At the center of modern-day conversations is obesity and fat shaming; Michael Hobbes proves to be a disruptive force with his article ‘Everything You Know About Obesity Is Wrong,’ which brings into question many lies people have come to take for granted as truths. As we begin the critical analysis process, our goal is to determine what Hobbes meant by his argument and identify its effectiveness. At the same time, we pay our attention to Charlotte Markey’s counter-narrative on Hobbes within “Everything You Know About Obesity Is Not Wrong.” (Hobbes, 2018) This essay analyzes these disparate views in detail, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their argumentation, investigating the methods used by each author, and working out potential logical fallacies that may weaken the credibility of suggested perspectives. Finally, an analysis of Hobbes and Markey’s contributions to the discourse on fat shaming and obesity offers a better understanding that goes beyond just simplistic arguments, paving the way for more critical discussions.
In analyzing the obesity discourse, Michael Hobbes has provided an interesting critique of popular cultural beliefs that surround overweight people. His argument based on undermining common-sense notions of weight and health is supported by a number of studies along with anecdotal evidence challenging the establishment of assumptions about the causes and implications of obesity (Hobbes, 2018). Hobbes especially finds a fault in the oversimplifications of societal discussions of obesity, where people believe that “calories out and calories fail to represent weight control (Hobbs 2018). However, it is crucial to note that Hobbes’ attempt at challenging the establishment by venturing into scientific research and denouncing weight as the major defining factor of health deserves some credit. We see that he incorporates some expert opinion to supplement his argument, for example, Dr Matheson’s point of view. This refutation brings to light the significance of recognizing Hobbes’ efforts to disprove simplified approaches towards obesity while laying the ground for a much more inclusive analysis, which considers different views such as those voiced by Charlotte Markey.
Hobbes also continues to speak on society’s propensity to blame and stigmatize people for their weight. He gives convincing data, as he says that “Occurring with hypertension, binge eating and other types of psychological distresses Weight discrimination is also associated with a lower life expectancy.” (Hobbes, 2018). The author makes the issue more relatable to a larger audience through anecdotal evidence. Through his examples of personal stories that relate to individuals who were discriminated against due to their weight, Hobbes reinforces the appeal emotionally. He paints the societal repercussions of fat shaming by saying, “We love justifying our decisions with that ‘obesity is unhealthy’ message but I call bullshit. You don’t give a shit about my health.” (Hobbes, 2018) Using this personal element, Hobbes says that you care about your appearance. Hobbes elaborates a meticulous analysis of the currently existing societal constructions about obesity. With the help of studies and anecdotal evidence, he questions prevailing beliefs and commands a rethinking of ignorant views regarding weight in health (Hobbes, 2018). Through the use of logical and emotional appeals, Hobbes successfully merges emotions with rationality; he makes a persuasive argument for considering obesity from various perspectives.
In response to Michael Hobbes, Charlotte Markey uses the technique that does not include complete opposition and addresses selected statements agreeing with others. This balanced position adds to the more even representation of the complicated theme of obesity. Markey acknowledges the colors of grey in reality and shies away from a polarized view. To be specific, she addresses Hobbes’ legitimacy in generating relevant questions by stating that the proper obesity analysis should not limit itself to a societal approach and must include personal factors as well (Markey and Markey 15). The perceptive method used by Markey further supports her effort in the constant investigation of how different factors are interacting within obesity discourse and, therefore, enrichment perspective toward discussion with more accuracy. It seems that the motivation behind Markey’s reaction is a sincere attempt to avoid possible mistakes in Hobbes’s analysis. She does not simply disregard Hobbes’ arguments but critically engages with them. In addition, Markey shows intellectual honesty by citing Hobbes’s well-reasoned arguments yet pointing out areas that might need further clarification. This is seen in the statement, “Although crucial, Hobbes’ focus on societal norms must also be complemented by individual autonomy as well a biological influence to understand obesity” (Markey, C & Markey, P 2011). Lawmaker Markey, accordingly, contributes to the constructive debate of obesity via his answer in a bid to help expand issues covered within such conversation.
The direct quotes from Markey’s article are evidence of her nuanced stance and dedication to a complex approach. For example, she states, “It is very easy to give an oversimplified view of obesity, but we must avoid such temptations and get into the depths of what defines it” (Markey, C & Markey, P 2011). This is what Markey’s central thesis boils down to advocating for a sophisticated viewpoint. With this type of croquet incorporated into the reading, one can observe Markey’s perseverance in dealing with the complexities of the city debate. Markey’s reply to Hobbes not only reflects a nuanced approach but also continues the discussion on obesity. With careful agreement and counterarguments, she tries to provide a more balanced and comprehensive description (Markey, C & Markey, P 2011). Markey rightly focused on the possibility of missed oversights in Hobbes’ argument, adding a valuable observation to the nuanced understanding of obesity discourse.
