Councillor who said she’d paint (now removed) bike lane black slams “ignorant” people who painted it back

Sriracha wrote:

I don't think it is so hard to see the irony of one who embodies the deleterious effects of a sedentary lifestyle advocating for measures that reduce cycling, especially in the name of health.

Yeah, I get that, but imagine the opposite situation of someone who's carrying excess weight but promotes cycling. Should they be judged on their weight rather than what they are trying to do?

Sriracha wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Sorry, I'm not apologising for calling someone those things when she is single-handledly responsible for shortening the lives of thousands of people.  BHIT peddled lies and misinformation in its zealotry, blatantly presenting cycling as much more dangerous than it actually is, deterring many from riding bikes, which wouldn't have been quite so bad if helmets actually saved lives.

Surely your argument would hold up no matter the shape of her body though? I think it's counter-productive to draw attention to someone's body shape when it's not directly related to the topic.

I don't think it is so hard to see the irony of one who embodies the deleterious effects of a sedentary lifestyle advocating for measures that reduce cycling, especially in the name of health.

I think this whole conversation would be healthier if we moved on from considering someone's weight or even their aerodynamics.

"So you're 'in favour of bikes' - how does that square with doing nothing effective to increase their wider use? What is your alternative to bikes as transport which will also benefit physical and mental health, help to provide independent mobility for the disabled, non-drivers, children and the old, is extremely energy and resource efficient, non-polluting, very safe, low cost - oh and also has had over a century of trial and testing and indeed is an existing solution?"

eburtthebike wrote:

 

Sorry, I'm not apologising

ROFL, typical British passive agressiveness. Why do you guys say sorry all the godamn time when you don't mean it at all?

joe9090 wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

 

Sorry, I'm not apologising

ROFL, typical British passive agressiveness. Why do you guys say sorry all the godamn time when you don't mean it at all?

Sorry about that.

It's a delicate line to negotiate, however there absolutely is an argument to be made here.

Cycling, despite all its risks, benefits health and lowers the risk to life overall. There is evidence that an obligation to wear helmets militates against cycling and may thereby overall increase the risk to life. Obesity is a factor in the argument.

So it is somewhat hypocritical for someone who runs the risks of obesity to lecture others on the risks of cycling, with or without a helmet.

A “marvellous lady” who is a devoted paediatric trauma nurse and charity worker has been nominated for a Pride of Reading award.

Angela Lee founded the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust in 1998 after seeing children with head injuries that could have been avoided.
https://www.getreading.co.uk/special-features/pride-reading-nomination-a...

So her experience is the very definition of cherry-picked data - she is a paediatric trauma nurse, she sees the kids with head injuries, she does not see the ones with diabetes, she does not see the ones who go on to develop obesity related life limiting conditions into adulthood, etc.

Nigel Garage wrote:

Quite, same with covid - a fully vaccinated, masked up fatty berating a fit and healthy young athlete for refusing the jab is technically many times more likely to die of covid.

Another example of your much-self-vaunted courtesy, calling people with weight problems fatties. Your hypocrisy reeks.

Nigel Garage wrote:

Quite, same with covid - a fully vaccinated, masked up fatty berating a fit and healthy young athlete for refusing the jab is technically many times more likely to die of covid.

No, not at all, because there is no linkage between an imperative to get vaccinated and obesity, whereas there is a linkage between an imperative to wear helmets and obesity.

And in either case, pejoratives are not part of the argument. Whatever happened to "politeness and courtesy"?

Nigel Garage wrote:

Fat people need to do told they are fat and to lose weight. It's good for their health. Hence the reason why fat people were rare until recently, because in the past they would have lost weight for fear of shame.

Fear of shame. You really are a filthy individual, you know that? An estimated 700,000 people (90% females, Mr "I'm the great feminist") in the UK suffer from eating disorders, with almost 2,000 dying of them each year, a large number through suicide. These disorders destroy lives and families. You know where they start? With bullies like you calling people "fatties" and saying that people should be "shamed" into losing weight.

Sriracha wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

Quite, same with covid - a fully vaccinated, masked up fatty berating a fit and healthy young athlete for refusing the jab is technically many times more likely to die of covid.

