Past Present & Future

“Fat is a Feminist Issue”

———–

Being fat-headed is even more so if the women concerned are liberal lefties….

By Bihari Babu on Dec 21, 2005

I think Fat Factor is not only become an issue for just feminism, but it is considered as a problems to both genders, or even to those who are genderless. Over sized body firstly could lead to less energetic then laziness (in exercises), inability to be fully active in daily life.
Inactive body then would become haven to some health related disease.
.
In that case, a ‘perfect looking’ body not only give some advantage in terms of ‘attraction trade’ between genders (or partnerships) to a person/s who belong its, but also to that the ‘body’ itself that described as a healthy person.
.
People sometime a little bit hypocrites about this over-size issue, which mostly give more emphasized on partnership relations, that is if you are ‘fat’ then there are less ‘demand’ in ’social trade-life’.
.
In facts, there are quite true as a (sample) case of Maria Bova, but one thing I have to say is, ‘where ever there is a will, …… then there are ways to get through’.
http://www.chicagosole.com/wst_page2.html
.

By Cimurai on Dec 21, 2005

I knew Sonia was fat

By ven on Dec 22, 2005

I like his way sometimes. There is a strong element of humor in his insults. At Guardian, whenever someone argues with him, they simply give up, hold their white flags up and put their tails between their legs and run back to where they come from.

He is still confused about me!

By ven on Dec 22, 2005

Sonia,
.
Talking about this ‘insult’ thing, I as a non English speaker am sometime quite confused what is its standard definitions that apply to real life, for examples when its referred to ‘free speech’ in blog-world, ….. words as “Offensive? Unsuitable?” Report this comment, beneath every single comments at guardian newsblog is an example of attempt to avoid this ‘insult’ thing from happening. Anyway, since it definition is ‘too subjective’ and dependable to self-reasoning and sensibility, its seem that its all this ‘insult’ story is only a mechanism to restrain and avoid other party/ies from voicing the right issue, as this ‘insult’ thing being used to humiliate.
Then its is now ‘self-importance’ could also credits and acted ‘insult’ role indirectly by performing biased, as the ‘direct insult’ actor/s are played.
.
Examples on this ‘indirect insult’ thing can be seeing very clearly happen at guardian newsblog everyday, not few but in many occasions, something straight forward logic idea deleted unreasonably, while rubbish ho hah are left untouched.
.
I want to give one example on a very quite important issue to-date in UK, which is about family institution and marriage, …. Those who question anything about reasoning of legalize ‘gay partnership’ as a ‘marriage’ was deleted. The argument that was it should be define differently as it is, but no question about right to make such of choice.
.
Here is its links,
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/12/19/on_the_site_today.html
.
two of deleted entry can be found here,

http://eyeswideshut.blogdrive.com/
..
So you as an ‘Educated Asian British’, may I have your opinion on this, - direct insult, - indirect insult, and family institutions.
thanks.

By Cimurai on Dec 22, 2005

wow sonia, you have managed to attract such a bunch of weirdos to your blog! ic seems like more of a prankster than anything else. I mean no one could seriously hold such downright stupid and self-contradictory views. I think he just enjoys winding people up, which is why I can’t blame people from the guardian for ignoring him, but feel sorry for anyone who take him seriously. the “fat-headed” comment though, is a new low for this chap - does make him look more like a childish moron than a provocateur or confused troll.

Got to hand it to him for his blog title though “Things are always in black and white, whether we like it or not…”
- hilarious . Just a few quick words on that, “things might be in black and white or there might be grey areas. whether you like it or not you are never going to know”. In human affairs its pretty obvious that whether there is some ultimate truth or not, humans don’t know it, so inconsistent information always exists and in practice all information is grey. Only an unquestioning fool thinks that everything is black and white and that he already knows the answer (oh sorry we are talking about Ayn Rand readers here). Reason is the path between premises and conclusions, that is the path between what we know, and what is self-evident from what we know. i.e. reason tells us nothing new, and if we know nothing reason will tell us nothing. Fine if you think reason is absolute (i don’t) but still what is black and what is white? This depends on your premises. If you don’t question your own premises then you are a fool. Many who dont like to question their own premises like to shroud their arguments in “rationality” and arguments of objectivity. Science is not objective, nor do the philosophers of science claim it to be. science may tend towards truth (if there is absolute truth). If science tends towards truth then this is because it attempts to account for empirical facts about how the world is observed to be, not because science uses some kind of rational deduction to arrive at a conclusion out of thin air. all our observation is through individual perception, therefore defacto science is not objective but an attempt to refine conjectures based on continued observation of phenomena across many instances.