Michael Hobbes and Charlotte Markey, both participants in the debate around obesity, take quite the opposite approaches. Hobbes takes a bold and aggressive approach to attacking the current trends of cultural beliefs about fattening. The argumentative nature of his writing, a tone of démarche -provokes readers to reconsider established positions. Hobbes rationalizes such urgency by pointing out the danger resulting from the widespread misunderstanding of obesity. According to him, a frontal attack on established ideals is required to initiate the rethinking process within society. This approach is designed to break existing stereotypes and encourage a closer look at this complicated problem. According to Hobbes, it is only through such an aggressive frame of thinking that the conversation on obesity can advance toward a more precise and sophisticated interpretation without being confined by mainstream perceptions or attitudes. Contrastingly, Markey rationally responds to Hobbes. Instead of directly challenging established beliefs, she navigates a middle way that appreciates the complications surrounding obesity but still challenges the assumptions. The author tries to find a middle ground, appreciating the fact that this understanding should not be too generalized (Markey, C & Markey, P 2011). Her measured tone implies that she intentionally tries to involve readers in a rational reevaluation of their viewpoints without driving them away.
As Hobbes’ critique rallies against the status quo fiercely, Markey adopts a timider approach that seems aimed at creating wider discourse. However, Hobbes appears to promote the paradigm shift, while Markey promotes recalibration in continuity. These perspectives provide equally important insights into obesity discussions, with Hobbes challenging a complete paradigm shift and Markey promoting inclusive dialogue that reflects various viewpoints. The polarization of their methods depicts the wider divergence to which obesity discourse extends, pointing out that this is a complex issue. Within the sphere of persuasive writing, logos, pathos, and ethos play a vital role in presenting an effective argument. With the help of logos, Michael Hobbes uses a strong base for logical reasoning in his article “Everything You Know About Obesity Is Wrong.” Hobbes supports his arguments with a number of scientific studies and evidence. He does not simply weave statistics or expert opinions into his narrative but provides the factual scaffold to bolster the credibility of his argument. The calculated use of logos in this instance not only adds persuasiveness to Hobbes’ assertions but also establishes himself as an expert on the issue. On the contrary, Charlotte Markey enjoys a unique approach to that when she uses an emotional element in her response, “Everything You Know About Obesity Is Not Wrong.” She does not simply rely on empirical data; Markely introduces another dimension of pathos into dialogue. By intertwining personal stories and experiences into her story, she strives to make readers feel empathy toward them. The visceral and personal nature of Markey’s connection with the readers is aimed at encouraging them to understand (Markey, C & Markey, P 2011). This emotional congruity helps not only in intellectual engagement but also at a more intuitive level of influence that makes arguments closer and relatable to realities.
The strength of scientific backing in this dichotomy between approaches is used by Hobbes to create the rational base for his argument, while Markey forces a connection with her audience via the emotional power that personal narrative holds (Markey, C & Markey, P 2011). Hobbes and Markey’s logos, written in the right way, appeal to reason as well as pathos aimed at transforming perceptions regarding obesity. In the course of formulating arguments and their effectiveness, logical fallacies or subtle errors in reasoning can be undermined. When analyzing the articles by Michael Hobbes and Charlotte Markey on obesity, it is necessary to uncover and discuss what flaw may undermine their arguments. While Hobbes challenges beliefs with fervor, he may inadvertently oversimplify them, while Markey responds to that challenge by making a more measured case of her own anecdotal reasoning. Realizing and avoiding these possible traps becomes essential if they are to maintain the credibility of their respective arguments (Gay, 2017). A thorough analysis of logical fallacies strengthens the basis for assessing fat-shaming and obesity discourse. At times, when Hobbes goes against the popular beliefs on obesity, he gets engrossed in gross oversimplification. This occurs when issues are so simplified that they lose their true form. Hobbes is at times demonstrative of oversimplification, discarding some factors or counterarguments that may have played a part (Gay, 2017). In order to capture examples of overgeneralization, his arguments become less reliable, and this limits the extent to which you can draw inferences.
On the other hand, although Markey’s response may offer a more well-rounded perspective, it could be too dependent on anecdotes without specific evidence. Although stories may be dramatic, they are experiential and not generalizable enough to constitute an argument. For instance, Markey’s reliance on personal stories and isolated cases to dispute Hobbes’s statements might compromise the essence of her empirical generalization method (Markey & Markev, 2011). Therefore, one should carefully assess the range and weight of Markey’s anecdotal evidence for her reply to maintain relevance outside its immediate setting. In analyzing both articles, several potential logical fallacies need to be identified and discussed (Lee et al., 2019). It goes beyond the mere discovery of inaccuracies; it is a subtle examination that helps to uncover how these fallacies may affect the overall consistency expressed by Hobbes and Markey. However, we can manage to avert such loopholes and end up with a clear understanding of issues in the obesity fat shaming debate.
Charlotte Markey treats Michael Hobbes’ assumptions about obesity as an opportunity for reflective dialogue, enriching the debate. Markey’s savvy insight concedes that this debate is complicated and lacks clarity. Although she is using an analytical approach comparing different knowledge domains, critical analysis uncovers the deficiencies of both Hobbes’s original argument and Markey’s response. It focuses on the critical analysis of logical fallacies and bias, promoting a more refined and analytical approach to comprehending this often inflammatory debate between fat shaming proponents and anti-fat stigmas activists specializing in blunting the obesity problem.
References
Hobbes, M. (2018). Everything you know about obesity is wrong. Huffington Post, 19.
Markey, C., & Markey, P. (2011). Romantic partners, weight status, and weight concerns: An examination using the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Health Psychology, 16(2), 217-225.
Gay, R. (2017). Hunger: A memoir of (my) body. Hachette UK.
Lee, A., Cardel, M., & Donahoo, W. T. (2019, October 12). Environmental Factors Influencing Obesity. NIH.gov; MDText.com, Inc. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK278977/
write