-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Fat people should not be able to ride planes
- Thread starter Itchni
- Start date
The problem is, it will increase your airfare as the airlines will have to put up their prices to cover the chance of a load of fatties using up twice as many seats. I think if theyre going to take up 2 seats, they should pay for 2 seats. It is no different to when someone breaks their leg on holiday and needs 2 seats worth of space on the plane, they (or if they have any sense, their insurance) have to pay for 2 seats.
as long as we dont get people who need two seats squeezing themselves into one, because this would ruin the journey for both them and the person/people next to them.
It's easy for a healthy individual to say "get off your ass and start eating less, tubby", but it really isn't that easy for someone who is so overweight that they need two seats on an airplane. That can be said for someone who has two chins and runs a 10 minute mile, but that person could comfortably sit in a single seat. There are medical factors and genetic factors to consider as well, as previously said.
I have a better analogy. In resteraunts, they have smoking and non-smoking sections. Isn't that unfairly accomodating to people who have an unhealthy lifestyle of smoking? To devote an entire section of a resteraunt purely to people who smoke cigarettes seems very unfair to the majority of people, who are non-smokers.
Just like skiddle said, smoking in all public establishments in the US (barring select few exceptions) has been banned for years. So yes, it WAS unfair, and we took care of that.
I don't disagree that genetics play a huge part in becoming obese. Some people were just born to be overweight and there's really not a damn thing they can do about it. What they CAN do about it, though, is to eat healthy and live an active lifestyle so as to not balloon to such a weight that they need more than one seat on an airplane.
Let's face it guys, if you need two seats on an airplane you're not just fat, you're a blimp. Do something about it, but in the meantime pay for both seats.
Actually it appears that the main reason smoking is being banned from restaurants is that the smoke spreads into the non-smoking section and unintentional exposure to restaurant employees. It was unfair not because they got special privileges in having their own section, but because people who didn't want to be inhaling their smoke were.
Most families I've seen don't vary much in fatness, and largely obese individuals seem to have an equally obese family. So I think genetics does play a big role in it. Also when you're young, you're at your parents will when it comes to eating for the most part, with no or little self control of what you eat. Obesity seems like it happens at a young age and is carried into adulthood. And once you live an obese lifestyle, it's hard to change. I don't really watch it, but I've seen a few episodes of The Biggest Loser, those people have a fuckload of determination and some of them fail even though they very badly want to lose the weight.
Most families I've seen don't vary much in fatness, and largely obese individuals seem to have an equally obese family. So I think genetics does play a big role in it. Also when you're young, you're at your parents will when it comes to eating for the most part, with no or little self control of what you eat. Obesity seems like it happens at a young age and is carried into adulthood. And once you live an obese lifestyle, it's hard to change. I don't really watch it, but I've seen a few episodes of The Biggest Loser, those people have a fuckload of determination and some of them fail even though they very badly want to lose the weight.
totally incomparable.
the smoking section does not give smokers any discount, any extra goods or any special privileges. it is a section that caters to NON-smokers, people who dont want to be exposed to smoke, not to smokers. that's like saying having a section on a bus for black people is unfairly accomodating black people lol
furthermore non-smokers can sit in smoking sections whenever they want as well, so i fail to see how your analogy is better at all.
My thoughts exactly. The airline companies don't like to lose money, but no one likes to seat next to a morbidly obese person either. It doesn't matter if they got in that stage due to laziness, lack of self-control of genetic mumbojumbos, they need more space than the average person and it would be worse if the companies decided to ban fat people of their planes.
That's an equally poor comparison, because being black is genetic and isn't destructive to the people near you. Smoking is a choice, and it is destructive to yourself and the people around you.
I don't think people that are moderately healthy should be the ones telling obese people that it's their fault for being unhealthy. Unless you actually are in their shoes or have complete medical information about the person, you really shouldn't be saying that it's their fault for being how they are.
it's a perfectly apt comparison, actually. i didn't compare being black to being a tobacco addict, i simply extrapolated upon your silly notion of 'smoking sections cater to smokers', which is horribly faulty.
as per your second paragraph, while i agree to an extent, i also think that it isn't a stretch to assume that most fat people are fat because they're lazy or they lack self control, both of which can be fixed with proper training.
Many people here couldn't get this fat even if they were to try. This is the main problem I have with having them impose their morals. It's never been part nor will ever be part of their reality.
In those cases, there always is more to it than laziness and genetics, you can call it a disease and a disability when it reaches that point
Obese people to this degree represent quite a very tiny minority, therefore I don't want to read about fairness and ticket prices, it certainly wouldn't have an impact there.
If someone with a broken leg needs to buy a second seat, as someone brought up, he should not have to either.
In those cases, there always is more to it than laziness and genetics, you can call it a disease and a disability when it reaches that point
Obese people to this degree represent quite a very tiny minority, therefore I don't want to read about fairness and ticket prices, it certainly wouldn't have an impact there.
If someone with a broken leg needs to buy a second seat, as someone brought up, he should not have to either.
All I really have to say is that would you like to be the person sitting in the chair right next to the person who needs two seats?
I for one wouldn't, and that's probably why they are doing it. It's just as unfair to force someone to sit next to an extremely obese person as it is to give the obese people two seats, except the person who sits next to the guy can't control when he sits next to an obese person.