IC’s blog posts on environmentalism, combine a complete disregard for the process of scientific consensus, with the belief that one can claim that global warming is not real without the need to offer evidence that. Strange to combine such obscure conspiracy theories with a belief in objectivism. Presumably everyone else is objectively wrong and he is objectively right. And then to add to the confusion he calls the environmentalists “polemical”. If there was a prize for causing most confusion it would have to go to IC! If there was a prize for using big words that contradict each other and not understanding them it would go to IC! Aren’t objectivists “polemical” IC? Don’t objectivists think polemic is the only way. duh.

http://www.anoopverma.blogspot.com/

By tom on Dec 22, 2005

Are you play ‘sensor’ this time Sonia?

By Cimurai on Dec 22, 2005

Tom, you are a fool.

“things are always in black and white”– this is a philosophic statement that only means that all humans must strive for values that are in black and white.

I repeat the concept of black and white applies only to ’strive for values’ or to a ‘code of virtue’. Not to anything else.

There can never be a value worth aspiring for that is good and evil at the same time. it has to be one or other.

By Bihari Babu on Dec 24, 2005

hi bihari babu, erm nice try … but if you are going to start laying down theories of moral value then I think you need to be somewhat clearer than that. To be absolutist about morals can be consistent if you take a “duty” based approach to morals rather than a “consequentialist” approach. For instance Kant said “will the maxim you would have become universal”. Therefore he said it is always wrong to lie since if everyone were to lie then no-one would be able to trust anything! Therefore he said it is a “categorical imperative” that we don’t lie. Kant would agree with you evidently. However such theories of morals evidently disregard effects in the real world. For instance, if I were in a situtation, such that if I lied I could prevent a massacre of thousands of people, thwart the plans of a tyrant to take over a democracy or whatever, was it still wrong or are there some other factors to take into account. In most theories of morals that attempt to seriously reflect what we mean by morals, there is at least some question of the consequences of our actions when deciding whether the effects are “good” or “bad”. Since of course we can only guess the consequences of our actions and cannot be sure of how effects will differ from case to case, then morality is a grey area in which we weigh up pro’s and con’s of various courses of actions. It would be NICE if it were and black and white, but its not, and to think otherwise is just wishful thinking or blissful ignorance.

I can understand such wishful thinking coming from someone who hails from the most corrupt state in the corrupt country of India…”if only no one would accept or give bribes then there would be no corruption and no need to keep bribing” but the reality of each individuals situation is of course much more pragmatic and game theoretic… “I am trying to do X which is a good thing, and I first need Y, in order to get Y then I must bribe someone”. Is it right or not? It is right because, and to the degree that, X is good, and it is wrong to the degree that one bribe contributes to the overall situation of corruption in which all people must bribe to get anywhere. How do you deal with these kind of situations with a “code of virtue” in which everything is black and white?

bihari babu no doubt would say that all bribes are absolutely bad, so he probably had to move out of Bihar to get anything done - this doesnt improve the situation in Bihar.

bihari babu I apologise for being offensive in my previous post, however the reason I got angry enough to address you, is that you claim to be making “philosophical” statements, without understanding the first thing about the philosophy of the subject areas you discuss e.g. philosophy of ethics, science and scientific methodology. try reading a range of these articles ( http://lgxserver.uniba.it/lei/filpol/filpole/indicere.htm ) if you want to be taken seriously in such debates.

By tom on Dec 29, 2005

Tom,
I was only ignoring you because you are too little to be noticed from my ivory tower. Grow up!
Kant for your information is the intellectual grandfather of every slimy little leftist around the world. That is why diehard communists like you love to prattle Kant. Because Kant’s whole BS about categorical imperitive hinges on denying reason.
If you look at the history of Europe, you will find that the rise of communism has been concomitant to rise of Kant’s influence. Hegel has based his works on Kant and Marx based his on Hegel’s. The riffraff called Stalin and Lenin based their concentration camps and murder squads on the theories of all the three scumbags- Kant, Hegel and Marx.

“Since of course we can only guess the consequences of our actions and cannot be sure of how effects will differ from case to case, then morality is a grey area in which we weigh up pro’s and con’s of various courses of actions. ”
This is typical Kant. Why? Look for yourself. Morality is not a grey area. Any action that causes upliftment for humanity is good. Any action that does not is bad. The earth and rest of the universe belongs to humans. Every action, every entity must serve the cause of humans. And that is the underlying basis of all morality.

By Bihari Babu on Jan 18, 2006

“ah what a shame - no response from our friend Bihari Babu. do you think he was scared off by Tom’s post? ”

————-
Sonia,
good to see that your blog is going gteat guns!

I am only tired of trying to refute again and yet again the same old cliche ridden arguments that imbecilic communists keep prattling everytime.

By Bihari Babu on Jan 18, 2006

be serious you piles

FAT is feminism
respect yourselves.

By girl on Apr 24, 2007