Obese have right to 2 airline seats: Canada court, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 07:44 PM by VelmaLu
Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
reply to post by VelmaLu


Ill reply to that Velma,

If you are going to infringe on the space of another, you should have to pay more. This would apply if you are a 320lb body builder or a 5ft morbidly obese woman.

All this could be avoided if there were different size seats in airlines available in coach for a little extra $$.


Well, they don't now, so it's really about the seats that are available.

If fat people have to pay more because they take up more space, then what about very tall people? They often cause problems for the people in front of them by jamming their knees in the back of the seats.

So should men over 6' tall, regardless of weight, be require to buy their own seat as well as the seat in front of them because, as you said, they will "infringe upon the space of another"?


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 07:45 PM by UmbraSumus
reply to post by VelmaLu


Whether its from overeating or over training , if somebody is interfering with the seating of another passenger they should pay a premium.


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 07:45 PM by wrathchild
reply to post by Duzey



Ther is nothing wrong with "disable" people needing an extra seat. I think this should have always been the protocal for them.

The problems lies with people who live an over-undulged and wreckless lifestyle who should be on The Learning Channel freak of the week TV show, who cannot go a day without shoving down 10,000 calories down thier gullets, and get special treatment and sympathy from us.

You want to be like this ....FINE!

Dont make the rest of pay for it!



reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 07:47 PM by marg6043
reply to post by VelmaLu



I guess the conclusion here is that Airlines in the efforts to jam as much people as they can to make profits do not care about the needs of those that are their customers.

I remember when airlines were not as crowded as they are now.

This is the fault of the Airlines not the people and their various sizes.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by marg6043]


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 07:48 PM by SuperSecretSquirrel
reply to post by VelmaLu


I think that they should have a priority to the emergency exit aisles, aisle, and first row seats. You can't charge them more because you cannot fold down the seat in front of them to give them more room. You can, however, lift the armrest for fat/wide people.


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 07:58 PM by VelmaLu
Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
reply to post by VelmaLu


I think that they should have a priority to the emergency exit aisles, aisle, and first row seats. You can't charge them more because you cannot fold down the seat in front of them to give them more room. You can, however, lift the armrest for fat/wide people.


Actually, your original argument was based on people imposing on another's space. So a tall person jamming their legs into the back of a seat is just as imposing.

You kind of avoided the question. If a tall person can't get the bulkhead seat, should they have to pay for the seat in front of them so as to not intrude on another's space? I hope you are not suggesting that everyone in the plane accommodate them by allowing them to stick their legs out in the aisle that everyone must use.

Your post seems to be saying that tall people should be given "preferential treatment", but fat people should be "punished." Is that the case?



reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:07 PM by SuperSecretSquirrel
Originally posted by VelmaLu
Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
reply to post by VelmaLu


I think that they should have a priority to the emergency exit aisles, aisle, and first row seats. You can't charge them more because you cannot fold down the seat in front of them to give them more room. You can, however, lift the armrest for fat/wide people.


Actually, your original argument was based on people imposing on another's space. So a tall person jamming their legs into the back of a seat is just as imposing.

You kind of avoided the question. If a tall person can't get the bulkhead seat, should they have to pay for the seat in front of them so as to not intrude on another's space? I hope you are not suggesting that everyone in the plane accommodate them by allowing them to stick their legs out in the aisle that everyone must use.

Your post seems to be saying that tall people should be given "preferential treatment", but fat people should be "punished." Is that the case?


The majority of fat people are fat because of their lifestyle. All tall people are tall because of genetics. If you want to call it "preferential treatment" and "being punished" well, thats up to you.

I am of the opinion that things that you cannot help, you should not be persecuted for. Ie: height, race, age... but obesity is not one of them. They should not get preferential treatment.


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:10 PM by wrathchild
reply to post by VelmaLu


MY previous post stated that "disable" people should have always got special treatment because we as a society should take care of each other.

this law is an example of "enabling"

Would you give special treatment to alcoholics, drug addicts, or sex addicts.

Maybe we should...no

by doing this just gives obese people an "ok" to their lifestyles.

We shame the addicts into quitting their harmful addictions by things like interventions but we lovingly accept and enable fat people by passing laws such as these.

I dont get the difference.... I bet more people ruin there lives by being food addicts than being drug addicts yet we are to damn SCARED to tell these poor fatties that they are going to kill themselves.

Political correctness at it's worst!



[edit on 21-11-2008 by wrathchild]


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:22 PM by wrathchild
reply to post by violet


hehe,

thanks for injecting a little comedy into this thread.....good story


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:28 PM by deadline527
Why are people trying to compare the rare case of a wheelchair bound obese person to the lazy, fat, fast food junkie?

This is only making the non-medically obese think its ok to be fat, when as I said before, its not. We should be treating these people differently, why not? Its a health issue, as well as a social issue.

Do we treat heroin users differently? of course we do! How is this any different to the person addicted to food? The person who has no self control and allows themselves to gain hundreds of pounds - then they blame it on genetics. Genetics is much more rarer then people make it out to be, but tgese people think eating mcdonalds 15 times a week is equal to bad genes. Its not, and never will be. Its an excuse for their obesity, an excuse to not even try to change their lifestyle.

Now for people who really have a thyroid problem, medical issues, wheelchair, and so on - I completely agree that you should not be discriminated against. I have no problems if your weight gain is not controllable, and even some of them people still try to diet and exercise - even if its only a tiny bit they can do. The point is they still try.

I judge a person based on character. Obesity shows a lack of self control, a diminished image of self worth, and this inevitably leads to depression that is more often then not cured by beginning an active life style, to see that the weight does go away if you actually try to diet and exercise.


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:31 PM by FunSized
reply to post by deadline527

I dont have a source for this as it was on the news but according to them when you look at total lifetime medical costs it turns out that fat people actually cost less than healthy weight people because the overweight die so much earlier. Aparently all that extra time that healthy people get really adds up to extra medical expenses or something.
Just something to think about.



[edit on 21-11-2008 by FunSized]


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:41 PM by deadline527
Originally posted by FunSized
reply to post by deadline527

I dont have a source for this as it was on the news but according to them when you look at total lifetime medical costs it turns out that fat people actually cost less than healthy weight people because the overweight die so much earlier. Aparently all that extra time that healthy people get really adds up to extra medical expenses or something.
Just something to think about.



[edit on 21-11-2008 by FunSized]



Found a quote for you, and very good point.

Although, they still cost more per year then the other groups of people in the study, and the only reason they were found to cost less then healthy people overall is because they die so early.



Until age 56 y, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position.


medicine.plosjournals.org.../journal.pmed.0050029&ct=1


reply posted on 21-11-2008 @ 08:46 PM by Duzey
reply to post by deadline527


I would agree that for most people that are seriously obese, diet and exercise will make a difference. The problem is judging people you don't know based on appearance because you just might be wrong.

I have worked with a lady for just over a year now and I would guess she probably weighs over 200, maybe 225. Some might see her, call her fatty, assume she's lazy and eats too much. I admire her for her willpower and wish I could be more like her because she's managed to quit smoking (which I haven't) and has lost almost 80 lbs the right way, diet and exercise, since I met her.

But all this time people who don't know us see her as the lazy, junk food monster and me as the girl that just needs to take the stairs once in a while when it's the complete opposite. And they'll continue to see that for at least another year, based on appearances.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^