If one wishes to discuss other weak willed groups such as alcohol and tobacco abusers then they should do so under separate cover as they do not form any part of this debate.

Poor decorum. If you have an issue with my form of argument, have the decency to address me directly rather than backhandedly attempting to undermine my post.

You drew a comparison between obesity and leprosy, in a rather transparent effort to associate obesity with stigma and ostracization (the irony being that history revealed those who treated people with leprosy badly were ignorant, ill-informed, and prejudiced). Your sole premise for condemning the obese has been to identify obesity as a self-destructive practice which imposes costs upon others. This is entirely non-unique to obesity, which is demonstrated by the introduction of other self-destructive habits (rendering their introduction entirely relevant to this discussion). Pointing out the underlying prejudice advanced in the premise of the debate prompt is both a legitimate response in a debate forum, and relevant to informing the debates which follow.

The gluttons are grotesquely fat because they are irresponsibly selfish and feel that society should make accommodation for their self imposed unsightly and totally avoidable condition.

You have advanced two unfounded assertions here. The first being that obesity is categorically and singularly the consequence of individual choice. The second being that those who are obese hold those expectations of society.

We all have to contribute towards the expense incurred by service providers as they have to modify or enhance their businesses to cater for these modern day lepers.

This assumes both a socialized health care system and the existence of accommodation/non-discrimination laws, neither of which is inherent in a conceptual debate (you failed to specify any context for your premise). Arguably, your objections are less against obesity and more against a socialized system the forces you to pay for or accommodate it. I presume you are also opposed to paying for those who contract cancer, liver failure, or other diseases since these are commonly attributable to some form of abuse or another.

With minimal effort any genetic pre-condition towards obesity can be identified and then successfully countered by a healthy lifestyle.

Please do feel to provide any evidence to substantiate this view.

Those with an underlying medical condition resulting in overweight should be exempt from ridicule, but they account for a tiny proportion of the wobbling wonders.

And how exactly do you suggest we discern between the two types of persons?

Genes are not destiny.

Prove it. Your entire argument hinges upon the assumption of free will, which is itself an utterly unfounded claim increasingly undermined by scientific research into the determinants of human thought and behavior.

Obesity is becoming a plague which will be exacerbated with the misguided use of euphemisms by the self appointed, sanctimonious champions for this preventable disease which is regularly accompanied by mental retardation, reproductive anomalies and/or other problems.

I do not disagree that obesity is a significant problem in many societies today, nor that certain defenses of those living obesity are blind to individual accountability. Neither of these is a reasonable basis from which to ignore the nuance of the issue, as you do.

Fact;- almost all ''OBESE'' people are the architects of their plight.

Fact: You have offered absolutely no evidence beyond your own opinion to demonstrate this. You are woefully ill-informed on the matter, lacking even an elementary knowledge of confounding variables such as food deserts and the broken food systems that have played a hand in the rise of obesity.

Oh how people like you enjoy wasting time in your childish search for an insult or two. How did you waste your time before the internet?

How I elect to utilize my time is my own prerogative, and has no bearing upon this debate. Your assertion that I was searching for insults is also untrue; my observations were limited strictly to your knowledge, decorum, and prejudice as they pertained to the debate at hand. That you dismiss my substantiated criticisms as "childish" rather than addressing their substance only underscores their legitimacy.

In 2014 [...] and healthy lifestyles can counteract these genetic effects;--

You have thoroughly misunderstood and misrepresented my points. I introduced medically attributable obesity to counter your earlier unfounded generalizations that obese people as a whole are obese due to gluttony (which you have effectively conceded at this point). I was not advancing the argument that all obesity is attributable to genetic disposition, as I am well aware that genetic disposition is only one of multiple variables in this equation.

My actual point pertained to free will upon which your entire argument hinges; there is absolutely no proof that we exert any control over our thoughts and behaviors, while there is a growing body of research demonstrating more and more that our actions are predetermined by genetics and their stimulation. The implication of this is that the poor diet and over-eating leading to obesity are not a consequence of personal choice... because you have failed to prove we even have personal choice (let alone that it is exercised in this instance).

Additional points you failed to address.

Furthermore, you have once again neglected to address my points regarding the impact of failed food systems and in particular the phenomenon of food desserts which inhibit access to nutritional, healthy food options. Your repeated failure to engage this point is a tacit concession to its veracity.

My reiteration of your prejudice on this subject having also gone entirely unaddressed, I consider that point conceded as well as the relevance of my earlier introduction of other forms of self-destructive behavior into this debate.

You additionally failed to reply to my point that your objections are less against obesity and more against an assumed socialized system that forces you to pay for or accommodate it. Failure to do so again will constitute concession of this point as well.

You have also failed to provide credible citation for your claims, offering only one rather vague allusion to a study published sometime in 2014 for one minor point. Hardly compelling.

Your meaningless and [...] Austwicz. [...] a ''DIET'' coke.

Your assumptions of my personal physique hold no bearing on this debate; you are engaging in a strawman fallacy almost as long as your topical argument in order to avoid having to actually debate the points I raised.

Not only that, but you have resorted to a flimsy invocation of the German holocaust in a debate where it utterly lacks relevance (a bit ironic given your earlier criticisms of my purported non-topicality); I refer you to Godwin's Law, through which common internet parlance would find this debate concluded and you the losing party.

P.S. Use the hyperlink options to respond (Support | Dispute | Clarify | Report) instead of posting and creating new threads every time.