It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Banning the word 'fatty' is an insidious attempt at politically correct thought control

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by ollncasino
reply to post by ollncasino

It's strange that new restrictions on what we are allowed to say always come clothed in the disguise of 'protecting' people.

Rather interestingly, it isn't the people supposedly in need of protection who call for further restrictions, but rather third parties who take it upon themselves to be offended for others.

Jonah Goldberg explains this phenomenon in his bood, "Liberal Fascism".

Finally, since we must have a working definition of fascism, here is mine: Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism. — P.23
edit on 13-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by onedering

Calling someone a fatty is no different to making some kind of racist comment. I welcome such changes in society. I hope to see the rest of the world follow.

How about calling stupid people thick? Or short people short? Or tall people tall? Or fat people fat?

Should they all be a crimes in your vision for the future?

A statement of fact is not the same as a racist comment.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by ollncasino

I'm opposed to bullying on principal, but not at the expense of free speech. And it's not fair to label a full third or more of Americans (where obesity is at it's apex) as "fatty", but then again, just knowing that the possibility of hearing the word fatty might be sufficient to whip them all into shape, which is in their own best interest, for health and happiness which everyone deserves.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:50 PM

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by onedering

Calling someone a fatty is no different to making some kind of racist comment. I welcome such changes in society. I hope to see the rest of the world follow.

How about calling stupid people thick?

If that's your dog and if owners are like their dogs then you could be said to be rather thick headed, perhaps.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:52 PM
I've always laughed at western social idiocy, especially american social idiocy, and I always found that western people are really, but really, feeble, weak, and dumb...

"Oh! I was teased, I must kill myself" ... "I'm being called fat! That's soooo wrong!"... WTF!?!?!?!?!

Do you all want to know the secret why people in the west are so #ing weak? It's actually not so much a secret as it is logic... It's people (usually famous people) who say things like this to children "You are beautiful no matter what!"... "It doesn't matter how you look!"... "You're not fat! You're just a little more 'voluptuous' "...

Instead of disillusioning people, instead of lying to children, explain to them the truth about the world... Stop sheltering them like they're in a Level IV virological laboratory. Stop bull#ting them... Tell them that, yes! this world is cruel and people will tell you things you may not like to hear...

Instead of protecting kids from the world, expose them to it and explain it to them. And a little honesty from parents doesn't hurt either... "Honey, don't you think you should perhaps play outside a little more often?"... "Dear, would you like to go for a walk with me a few times a week?"...

Same goes for bullying... When I was a kid, we had bullies... Nobody killed themselves over it, you either let it happen, or you fought back and were left alone... Today: "Oh! They said bad words to me! I will go and drink bleach now..." Come on! WTF is this world coming to?


Maybe then we wouldn't have idiots coming out with stupid law ideas which make no sense...

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Muckster
People are hypocrites...

The government says it wants to stop hate speech or words that cause offense...

"Arrgh they are taking away our freedoms, we are losing free speech, we are oppressed"

Muslim man says he wants Sharia law for the west...

"How dear he say that in this country, it shouldn’t be allowed, why does the government allow this?"

Seems that we all want free speech for our own views, and restricted speech for others!


Unfortunately, for your argument, there is a difference between calling someone fat, and overriding the US Constitution with Sharia Law(things like allowing stoning or amputations).

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West. "There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily," says Steven A. Cook, CFR senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies. Sharia's influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity.

As you can see with Sharia Law, the implications are great for our system of law.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

If that's your dog and if owners are like their dogs then you could be said to be rather thick headed, perhaps.

I can be very thick and stupid at times.

Should someone who calls me thick or stupid be guilty of a criminal offense?

