zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
While some of this is questionable the removal of the word 'fat' is an important one.

'Fat' should not be used in kids books as a derogatory, or at all frankly. Fat is an incredibly important and necessary part of a healthy diet and should be treared accordingly. Training people to think of fat in the antiquated notions of bad cardiogy isnt useful.

So while this may have been a move centered around "body positivity", it serves and higher purpose.

>>upside+tn
There's a very large difference between making sure you get the appropriate level of mono unsaturated fats that you would find in things like avocados and fresh fish, versus what Dahl is obviously referencing which is the concept of obesity.

You will not locate a doctor on this entire planet who would agree that obesity is healthy, it places far more load on the joints, and puts additional stress on your organs.

Either you have a deeply profound misunderstanding of the adjective fat versus the noun fat, or you're deliberately misconstruing the authors intent to fabricate an argument for why censorship is OK.

>>throwa+BZ
What is obvious to children?

It's a book for children. That is quite obvious.

You are smart enough to know what's obvious to you, can you infer then what is so obvious to a child?

You have missed the point. I'm not protecting the obese or advocating for censorship.

It is unwise to introduce some word associations to children, such as a negative conotation to a word, because they are limited in their understanding. This also seems obvious