So.. should we? :D

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Azza007**

Oh I do treat, but once a month as opposed to the old twice a week.

**notprop**

On average most men treat themselves at least once a day.

Are we still talking about the same thing?

**Ribon Fox**

notprop wrote:On average most men treat themselves at least once a day.

Are we still talking about the same thing?

Tisk tisk tisk, you know there are 12 year olds that use this fourm, killing people with chainswords is perfectly fine but don't mention self gratifaction...unless you ment "a dump?"

**notprop**

Whats wrong with statistics?

I'll remind you of your comments the next time you turn a show yourself thread into your own personal saucy puppet show!

**AustonT**

I'm rescuing this from a thread where it was under-appreciated.

AustonT wrote:I erect a Midwest defense almost daily.

**Ribon Fox**

notprop wrote:Whats wrong with statistics?

I'll remind you of your comments the next time you turn a show yourself thread into your own personal saucy puppet show!

I didnt the last one!...oh wait i sort of did didn't i....
(in the voice of a Dablo 2 caractor) ..."ermmm ooops"...

I'm rescuing this from a thread where it was under-appreciated.

AustonT wrote:I erect a Midwest defense almost daily.

LOL

**treadhead1944**

Oh dear, this has taken a turn now hasn't it?

**CT GAMER**

Grey Templar wrote:If someone is fat, they should be told about it.

Just like smoking, drinking, or any other bad habit/condition. If you don't want to change, you won't.

This logic should be applied to all situations.

Why do we need mods here (for example) editing posts and punishing people for telling people the truth?

If someone is being a moron or scumbag, etc. They should be told about it...

**Melissia**

mattyrm wrote:Should we stop calling people 'overweight'?

No.

Being "overweight" is a distinct medical condition that negatively effects those who have it. It's like saying we should stop calling people diabetic.

**Joey**

Melissia wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Should we stop calling people 'overweight'?
No.

Being "overweight" is a distinct medical condition that negatively effects those who have it. It's like saying we should stop calling people diabetic.

"They" have indeed "banned" medical words before. "slow", for example.

**Melissia**

Joey wrote:"They" have indeed "banned" medical words before. "slow", for example.

Actually, that particular word was decided to be inaccurate, and it was changed for medical accuracy. Because there are a variety of different medical conditions that can cause mental slowness, lack of acuity, lack of short-term memory, or any number of problems that might be associated with mental retardation.

Much like there is a separation between "overweight" (more weight than average-- many athletes are "overweight", for example) and "obesity" (having a very high percentage of adipose/fat tissue in the body).

**dæl**

Joey wrote:
Melissia wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Should we stop calling people 'overweight'?
No.

Being "overweight" is a distinct medical condition that negatively effects those who have it. It's like saying we should stop calling people diabetic.

"They" have indeed "banned" medical words before. "slow", for example.

I think they used "mentally subnormal" for a while, which seems worse somehow.

**AustonT**

Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:"They" have indeed "banned" medical words before. "slow", for example.
Actually, that particular word was decided to be inaccurate, and it was changed for medical accuracy. Because there are a variety of different medical conditions that can cause mental slowness, lack of acuity, lack of short-term memory, or any number of problems that might be associated with mental retardation.

Much like there is a separation between "overweight" (more weight than average-- many athletes are "overweight", for example) and "obesity" (having a very high percentage of adipose/fat tissue in the body).

I don't know if you looked at the word he actually used, but you and him are on the same page. The language filter strikes again!

**Melissia**

AustonT wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:"They" have indeed "banned" medical words before. "slow", for example.
Actually, that particular word was decided to be inaccurate, and it was changed for medical accuracy. Because there are a variety of different medical conditions that can cause mental slowness, lack of acuity, lack of short-term memory, or any number of problems that might be associated with mental retardation.

Much like there is a separation between "overweight" (more weight than average-- many athletes are "overweight", for example) and "obesity" (having a very high percentage of adipose/fat tissue in the body).

I don't know if you looked at the word he actually used, but you and him are on the same page. The language filter strikes again!

Filter? It's medical accuracy.

Like if when asked "what kind of wood" we look at them blankly and say "... wood." But they're looking for oak specifically.