No, not at all, because there is no linkage between an imperative to get vaccinated and obesity, whereas there is a linkage between an imperative to wear helmets and obesity. And in either case, pejoratives are not part of the argument. Whatever happened to "politeness and courtesy"?

Erm, yes, there is. It's one of the biggest factors actually, right up there with age. Not to mention that the fat acceptance movement is quite harmful for society and people. Being happy with your size is one thing, but we should not accept or promote obesity in any way, shape or form since it carries many health risks and promotes a dangerous lifestyle.

Jenova20 wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

Quite, same with covid - a fully vaccinated, masked up fatty berating a fit and healthy young athlete for refusing the jab is technically many times more likely to die of covid.

No, not at all, because there is no linkage between an imperative to get vaccinated and obesity, whereas there is a linkage between an imperative to wear helmets and obesity. And in either case, pejoratives are not part of the argument. Whatever happened to "politeness and courtesy"?

 

Erm, yes, there is. It's one of the biggest factors actually, right up there with age. Not to mention that the fat acceptance movement is quite harmful for society and people. Being happy with your size is one thing, but we should not accept or promote obesity in any way, shape or form since it carries many health risks and promotes a dangerous lifestyle.

Sure, obesity is bad for you, but you are (deliberately?) missing the point about the linkage.

There is a link between a decrease in cycling and an increase in health risks from a sedentary lifestyle. That link is the basis of one argument against mandatory helmet wearing for cyclists, in so far as helmet laws discourage cycling.

Whereas mandatory vaccination does not cause obesity.

As to "promoting obesity", no one is suggesting that. If you think arguing against insulting people on account of their size amounts to promoting obesity you need to think again.

Sriracha wrote:

Whereas mandatory vaccination does not cause obesity.

I was commenting on your claim about the lack of a link between obesity and worse outcomes with Covid...Did you edit your comment or have I replied to the wrong post...

Sriracha wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

Quite, same with covid - a fully vaccinated, masked up fatty berating a fit and healthy young athlete for refusing the jab is technically many times more likely to die of covid.

No, not at all, because there is no linkage between an imperative to get vaccinated and obesity, whereas there is a linkage between an imperative to wear helmets and obesity. And in either case, pejoratives are not part of the argument. Whatever happened to "politeness and courtesy"?

Or, indeed evidence?

Nigel Garage wrote:

people who eat sensibly and have a normal weight

Yep, that's all it takes - that's why I know teetotal vegetarian people who regularly run marathons for whom weight is a constant struggle and couch potatoes who drink far too much and eat mainly pizza and burgers who look underweight, if anything. I know in imaginary Tory world everything's a matter of simply pulling one's socks up and showing a bit of gumption; in the real grownup world things are a bit more complex.

Nigel Garage wrote:

Quite, same with covid - a fully vaccinated, masked up fatty berating a fit and healthy young athlete for refusing the jab is technically many times more likely to die of covid.

Try putting on some weight Nigel, it might make you a happier person, you're obviously very bitter due to your thinness

I'm not arguing one way or the other - I certainly don't support mandatory helemts - and if someone feels the advocate's physical condition is relevant then by all means mention it. That's not the same as calling them a blimp and a swamp monster.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I'm not arguing one way or the other - I certainly don't support mandatory helemts - and if someone feels the advocate's physical condition is relevant then by all means mention it. That's not the same as calling them a blimp and a swamp monster.

The bar is quite high for mentioning a physical characteristic at all. The councillor and helmeteer, both of whose views I strongly disagree with, have points to make that should be addressed. They might also have non-public reasons for their weight, be part of the way through a weight loss programme, or a wide variety of other things.

When I was overweight, I was not happy about it and although almost no one ever mentioned it, it wasn't easy when they did and did not in any way induce me to lose weight and get (a little) fitter.

So my tolerance of this is low, both through personal experience and its objective wrongness. Many of the people who have done this are better than that.