I don't think so, but a number of people, with their own agenda, may take it upon themselves to be offended on my behalf.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:12 PM

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:23 PM
Just a reminder, this is the UK and not the United States. The UK does have some freedom of speech, but does have some restrictions as follows:

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[60] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[61][

62] incitement,[63] incitement to racial hatred,[64] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[63][65] glorifying terrorism,[66][67] collection or possession of information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[68][69] treason including imagining the death of the monarch,[70] sedition,[70] obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[71] defamation,[72] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[73][74] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[74] scandalizing the court by criticizing or murmuring judges,[74][75] time, manner, and place restrictions,[76] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. However, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 guarantees freedom of speech (within institutions of further education and institutions of higher education) as long as it is within the law (see section 43 at UK defamation law may have recently experienced a considerable liberalizing effect as a result of the ruling in Jameel v Wall Street Journal in October 2006. A ruling of the House of Lords—the then highest court of appeal—revived the so-called Reynolds Defense, in which journalism undertaken in the public interest shall enjoy a complete defense against a libel suit.

Conditions for the defense include the right of reply for potential claimants, and that the balance of the piece was fair in view of what the writer knew at the time. The ruling removed the awkward—and hitherto binding—conditions of being able to describe the publisher as being under a duty to publish the material and the public as having a definite interest in receiving it. The original House of Lords judgment in Reynolds was unclear and held 3–2; whereas Jameel was unanimous and resounding. Lord Hoffman's words, in particular, for how the judge at first instance had applied Reynolds so narrowly, were very harsh.

Hoffman LJ made seven references to Eady J, none of them favorable. He twice described his thinking as unrealistic and compared his language to "the jargon of the old Soviet Union." The Video Recordings Act 2010 requires most video recordings and some video games offered for sale in the United Kingdom to display a classification supplied by the BBFC. There are no set regulations as to what cannot be depicted in order to gain a classification as each scene is considered in the context of the wider intentions of the work; however images that could aid, encourage, or are a result of the committing of a crime, along with sustained and graphic images of torture or sexual abuse are the most likely to be refused.

The objectionable material may be cut by the distributor in order to receive a classification, but with some works it may be deemed that no amount of cuts would be able to make the work suitable for classification, effectively banning that title from sale in the country. Recordings refused a classification by the BBFC may still be shown in cinemas providing the local authority, from which a cinema must have a license to operate, will permit them.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

I agree with you actually....people should be able to stand up to bullies.....and I shared earlier in this thread an experience I had with a bully calling me and my friend names as a child.....but things have gotten out of wack, and unless physical harm is envolved, I don't want the government involved in what we can say.....and let me make it clear...I absolutely do NOT endorse being cruel to people for any physical attribute, have known many wonderful people in all shapes, sizes, colors and sexual orientations.....but at the end of the "feelings" belong to me.

I do think much of this is a "maturity" issue...and I resent being told like children how to act and speak, especially by the same people I believe have an "agenda" to cause and profit from people being unhealthy, and I agree with what another poster said, when I was growing up it was very unusual to see "fat" kids...I'm in my 40' this happened quickly.....

I want to share one more point, that I think is relevant in how kids "should" teach each other.....even if it is hurtful....when I was 12 years old I tried to act "cool" infront of my friends big brother and started talking like a sailor, I wanted to show how grown-up I was...he was probably about 15 to 16....he took me aside and told me..."do you know how stupid and un-ladylike you just sounded" it hurt me to the "core" at the time...but I learned a BIG lesson....he taught me a life lesson about the power of words, and gave me insight on how to become a woman of least I tried......

Anyways interesting thread...we have several issues going on here....Love that about ATS...connecting the dots..

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by Laykilla

Apparently you missed those tid bits. The MP's conducted the study, they wrote the report, and here they are saying it's IN the report.

I said you haven't read the report and you said...

I did read the report, the report very specifically states that calling someone fat could become a hate crime.

You also stated this >>

I've been a member here considerably longer than you, and not once have I lied, nor participated in a thread without reading it in it's entirety first. I actually pride myself on that fact.

And then dug yourself deeper with this >>>

You ARE wrong, and as such -- I deserve an apology. I won't get one, because it's beneath you, but what ever -- we both know the score here.

I've read the report and have it on my HD...pick a page and I'll post it for you. 'Hate crime' isn't in there. 'Crime' is mentioned once. So I guess you remain a liar and have not read the report, but hey, it's just a word right?