**Kovnik Obama**

I think he meant your use of the term 'retardation'. (or maybe not)

And I think it's still a medically approved term, isn't it?

**AustonT**

Melissia wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:"They" have indeed "banned" medical words before. "slow", for example.
Actually, that particular word was decided to be inaccurate, and it was changed for medical accuracy. Because there are a variety of different medical conditions that can cause mental slowness, lack of acuity, lack of short-term memory, or any number of problems that might be associated with mental retardation.

Much like there is a separation between "overweight" (more weight than average-- many athletes are "overweight", for example) and "obesity" (having a very high percentage of adipose/fat tissue in the body).

I don't know if you looked at the word he actually used, but you and him are on the same page. The language filter strikes again!
Filter? It's medical accuracy.

Like if when asked "what kind of wood" we look at them blankly and say "... wood." But they're looking for oak specifically.

Joey said re-tard, not slow. No one asks "what kind of re-tard" and gets the answer "well he has a broken leg so clearly he is mobility re-tarded"
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation and it's various PC forms. As a description it's use is more wide and varied.

**Melissia**

As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation

... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.

**halonachos**

Melissia wrote:
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation

... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.

R-tard itself doesn't really apply, however Mental Retardation is a mental disorder in the DSM-IV-TR. In fact there are several levels of Mental Retardation ranging from Profound to Mild and they all express different levels of retardation, with profound referring to a person who cannot even feed themselves or sit up on their own. So Retardation itself is a widely accepted medical term and can either be Mild Mental Retardation, Moderate Mental Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, or Profound Mental Retardation. However the term "r-tard" typically is not used, they either use Mentally R-tarded or Mentally Handicapped.

Now speaking of psychology, obesity may become a psychological disorder in the DSM-V and Alcohol/Drug use may become related to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

**dæl**

halonachos wrote:
Melissia wrote:
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation

... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.

R-tard itself doesn't really apply, however Mental Retardation is a mental disorder in the DSM-IV-TR. In fact there are several levels of Mental Retardation ranging from Profound to Mild and they all express different levels of retardation, with profound referring to a person who cannot even feed themselves or sit up on their own. So Retardation itself is a widely accepted medical term and can either be Mild Mental Retardation, Moderate Mental Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, or Profound Mental Retardation. However the term "r-tard" typically is not used, they either use Mentally R-tarded or Mentally Handicapped.

Now speaking of psychology, obesity may become a psychological disorder in the DSM-V and Alcohol/Drug use may become related to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

I think a lot of research is being done into levels of Ghrelin and Leptin (the hormones that govern hunger and fullness) of the obese. I'm sure there are a minority that have OCD like disorders but the levels of obesity are far higher than the levels of any kind of psychological disorder. Its possible that society may be causing the fat to develop mental issues because of body image and what-not, but I refuse to believe that people who eat too much do so because they have psychological disorders. (unless shown evidence of course.) Are we expected to believe that another 30% of America now has a psychological disorder? What happens when this reaches 51%. Can insanity be in the majority?

**AustonT**

Melissia wrote:
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation

... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.

Here argue with yourself.

Melissia wrote:Actually, that particular word was decided to be inaccurate, and it was changed for medical accuracy. Because there are a variety of different medical conditions that can cause mental slowness, lack of acuity, lack of short-term memory, or any number of problems that might be associated with mental retardation.

**halonachos**

dæl wrote:
halonachos wrote:
Melissia wrote:
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation

... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.

R-tard itself doesn't really apply, however Mental Retardation is a mental disorder in the DSM-IV-TR. In fact there are several levels of Mental Retardation ranging from Profound to Mild and they all express different levels of retardation, with profound referring to a person who cannot even feed themselves or sit up on their own. So Retardation itself is a widely accepted medical term and can either be Mild Mental Retardation, Moderate Mental Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, or Profound Mental Retardation. However the term "r-tard" typically is not used, they either use Mentally R-tarded or Mentally Handicapped.

Now speaking of psychology, obesity may become a psychological disorder in the DSM-V and Alcohol/Drug use may become related to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

I think a lot of research is being done into levels of Ghrelin and Leptin (the hormones that govern hunger and fullness) of the obese. I'm sure there are a minority that have OCD like disorders but the levels of obesity are far higher than the levels of any kind of psychological disorder. Its possible that society may be causing the fat to develop mental issues because of body image and what-not, but I refuse to believe that people who eat too much do so because they have psychological disorders. (unless shown evidence of course.)