Well said. As I've mentioned on here before, a combination of chemotherapy drugs and steroids plus the effect of being too unwell to ride years ago made my weight shoot up to over 15 stone, way too much for a six foot person. There wasn't a great deal I could do about it, even restricting myself to 1200 calories a day had no effect. Thankfully I got through that and have returned to a healthy BMI, people calling names and trying to "shame" me into losing weight wouldn't have made any difference apart from to cause me depression. Fortunately the vast majority of people are kind, generous-spirited and understanding, it's a shame that on this site we have such an outstanding example of an unempathetic bully who appears to believe that the multiple mental, physical and societal problems that can lead to weight gain can all be solved by fat shaming.

absolutely, but youve demonstrated perfectly there, that its possible to make those points, without resorting to childish labelling or name calling of the individual involved, so why cant others do the same ?

Nigel Garage wrote:

To be honest I didn't know saying "fatty" was a term of insult, so if it is I apologise.

Oh you do! From someone who's attuned to the "culture war"? I'm sure you do! (That one is like the War on Some Drugs or the War on the Motorist - most of the troops don't even know they're in a war!)

Apologies never hurt though! Bit saddened at the number of folk here who're happy to wade in with that as a weapon. There are plenty of other valid reasons for criticising some of these "I support active travel BUT ..." figures.

Nigel Garage wrote:

when I was around 9, we performed a musical called "the evacuees", about the experiences of British children in WW2 (yep, in those days real Bristish history was taught in school).

Ah takes me back, that was knocking about in my day too!

its not always a term of abuse, it depends on the context its used in, but that it can be used as a term of abuse, thats all really, and I dont see the need for it.

Its possible to state how you either approve or disapprove of the councillors views, or the pro helmet campaigner, without resorting to that kind of level of stuff. But thanks for apologising.

Awavey wrote:

its not always a term of abuse, it depends on the context its used in, but that it can be used as a term of abuse, thats all really, and I dont see the need for it.

Its possible to state how you either approve or disapprove of the councillors views, or the pro helmet campaigner, without resorting to that kind of level of stuff. But thanks for apologising.

I suppose it could be used as a way of encouraging someone in a gym...Still sounds insulting though. I think someone shouting "two more reps fatty!" in a gym might turn a few heads.

Jenova20 wrote:

Awavey wrote:

its not always a term of abuse, it depends on the context its used in, but that it can be used as a term of abuse, thats all really, and I dont see the need for it.

Its possible to state how you either approve or disapprove of the councillors views, or the pro helmet campaigner, without resorting to that kind of level of stuff. But thanks for apologising.

I suppose it could be used as a way of encouraging someone in a gym...Still sounds insulting though. I think someone shouting "two more reps fatty!" in a gym might turn a few heads.

There's always a market for the "drill sergeant" style of motivation - particularly in er... drill!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Run-Fat-Bitch-Ruth-Field/dp/184744542X

Or you could maybe dress it up as some hot talk like Morissey's done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFDzQD-LR80

Awavey wrote:

its not always a term of abuse

Although the choice of an example where someone is socially ostracised on account of their weight doesn't really seem like the best one to argue the case.

well I note that you selectively quoted me there, when I feel Ive made my position on this issue crystal clear, and yet you choose not to challenge those who have already and continue to use such terms unapologetically, why is that exactly ?

there was a restaurant chain called Fatty Arbuckles, there are numerous pubs named Fat Cats in the UK, neither of those are examples of abuse or socially ostracising people, because the context of language is more important. That to me is the point, I recognise there are times when you can use such words,and yet I can also deplore the instances where it amounts to personal abuse because I recognise the difference.

Its up to you where you draw the line on this.

I think you've been confused - I wasn't disagreeing with your comment - I was building on it, and on the part I quoted in particular. The example I was referring to was in the comment you replied to.

Sriracha wrote:

So her experience is the very definition of cherry-picked data - she is a paediatric trauma nurse, she sees the kids with head injuries, she does not see the ones with diabetes, she does not see the ones who go on to develop obesity related life limiting conditions into adulthood, etc.

You're right, and it's a well known phenomenon; observation bias.  Her problem was that she is so narrow minded that she can't see the damage she is causing.

Is that another by Judy ?

No markings any more, I want them to turn black

I see the cars go by taking up all the road

No space left at all for any other travel modes