Cycling UK Forum

so to claim someone imperfect based on whatever is merely an opinion not an absolute.

But it is the majority opinion in our particular society and that is normally a good enough justification for using a term in common speech. The forum isnt a scientific paper requiring precise scientific standards of definition and references to sources for all assumptions made.

I would agree with pwa if I was making an appraisal of my body I would be using perfection in exactly the same way as he did. Like him I am happy for others not to give a damn about my unspoken appraisals of their perfection according to my standards.

reohn2 wrote:

pwa wrote:There is no need to "go off on one" just because I, as someone who is a bit overweight, regard being overweight as a physical imperfection. It is just that, along with many physical characteristics that we have. I deliberately used the word "imperfection", which is a very mild word implying nothing more than "something that makes you less that perfect". And that is just what it is. Remember I am talking about people who are "overweight", and the "over" part of that word does mean that it is other than perfect. We are, after all, discussing a cyclist who is described as being in the 20 stone bracket. I think my words were appropriate and sensitive, so I am surprised by your hypersensitive reaction. Nothing I said could reasonably lead you to think that I am the sort of person who regards teenage girls having a little belly fat as sub-optimal, or anything like that. I very much confine my definition of "overweight" to those of us who are incurring a health risk because of it, and that is what I mean by "bad".

I think what Vorpal is saying is by what standard do we measure 'imperfection' it's purely subjective by whoever is viewing whoever it is they're viewing ie; there's a certain TV personality who in my opinion is unattractive but a friend of mine practically swoons at the sight of her.
A saxophonist in certain Liverpool band I find extremely physically attractive but I overheard someone say she 'needed a good feed' and was a bit frightening was my unspoken thoughts on his opinion
So who's right ?
Perfection only exists within the mind of whoever it is assessing what or whoever it is they're assessing,and as Vorpal says that judgement can differ vastly in different societies,so to claim someone imperfect based on whatever is merely an opinion not an absolute.

I had already said that the "imperfection" I was referring to was about health, not some deviance from current fashionable shape. I thought I made that clear. My own body is a little imperfect because my belly is a little larger than I think is good for me. Conversely, I'd not think of other healthy body shape characteristics as imperfections. Remember, we are talking about a man who is considerably overweight, not just carrying a little more weight than the optimum.

We should be able to talk about problematic excess weight without it being seen as intolerance of body shapes that do not fit current fashion trends as seen on magazine covers.

I use the "old fashioned" definition of perfect, so even a few pounds of weight either way makes you imperfect. There are other terms for wider tolerances. Plenty of range between perfect and overweight, which isnt suitable for either of those terms.

reohn2 wrote:Thus rendering them imperfect?

Kinder eggs + cycling a recipe for imperfection on a disastrous scale waaaaaayyyyyyy too fragile,try to keep this thing whole and egg shaped

to be honest they're a little bit fiddly to get out of the packet too, and the biscuit frame can get a little jagged if you don't chew properly.

an eclaire seems better for consistency but i'm worried it might be a bit sticky.

re the eggs it's nice to know you're not worried about the toy. i'm sorted there!

re fat cyclists, there are no fat cyclists (there are tbf)... i give kudos for load be it on panniers or buttocks.

pwa wrote:There is no need to "go off on one" just because I, as someone who is a bit overweight, regard being overweight as a physical imperfection. It is just that, along with many physical characteristics that we have. I deliberately used the word "imperfection", which is a very mild word implying nothing more than "something that makes you less that perfect". And that is just what it is. Remember I am talking about people who are "overweight", and the "over" part of that word does mean that it is other than perfect. We are, after all, discussing a cyclist who is described as being in the 20 stone bracket. I think my words were appropriate and sensitive, so I am surprised by your hypersensitive reaction. Nothing I said could reasonably lead you to think that I am the sort of person who regards teenage girls having a little belly fat as sub-optimal, or anything like that. I very much confine my definition of "overweight" to those of us who are incurring a health risk because of it, and that is what I mean by "bad".

Sorry if that was a bit ranty. I guess my points got buried a bit.
The first thing is that your perception of being overweight doesn't mean that you are. We all have different body shapes and sizes, and natural tendancies. Using BMI or cultural perception to decide who is overweight and who is under is just silly. People who are 'overweight' are often healthier than those who are 'normal' weight. If you go by the population, 'normal' is a lot heavier tha the BMI tables would lead us to believe, anyway.

Secondly, you are welcome to believe that *you* are imperfect for being overweight, but please don't impose that opinion on others. How do you know where the line is between bad and good, or even if it is in the same place for everyone? An awful lot of 'facts' about weight and health are disputed by science, and a few are just plain wrong. Read the first article I linked above. The picture in the article is silly, but the words are sensible. Think about how they apply to yourself.