They are researching Ghrelin and Leptin, but obesity may get linked to OCD as an eating disorder where the person is eating in order to get rid of some sort of obsession. That's the thinking behind some alcohol/drug use, the individual is drinking to get rid of an obsessions unrelated to drinking. As far as obesity goes, they think it may have something to do with survival programming of the brain in humans that can lead to over-eating and obesity. But the DSM-V comes out next year so they have time to add and change whatever they want.

**dæl**

This is the same American Psychiatric Association that believes 13% of boys have ADHD? Yeah, I shall season their findings quite liberally with salt methinks.

**treadhead1944**

Melissia wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Should we stop calling people 'overweight'?
No.

Being "overweight" is a distinct medical condition that negatively effects those who have it. It's like saying we should stop calling people diabetic.

I am not borderline diabetic, I am glucose metabolizingly challenged. Or Insulin deficient.

**rubiksnoob**

I think this is a bad idea. Insulting fatties is the only way to go. Last time I tried complimenting one I got a big meaty slap in the face for my troubles.
Turns out that lady didn't appreciate being told that she looked exactly like the actor who played Jabba the Hutt, go figure!

**Alexzandvar**

mattyrm wrote: Ill let the always wonderful BBC ask the question.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18262887

Should we stop calling people 'overweight'?

An MPs' report on body image has advocated the use of "weight-neutral language". So should we stop calling people "overweight"?

There are many people who would agree that using the term "fat" to somebody's face is neither helpful or pleasant.

But there's a growing movement to get doctors and other public health professionals to stop using words such as "overweight" and "obese" as well.

MPs think the terms have a negative impact on body image and self-esteem, and want doctors to promote broader health and lifestyle messages instead.

The idea has been gaining momentum for a while. A study by the University of Pennsylvania in January found the word "obesity" offensive, while Liverpool City Council considered banning the word in its literature aimed at children in 2010.

And in March, draft guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said those who were obese should merely be encouraged to get down to a "healthier weight".

But not everyone agrees. In 2010, the Public Health Minister for England, Anne Milton, said GPs should tell people they were fat rather than obese as it was more likely to motivate them into losing weight.

So does weight terminology need a rethink?

Dr Sarah Jarvis, a presenter on the BBC's One Show, says when it comes to a medical context, the words "overweight" and "obese" are necessary, largely because they are the framework for the body mass index (BMI).

"I don't want to make people feel bad, and appreciate some people may have problems with self-esteem, but when it comes to it, as a doctor, if you are too careful, you run the risk of people not understanding the health implications.

"The fact is BMI is the best indicator of likelihood of surviving to a later date - and if you get into the obese range, the chances are you are going to die from a condition related to obesity like heart disease. If you are overweight rather than obese, you are more likely to die early and have medical conditions," she says.

The facts are when I started training in 1993, 10% of the UK was obese and now 25% are. We are absolutely not moving the goalposts - we are getting fatter," she says.

Nigel Mercer, the president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, agrees that when it comes to someone who is seriously overweight, and it is a medical issue, "there is no pussyfooting around the issue".

But he says the key is "appropriate use of terminology for appropriate use".

"It depends on who comments are being levelled at - to a class of children, where there will be a distribution of body sizes, it is important to know being overweight can lead to diabetes, but it is more of a psychological issue than a health issue - and children can be extremely cruel," he says.

Mercer says for adults, part of the problem is people no longer filter what they say, and society should really keep more of its opinions to itself.

"I am a big bloke, and I would have no problem if a professional told me I was obese, but it would be entirely different if someone told me that in the street," he says.

So.. Im sure you can guess Mattys face upon reading this. Nothing brings forth the rage more than this PC drivel. I really hope the fething MPs "report" didnt cost too much.

What say you?

Its a simple one for me.

I fething love cakes, I love meat pies, I love ice cream. And I proper love pints of beer.

I think most humans do, a long evolution when food was scarce forced us to seek out high value foods such as sugar and fat. Monkeys wage war over honey.

