Being a Fat Ass is Now Protected by Law

Off Topic
42

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This type of thread seems to come up on a regular basis in GAL.

I will reiterate what I have said in previous threads: I believe people who are extremely obese to the point of disability suffer from a food addiction (most of the time). Becoming 300lbs+ is HARD and takes a lot of work for most people.

I have no problem with this piece of legislation.

[/quote]

Sorry, this is retarded.[/quote]

x2. Is reducing activity and increasing consumption of ding-dongs hard? I’m confused unless your sarcasm flew right over my head.[/quote]

Uhhhh… Yeah it is hard when you’re ADDICTED. That is why I used that term. It’s easy to say from your end just like It’s easy for a non-smoker to tell a smoker to “simply stop smoking”

I’m not talking about overweight or severely overweight people, but the far end of the spectrum.[/quote]

Yeah, I doubt it. I went up to 310, I’m down to 270. I ate all the time, I still eat all the time, I’m addicted to food. I love food, sometimes I get mad when I have to eat shit food, some people might even say I’m a glutton. I tell them to STFU, but guess what I’m losing weight.

Even if it is “hard” addiction is not covered by the ADA, being addicted to food is something that the person does to themselves.

43

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This type of thread seems to come up on a regular basis in GAL.

I will reiterate what I have said in previous threads: I believe people who are extremely obese to the point of disability suffer from a food addiction (most of the time). Becoming 300lbs+ is HARD and takes a lot of work for most people.

I have no problem with this piece of legislation.

[/quote]

Sorry, this is retarded.[/quote]

x2. Is reducing activity and increasing consumption of ding-dongs hard? I’m confused unless your sarcasm flew right over my head.[/quote]

Uhhhh… Yeah it is hard when you’re ADDICTED. That is why I used that term. It’s easy to say from your end just like It’s easy for a non-smoker to tell a smoker to “simply stop smoking”

I’m not talking about overweight or severely overweight people, but the far end of the spectrum.[/quote]

I didnt read through the entire thread, but this is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. So should someone who kills people in a DUI get off because they are extremely low bottom alcoholics? Addiction is a treatable disease, its just treated oddly, but to excuse people of responsibility from their actions is just twenty steps in the wrong direction.

44

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This type of thread seems to come up on a regular basis in GAL.

I will reiterate what I have said in previous threads: I believe people who are extremely obese to the point of disability suffer from a food addiction (most of the time). Becoming 300lbs+ is HARD and takes a lot of work for most people.

I have no problem with this piece of legislation.

[/quote]

Sorry, this is retarded.[/quote]

x2. Is reducing activity and increasing consumption of ding-dongs hard? I’m confused unless your sarcasm flew right over my head.[/quote]

Uhhhh… Yeah it is hard when you’re ADDICTED. That is why I used that term. It’s easy to say from your end just like It’s easy for a non-smoker to tell a smoker to “simply stop smoking”

I’m not talking about overweight or severely overweight people, but the far end of the spectrum.[/quote]

Yeah, I doubt it. I went up to 310, I’m down to 270. I ate all the time, I still eat all the time, I’m addicted to food. I love food, sometimes I get mad when I have to eat shit food, some people might even say I’m a glutton. I tell them to STFU, but guess what I’m losing weight.

Even if it is “hard” addiction is not covered by the ADA, being addicted to food is something that the person does to themselves.[/quote]

I knew there was another reason to like you, the heavist I got to was 305. Now sitting at 215 and my lowest was down to 174. Keep it up man you can do it.

45

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This type of thread seems to come up on a regular basis in GAL.

I will reiterate what I have said in previous threads: I believe people who are extremely obese to the point of disability suffer from a food addiction (most of the time). Becoming 300lbs+ is HARD and takes a lot of work for most people.

I have no problem with this piece of legislation.

[/quote]

Sorry, this is retarded.[/quote]

x2. Is reducing activity and increasing consumption of ding-dongs hard? I’m confused unless your sarcasm flew right over my head.[/quote]

Uhhhh… Yeah it is hard when you’re ADDICTED. That is why I used that term. It’s easy to say from your end just like It’s easy for a non-smoker to tell a smoker to “simply stop smoking”

I’m not talking about overweight or severely overweight people, but the far end of the spectrum.[/quote]

I didnt read through the entire thread, but this is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. So should someone who kills people in a DUI get off because they are extremely low bottom alcoholics? Addiction is a treatable disease, its just treated oddly, but to excuse people of responsibility from their actions is just twenty steps in the wrong direction.[/quote]

LOL what? You’re comparing an alcoholic killing people while driving drunk to an obese person’s food addiction? You can’t be serious. I didn’t say it wasn’t treatable, just they shouldn’t be discriminated against in POSITIONS THEY CAN ACTUALLY DO. If people plan to abuse this legislation that is another story.

