Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: Context: I did not do this. However, my fiancé randomly posted on FB something to the effect of:

*Can we all agree that overweight=plus size and morbidly obese=bus size?*

Cue your he is a good, loving partner/person spiel BUT he has this attitude sometimes where he feels like he has a right to express unpopular opinions. This is not untrue, but I feel like I also have a right to find some of them off-putting and express that like in this case. 

I am plus size and whereas I consider myself to be more confident than other my size, what I can't stand to think of is how this might have made someone else feel. I'm very body positive and to me, it's just ill-thought commentary that he didn't need to share.

When I pointed this out, he backtracked and said he doesn't think being overweight is bad, but he was making a facetious statement about how people blue the lines between being plus sized and obese. 

I still maintained that his post made him out to be an ass because at the end of the day, whose life did he change by dropping this nugget of knowledge? If obesity rates were a genuine concern to him, he could have just as easily shared a kind or motivating sentiment that would have resonated with someone having body image issues. AITA?

sharing a vague, fat shaming post