Lastly, I wasn't talking about girls with a bit of extra fat. I was talking about *anyone* who feels badly about their body for being fat, whether they are or not. Talking about it as 'bad' only makes people feel bad, and it may contribute to further weight gain. Perceiving yourself as 'bad' may get in the way achieving your own goals.
edit: I'm not trying to presume that you have problems in that regard, I'm just suggesting that if you do, poor self-image may contribute.

Vorpal wrote:

pwa wrote:There is no need to "go off on one" just because I, as someone who is a bit overweight, regard being overweight as a physical imperfection. It is just that, along with many physical characteristics that we have. I deliberately used the word "imperfection", which is a very mild word implying nothing more than "something that makes you less that perfect". And that is just what it is. Remember I am talking about people who are "overweight", and the "over" part of that word does mean that it is other than perfect. We are, after all, discussing a cyclist who is described as being in the 20 stone bracket. I think my words were appropriate and sensitive, so I am surprised by your hypersensitive reaction. Nothing I said could reasonably lead you to think that I am the sort of person who regards teenage girls having a little belly fat as sub-optimal, or anything like that. I very much confine my definition of "overweight" to those of us who are incurring a health risk because of it, and that is what I mean by "bad".

Sorry if that was a bit ranty. I guess my points got buried a bit.
The first thing is that your perception of being overweight doesn't mean that you are. We all have different body shapes and sizes, and natural tendancies. Using BMI or cultural perception to decide who is overweight and who is under is just silly. People who are 'overweight' are often healthier than those who are 'normal' weight. If you go by the population, 'normal' is a lot heavier tha the BMI tables would lead us to believe, anyway.

Secondly, you are welcome to believe that *you* are imperfect for being overweight, but please don't impose that opinion on others. How do you know where the line is between bad and good, or even if it is in the same place for everyone? An awful lot of 'facts' about weight and health are disputed by science, and a few are just plain wrong. Read the first article I linked above. The picture in the article is silly, but the words are sensible. Think about how they apply to yourself.

Lastly, I wasn't talking about girls with a bit of extra fat. I was talking about *anyone* who feels badly about their body for being fat, whether they are or not. Talking about it as 'bad' only makes people feel bad, and it may contribute to further weight gain. Perceiving yourself as 'bad' may get in the way achieving your own goals.
edit: I'm not trying to presume that you have problems in that regard, I'm just suggesting that if you do, poor self-image may contribute.

I'm sure our views on body image issues are very similar. But I believe we all look at people who are extremely overweight and see their weight as a potential problem. My own excess weight is a trivial matter that I am aware of but don't let it worry me too much.

One of my other points was that I admire genuinely overweight people (20 stone in the OP) who don't try to hide their bodies. In a culture in which thin is often portrayed as the ideal I find that a sign of a strong, confident personality.

1.89 meters ... 125 KG .... i wear lycra bib shorts because they are comfortable .... weres the baggy bib touring shorts ?
I ride 200 miles a month on average .... if you don't like big people ...... stick to fashion mags with their "Heroin Chic" models and leave us cyclists alone !!

at least big is areo. i lost a lot of weight when i started cycling and now everythings a bit flappy.

I console myself with the thought that I descend quicker than thin cyclists. Gravity has its uses. My son is as light as a feather and climbs quickly, but he drops back on descents.

1. Everyone is physically imperfect, but it is obvious somebody as large as 20 stone is somewhat more physically imperfect than most. What is wrong in saying as much?

2. Beyond any cultural bias, being 20 stone in weight is grossly (meaning in large way, before the censors get too mad) obese with significant implications for health.

3. Nobody is perfect. It is far better everyone accept this truth than demand that people not use imperfect to describe themselves or others.

4. The person who eats 2500 calories of fruit and veg, takes ample exercise and still weighs 20 stone probably exists only in argument, as in "what about this extreme outlier, this person exists (purportedly), therefore orient your language around them, rather than what is common or typical". Surely anyone following the diet and exercise regime described will only be 20 stone in weight for a week, as their weight would continously fall to a lower and healthier amount, until they weighed a good 7 stone less than 20 stone. No such person truly exists and is only ever brought forth as a tool to derail arguments and police language.

5. What benefit is their in treating adults like infants? Of course it is bad to be carrying an extra 6 or 7 stone in unnecessary weight. If we deny this, then we deny adults the means by which to fix themselves. Negative association works wonderfully as a technique for controlling oneself. Does this mean we take every opportunity to pour scorn on people? No, it does not; does it mean we say it is "perfect" that they weigh 20 stone and tuck in massive cream eclairs, no, I don't think it does.

Props to the guy for being out getting exercise. Props for being carefree enough to wear lycra at his size (though I don't always think anti-social behaviour is positive, there has always been room for eccentrics in Britain. Though, if everyone disregards norms it is no longer eccentric, is it?).

No props for tucking into the eclair though and no props for making mountains out of molehills regarding perfectly sensible language.