So, if I, as much as I love ice cream and pints, force myself with effort to eat them only two days a week, whilst I spend the rest of the time forcing myself through 10,000 meters on the rowing machine, or gritting my teeth and running 6 miles when I hugely cannot be arsed... why on earth should you, be able to claim its not your fault? Its the food companies/government's/societies fault instead?

Do you agree or disagree with the premise of the story? Do you actually find the very idea somewhat offensive like me? Do you think that this type of debate is exactly what is wrong with things in the first place? The idea that nobody can take their medicine, or deal with a hard truth?

Or do you think there is a balance to be struck? Is the term "obese" too harsh?

If so, what steps do you recommend? What alternatives could we employ?

And most importantly, does anyone on here weigh more than 200lbs and REALLY "eat like a sparrow"?

I look forward to reading your input.

And I thought this was going to be a thread about Scotland trying to become a sperate country

**Albatross**

Last time I went to my GP, he informed me that I was overweight and that I should think about doing something about it. He also told me to quit smoking. That's a doctor's duty, in my opinion.

**notprop**

Weirdly the last time I had a similar discussion with my GP he said I was within normal limits. That was despite my obvious chunky monkeyness.

The advantage of being 6' 4", stats are finally working in my favour!

**halonachos**

dæl wrote:This is the same American Psychiatric Association that believes 13% of boys have ADHD? Yeah, I shall season their findings quite liberally with salt methinks.

Actually that's shared with the National Institute of Mental Health and of course 13% of boys spread across various age groups with different levels of severity of the disorder. With 10% of children between the ages of 13 and 14 having the disorder and 9% of them having a lifelong prevalence of mild ADHD. So its all statistics within statistics within statistics because really it comes down to 13% of then entire male population between the ages of 13 and 18 have ADHD, but it is most prevalent within children from 13-14 with 10% of those children having it (15-16=8%, 17-18=9%), and of those 13% with ADHD 9% will have a lifelong condition of mild ADHD. So its more like just saying that the biggest population with ADHD would have to be 13-14 year old males.

The APA says that 4.1% of adults have it and 9% of children have it because we classify it in severe and mild.

Now even the British Psychological Society uses the DSM-IV-TR currently, but also uses the World Health Organization's ICD-10. The ICD-10 only looks for the severe level so when the BPA decides to use statistics they use the ICD-10 to only find the prevalence of the severe form of ADHD. The BPA found that the according to the ICD-10 1.5% of boys in primary school had ADHD, and the APA has said that 1.8% of adolescents have severe ADHD. When it comes down to it its all just fudging numbers and deciding which diagnostic criteria to meet.

The BPA has acknowledged the difference between the DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10, and this is due to differences in psychological practices in both areas of the world. We branched and made it severe/moderate and Europe just decided to look for severe and call it Hyperkinetic disorder. When we look at moderate levels in England we see that the numbers are still similar, with 11% having the disorder with limited or no visible signs.

Isn't it fun when you choose a different set of diagnostic criteria and compare the numbers? We plan to start using the ICD-10 in 2014, but right now British mental health workers use the DSM and ICD. The ICD is also influenced by the APA's DSM, so I mean take it as you will but the DSM and the APA are pretty legit.

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/ADHDFullGuideline.pdf

**Da Boss**

This comes from the outright stupid belief held by bad psychologists and idiot policy makers that self esteem is all important. This was caused by the discovery of a correlation between self esteem and success, which for some reason was taken to mean that high self esteem is a predictor for success, instead of the more logical argument that success predicts high self esteem. If you have high self esteem when you're a fat lazy slob, then that's a bit of a delusion.

/rant This stuff gets my goat. My ed psych course was 50% this bs, and barely anything about stuff educators actually need to know.

**halonachos**

Except for the belief that a teacher's professed confidence in their students can boost performance.

Self-esteem is a spiraling cycle much like depression; you fail, you lower your self-esteem because you failed, low self-esteem causes you to study less, fail much worse on next test, self-esteem lowers again, etc. Self-esteem reflects your personal belief of how well you can influence your life, if you have low self-esteem you don't think that you can do much of anything to improve yourself and just give up on trying.

It actually makes sense if you actually look at it and think about it instead of casting it aside.