I for one wouldn't, and that's probably why they are doing it. It's just as unfair to force someone to sit next to an extremely obese person as it is to give the obese people two seats, except the person who sits next to the guy can't control when he sits next to an obese person.
if the obese person pays twice as much for the two seats then this isn't an issue.
That said, for some reason most people in this thread seem to think that this ruling is actually relevant to "most fat people." it isn't...
the problem is when there is a cheap fat person who pays for only one seat. The airline can't say no, since they payed the required Airfare and it would be discriminatory to not let them on. This means that the people next to the cheap fat people get screwed.
I come from a family of very tall people. When we fly (most airlines), we literally do not fit in our seats, as our knees are pressed up against the seat in front of us. It is maybe tolerable if the people in front of us do not lean back, but if they do, it is incredibly uncomfortable for the entire flight. Additionally, it a requirement that I lean my own chair back so that I have some semblance of comfort, so someone in a similar situation behind me is in trouble.
Do I deserve to be able to get a seat with adequate legroom (such as a first-class seat) for the same price as a regular ticket? I mean, this is an identical situation: I have a genetic "condition" that makes it such that I cannot fit comfortably in a regular seat without potentially inconveniencing one or more people around me. My thoughts are that I do not deserve special treatment for the same price. If I want to shell out more money for some necessary comfort, then that's what I have to do. Otherwise I can do something like fly at non-peak times so that I'm on an emptier plane and it is not as much of an issue.
Do I deserve to be able to get a seat with adequate legroom (such as a first-class seat) for the same price as a regular ticket? I mean, this is an identical situation: I have a genetic "condition" that makes it such that I cannot fit comfortably in a regular seat without potentially inconveniencing one or more people around me. My thoughts are that I do not deserve special treatment for the same price. If I want to shell out more money for some necessary comfort, then that's what I have to do. Otherwise I can do something like fly at non-peak times so that I'm on an emptier plane and it is not as much of an issue.
You are wrong: if someone has a broken leg, then if they were ruled at fault for having broken it, whether fairly or fairly (assuming insurance is the arbiter, I suppose?), then they have to pay for the extra seat all on their own or whatever. If someone else was at fault, that someone else or that someone else's insurance ought to have to. In no case should the responsibility fall to the airplane companies!
Posting to agree with CK here. Even though I see where Vineon is coming from, you really have to be trying to get so fat that you can't sit in a chair. Maybe things are different in Canada, but airline seats are pretty large to begin with. We aren't talking like average Joe with a beer belly that used to be forced to buy two seats, we're talking about an extremely small minority of people (small....at least in terms of population).
If someone weighs 500 pounds and can legitimately claim to be influenced by genetic structure, that is one thing. I would have no problems with airlines catering to those people who actually are functionally disabled by their genetic obesity. However, "functionally disabled by obesity" is usually a byproduct of the person's inability to bring themselves to lose weight. The problem here is that the word "disease" has so many connotations that nobody will ever be able to agree on what it actually entails. Do you think that someone with leukemia looks at an obese person as if the fat man is diseased? "functionally disabled by disease x" can be applied to so many different things. "I was fundamentally disabled by my family's predisposition toward alcoholism, that's why I got a DWI." If people are genetically predisposed towards alcoholism, would it be fair to charge winos less for booze? I don't think so. CaptK brings up some good points.
If my family is any indicator, I probably have a slight tendancy towards being overweight...however, they can all fit into chairs so I'm not too worried. I think people are underestimating how fat you actually have to be to need AN ENTIRE CHAIR FOR ONE BUTTCHEEK.
If someone weighs 500 pounds and can legitimately claim to be influenced by genetic structure, that is one thing. I would have no problems with airlines catering to those people who actually are functionally disabled by their genetic obesity. However, "functionally disabled by obesity" is usually a byproduct of the person's inability to bring themselves to lose weight. The problem here is that the word "disease" has so many connotations that nobody will ever be able to agree on what it actually entails. Do you think that someone with leukemia looks at an obese person as if the fat man is diseased? "functionally disabled by disease x" can be applied to so many different things. "I was fundamentally disabled by my family's predisposition toward alcoholism, that's why I got a DWI." If people are genetically predisposed towards alcoholism, would it be fair to charge winos less for booze? I don't think so. CaptK brings up some good points.
If my family is any indicator, I probably have a slight tendancy towards being overweight...however, they can all fit into chairs so I'm not too worried. I think people are underestimating how fat you actually have to be to need AN ENTIRE CHAIR FOR ONE BUTTCHEEK.
I really don't see much of an argument here: if you need two seats, you pay for two. Each seat is an item, a product that is sold by that airline. If you're using two products, you pay for two products! If you're leg is broken and you need two products, you pay for two products! If you're an elephant man with giant testicles that need their own seat as well as yours, you pay for two seats! I find this to be very cut and dry.
This is such a good example of why people who are too large for one seat should pay for the second. I'm too tall to comfortably fit in Economy as well, it's no fault of my own but it's something I have to deal with. No reason I should get a free upgrade because of my darn genetics.
By the way wildfire, you can just go Economy Plus or even Business, no need to go First unless you really are on stilts!