man is unhealthy. The two statements are equally ridiculous.

You started this conversation saying Health At Every Size is bogus and harmful. Now you're saying both topics are important. I agree. I'm going to assume you've changed your mind and now understand the benefits of Health At Every Size at improving people's health regardless of weight, and also that HAES makes it easier to lose weight if that's what they also want.

The French killed their monarchs and I think that makes them much cooler than the English.

Okay so what's going on in this thread is that I assumed the point was to help people, and you assumed the point was to lose weight. And I think that illustrates what Health at Every Size means perfectly. HAES is about helping people, and the people complaining about HAES aren't interested in helping people, they only want people to lose weight.

Always has been, as someone with a grass allergy. I fucking hate grass and I hate touching it. No, getting the sniffles will not improve my mental health. But it might make me puke up my lunch, thanks to a little thing called a post-nasal drip caused by long covid.

Lawns aren't some great mental health boon. They're a symbol of petty bourgeois waste and excess pushed by the racist suburbs that invented them to keep black people out. TL;DR: grass is racist.

Also outside is where we trans people get hate crime'd. Fuck that place, and telling us to get off the internet is imo violent speech. The internet is the only place where many trans people are gendered correctly and allowed to be themselves. Lower internet use for trans people leads to higher suicide rate.

Also what if someone wants to be fat? "No, you're not allowed to look how you want to look. You have to change your appearance to fit in because uhhhhhh you need to go produce more labour value for Capital.

Fuck that shit. It's fashy as hell. Also transphobic vibes tbh.

Nothing beats CI/CO ever, no excuses, nowhere in the universe. It's thermodynamics.

I got something that beats CICO. And it's called addressing your specific health concerns instead of just dieting.

You've got poor heart health? Cardio will help you more than fasting.

You've got diabetes? Limiting sugar intake will help you more than restricting everything.

You've got depression? Antidepressants or going outside will help you more than losing weight.

You've got a broken arm? Rest and a sling will help you more than losing weight.

HAES is about actually fucking treating your health problems at whatever size you're at, instead of blaming it on your weight and continuing to fail to lose weight.

CICO ain't worth shit if the patient can't lose weight. And if you're thinking "it's just a matter of willpower", well tough shit, people have limited willpower. And being sick doesn't help willpower either. It's way more likely for someone to get healthy at their current size, see a willpower increase, and then lose weight, than it is for a sick and suffering person to stick to a diet, lose weight, and then get healthy. HAES is about doing it the right way around, the way around that actually works.

She's antivax

Many people where led astray and susceptible to misinformations

Yes, that's what makes them bad people

That's completely not true. Yes, dismantling capitalism is the most important thing we can do to reduce the impact. But you're using some really strong words there. If I ride my bike to work instead of taking a car for one day, that'll reduce the CO2 emitted by about a kilogram. That one kilogram might reduce the severity of some hurricane enough to save a life. And yeah, it probably won't. But what about a year of riding my bike? What about a lifetime? What about installing solar panels at my house? What about not taking a flight? What about eating a vegan diet? Put all that together, I can probably save a couple lives in my lifetime compared to if I just consoomed. And yeah, in between all that, I'm on the streets volunteering for anarchist orgs and building systems to dismantle capitalism.

But the way I see it, fighting capitalism is like trying to win the lottery. It probably won't work in my lifetime. It almost certainly won't stop the climate crisis in its tracks right now. Making these changes in my own life makes me a healthier person with more money and a lighter conscience, and it's guaranteed lives saved. So I'm gonna do both. I'm not gonna bet on achieving communism and only then going through the degrowth that's inevitable anyway. I'm going to degrow my own life right now, so at the very least I'm ready when the communist revolution is complete and it's time to ban cars, and if communism doesn't happen before I die, I can still say with certainty, "I was part of the solution".

But that's not what's happening here. Blue is explicitly against telling Red what the problem is. You're changing the subject to a hypothetical nobody else is talking about. It feels like you just want to invent a scenario where people who empathize with Red have to feel bad about themselves. Did a Red hurt you?