46

Im comparing people who suffer from the safe disease, if you excuse one of them then surely others who suffer from should be given equal treatment right? So, how do you justify creating a position to keep a fatass around but fire a guy who shows up hungover too often? I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t agree with it man. On your last sentence, I am sure that people will abuse it, thats how our political system works.

47

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This type of thread seems to come up on a regular basis in GAL.

I will reiterate what I have said in previous threads: I believe people who are extremely obese to the point of disability suffer from a food addiction (most of the time). Becoming 300lbs+ is HARD and takes a lot of work for most people.

I have no problem with this piece of legislation.

[/quote]

Sorry, this is retarded.[/quote]
Super duper retarded.

48

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Im comparing people who suffer from the safe disease, if you excuse one of them then surely others who suffer from should be given equal treatment right? So, how do you justify creating a position to keep a fatass around but fire a guy who shows up hungover too often? I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t agree with it man. On your last sentence, I am sure that people will abuse it, thats how our political system works.[/quote]

If an alcoholic is too hungover to perform their job duties I don’t disagree they should not be given special treatment. But does an obese person’s bodyweight prevent him or her from working most white collar office jobs?

From my initial understanding of the OP, I was expecting reasonable accommodations - a special chair to support their type of bodyweight, a workstation close to the elevator, etc.

49

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This type of thread seems to come up on a regular basis in GAL.

I will reiterate what I have said in previous threads: I believe people who are extremely obese to the point of disability suffer from a food addiction (most of the time). Becoming 300lbs+ is HARD and takes a lot of work for most people.

I have no problem with this piece of legislation.

[/quote]

Sorry, this is retarded.[/quote]

x2. Is reducing activity and increasing consumption of ding-dongs hard? I’m confused unless your sarcasm flew right over my head.[/quote]

Uhhhh… Yeah it is hard when you’re ADDICTED. That is why I used that term. It’s easy to say from your end just like It’s easy for a non-smoker to tell a smoker to “simply stop smoking”

I’m not talking about overweight or severely overweight people, but the far end of the spectrum.[/quote]

I didnt read through the entire thread, but this is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. So should someone who kills people in a DUI get off because they are extremely low bottom alcoholics? Addiction is a treatable disease, its just treated oddly, but to excuse people of responsibility from their actions is just twenty steps in the wrong direction.[/quote]

LOL what? You’re comparing an alcoholic killing people while driving drunk to an obese person’s food addiction? You can’t be serious. I didn’t say it wasn’t treatable, just they shouldn’t be discriminated against in POSITIONS THEY CAN ACTUALLY DO. If people plan to abuse this legislation that is another story.[/quote]

There are plenty of people who could satisfactorily complete the tasks that their job requires them to do while drunk. (or while high on weed, coke, etc…) It doesn’t change the fact that if they show up to a job interview drunk (or high) they’re not going to be hired.

50

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Im comparing people who suffer from the safe disease, if you excuse one of them then surely others who suffer from should be given equal treatment right? So, how do you justify creating a position to keep a fatass around but fire a guy who shows up hungover too often? I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t agree with it man. On your last sentence, I am sure that people will abuse it, thats how our political system works.[/quote]

If an alcoholic is too hungover to perform their job duties I don’t disagree they should not be given special treatment. But does an obese person’s bodyweight prevent him or her from working most white collar office jobs?

From my initial understanding of the OP, I was expecting reasonable accommodations - a special chair to support their type of bodyweight, a workstation close to the elevator, etc.

[/quote]

Im with you man, but as I understand it (and it definitely wouldn’t be the first time I misunderstood something) a person is unable to be fired is their weight is the reason they cannot perform their job. Like the example DJHT gave of a guy who works up high and over time eats himself out of that job, his company needs to find a position to give him in order to not fire him and open themselves up to being sued- and that is a crock of shit to me.

51

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

Im with you man, but as I understand it (and it definitely wouldn’t be the first time I misunderstood something) a person is unable to be fired is their weight is the reason they cannot perform their job. Like the example DJHT gave of a guy who works up high and over time eats himself out of that job, his company needs to find a position to give him in order to not fire him and open themselves up to being sued- and that is a crock of shit to me.[/quote]

And such is what happens in the real world. Incompetant fat people will now have a “can’t fire me” card, because (correct or not) they will sue for discrimination once fired.

There are also other things that willl happen — they will have to be given special fat people chairs in airlines and restaurants, just like you have handicapped parking spots.

The fat people will use the handicapped spots.

You will have lawsuits by fat people against mom-and-pop stores because the isle are too narrow for their fat ass to fit through, etc.

It’s a real can of worms.