As apologies go, I apologise if my replies to you have been stronger than I intended.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:38 PM
Vocabulary has been losing its meaning for a long time now because of political correctness.

A nice example would be not-guilty rather than innocent. It is almost taken for granted you "are guilty" until proven otherwise, whereas it used to be "innocent till proven guilty".

The establishment seems to like confusing people.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:40 PM
A long time ago, doctors used to be able to just tell their patients, look.... you're too fat. Lose some weight. Lose the weight or you can get really sick and die.

But!! somewhere in the late 80's, doctors were told.... no, don't talk to your patients like this. Don't tell them they are too fat. Don't harass them about weight issues. This is what keeps patients from wanting to get health care and... it hurts their feelings.

So most doctors stopped talking to their patient about weight issues, unless the patient brought it up and doctors were trained in medical school to be "sensitive" toward obese patients.

We need to go back to where doctors can tell their patients they need to lose weight. Period. I remember going to an old old doctor once when I was out of town for strep throat.... and he told me straight up, you have strep throat, oh and you could stand to drop 30 lbs too. We need doctors like this to stand up to their patients and tell them to lose weight when they need to.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:43 PM
It's not racist to call someone fat, it's just rude. Even if it is the truth. What is gross is the endless headless fatty pictures that news circuits use. That's rude too.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:58 PM
sick of seeing fat people on tv having a cry about being victimized cause their fat. here is a thought why don't ya do some exercise!!! or eat a salad instead of shoving transfat soaked crap into your bloated pasty food hole ya call a face and dont give me that nonsense about "it's my glands " yeah your glands!! well compensate for it. i dont think ive ever seen a picture of a fat person in a concentration camp "we 'ave bin trying commandant but he von't lose vait he says its his glands" lol. i see ya all palming food into ya faces when your stopped at the lights, guess what, ya dont have to buy candy just cause ya stopped for petrol. If you are going to CHOOSE to eat bad food CHOOSE to not exercise then CHOOSE to shut up and stop complaining about being a butter ball.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:00 PM
I always think it must be a pretty fun day at work for a journalist when they are sent out to get fatty footage.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Vocabulary has been losing its meaning for a long time now because of political correctness.

A nice example would be not-guilty rather than innocent. It is almost taken for granted you "are guilty" until proven otherwise, whereas it used to be "innocent till proven guilty".

The establishment seems to like confusing people.

What a GREAT example.....and off topic a bit.....on every "front" we are being found "guilty"....being hurtful to people is not cool at all...mostly kids doing it, least outside of ruthless greedy corporations.....and I can't think of a better place to take BACK our freedom and rights then teaching our kids to be healthy , brave and kind.......and giving them the health, and knowledge to be happy......

LOL....thank God we didn't have FB when I was kid....I can't imagine every stupid thing I ever did as a teenager that would be "documented" for the rest of my life.......and I was a pretty good your babies folks, especially from age 12 to 17.....sorry, little mommy advice....♥

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by ollncasino

2 + 2 = 5

seeing the truth & speaking the truth

seems to be taking a step foreword

toward being illegal.

the future ministry of truth will be pleased.

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:10 PM
Did they get this idea from that new southpark episode , or visa versa..? If you dont wanna be called fat, then knock off some of that fat fatty..

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by ollncasino

Being fat is a choice, albeit a passive one. There are VERY rare cases of people who are fat for medical reasons. But that is very few and very far between.

Most people are fat simply because of carb load. If they would stop eating so many carbs (especially in cionjunction with fats) they would lose weight.

There is a way out of obesity. I found it. Many others have found it. Yes, you have to sacrifice a little...but you don't have to go hungry. If you are fat it is your choice. There is no hate crime there ("hate crime" is the stupidest thing I have ever heard).

Having said that, I am not nor have I ever been insulted by being called "fat". I am not really fat now, but when I was it didn't bother me. I don't know why it bothers others so much. THere is a social miscommunication going on here. One of the biggest Google searches is for big women. Men seem to prefer them, on the whole (I know I do).

If England bans name calling, I will laugh at anyone calling them a 'free country".

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in