++++++++++

Hm, I think I should sue this hotel for not having a Kosher restaurant, let alone meals with high protein content.

No, wait, look, I brought my own food for four days because I am not a fucking cry baby expecting the world to take care of my unique needs.

Whew! What a relief.

52

Jewbacca you are my new Fav. Fist bump.

53

[quote]DJHT wrote:
Jewbacca you are my new Fav. Fist bump. [/quote]

Texans and Israelis have a lot in common.

For example, we both wear our hats indoors, all the time, and no one knows why.

54

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
Jewbacca you are my new Fav. Fist bump. [/quote]

Texans and Israelis have a lot in common.

For example, we both wear our hats indoors, all the time, and no one knows why.[/quote]

Hahahahahahaha, and we both like dark skinned women. :slight_smile:

55

So is this policy giving government consent and justification to instant gratification?

56

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
So is this policy giving government consent and justification to instant gratification?[/quote]

That and the whole no child left behind thinking. We are all winners.

Question:

Did Fat Gingers eat their souls?

57

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This type of thread seems to come up on a regular basis in GAL.

I will reiterate what I have said in previous threads: I believe people who are extremely obese to the point of disability suffer from a food addiction (most of the time). Becoming 300lbs+ is HARD and takes a lot of work for most people.

I have no problem with this piece of legislation.

[/quote]

Sorry, this is retarded.[/quote]

x2. Is reducing activity and increasing consumption of ding-dongs hard? I’m confused unless your sarcasm flew right over my head.[/quote]

Uhhhh… Yeah it is hard when you’re ADDICTED. That is why I used that term. It’s easy to say from your end just like It’s easy for a non-smoker to tell a smoker to “simply stop smoking”

I’m not talking about overweight or severely overweight people, but the far end of the spectrum.[/quote]

Yeah, I doubt it. I went up to 310, I’m down to 270. I ate all the time, I still eat all the time, I’m addicted to food. I love food, sometimes I get mad when I have to eat shit food, some people might even say I’m a glutton. I tell them to STFU, but guess what I’m losing weight.

Even if it is “hard” addiction is not covered by the ADA, being addicted to food is something that the person does to themselves.[/quote]

I knew there was another reason to like you, the heavist I got to was 305. Now sitting at 215 and my lowest was down to 174. Keep it up man you can do it. [/quote]

I had an advantage, I’m 6’2-6’3, plus when I went to 310 I was lifting three times a week, and the rest of the time sitting on my ass and eating. I had been rejected at the time and stopped playing any kind of sport, so it was pretty easy to balloon up to 310 in about 11 months.

58

Do both of you like guns? Because pa boys like guns.

59

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
This type of thread seems to come up on a regular basis in GAL.

I will reiterate what I have said in previous threads: I believe people who are extremely obese to the point of disability suffer from a food addiction (most of the time). Becoming 300lbs+ is HARD and takes a lot of work for most people.

I have no problem with this piece of legislation.

[/quote]

Sorry, this is retarded.[/quote]

x2. Is reducing activity and increasing consumption of ding-dongs hard? I’m confused unless your sarcasm flew right over my head.[/quote]

Uhhhh… Yeah it is hard when you’re ADDICTED. That is why I used that term. It’s easy to say from your end just like It’s easy for a non-smoker to tell a smoker to “simply stop smoking”

I’m not talking about overweight or severely overweight people, but the far end of the spectrum.[/quote]

Yeah, I doubt it. I went up to 310, I’m down to 270. I ate all the time, I still eat all the time, I’m addicted to food. I love food, sometimes I get mad when I have to eat shit food, some people might even say I’m a glutton. I tell them to STFU, but guess what I’m losing weight.

Even if it is “hard” addiction is not covered by the ADA, being addicted to food is something that the person does to themselves.[/quote]

I knew there was another reason to like you, the heavist I got to was 305. Now sitting at 215 and my lowest was down to 174. Keep it up man you can do it. [/quote]

I had an advantage, I’m 6’2-6’3, plus when I went to 310 I was lifting three times a week, and the rest of the time sitting on my ass and eating. I had been rejected at the time and stopped playing any kind of sport, so it was pretty easy to balloon up to 310 in about 11 months.[/quote]

I am only 5’9" with my boots on 5’10". So you suck cause you had an advatage. :slight_smile: Mine was grad HS already was a father, started working as a RT and going to school. No lifting, working out anything, ate everything and drank 6-8 Dr. Peppers a day for 14 hour shifts. My pants looked like they were made for special needs kids.

60

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Do both of you like guns? Because pa boys like guns.[/quote]

We are from the south so yes, guns are part of our life. I am not a nut like some people, it is not an extention of my dick. Its a tool effective but a tool.

61

I like all kinds of guns. But, not as much as I like food.