Originally posted by VelmaLu

Originally posted by wrathchild
fine.....
airlines should charge by the pound..... just like freight.

I weigh 190 lbs... I'll pay the freight.

I weigh 400lbs because I just ate an elk.... I'll pay the freight

There... now that's fair.

Should someone in a motorized wheelchair pay four times what you do because it weighs 800 pounds?

Uh, that's exactly what wrathchild was saying. In fact, you even quoted the part where it was implied.

Would you care to enlighten all of us with your superior reasoning and explain to us how that is not fair? The whole concept wrathchild was referring to was charging by the pound, like a freight company. Although, you're right, that wouldn't be completely fair. In order to be completely fair, they'd also have to factor in the persons physical dimensions to determine the volume of space taken up.

It seems from your posts in this thread, that you are interested in nothing more than instigating conflict. Every single other poster in this thread that you have singled out with your attention, has respectfully replied. Yet, you have done so very few times. The content of your posts indicates that you're not even reading most of the other posts in this thread. This isn't generally the way we like things here. In fact, you have stifled what had the potential to be a lively and enjoyable debate, and others who may be interested in reading rational arguments of one side or another may find your disruptions extremely irritating to filter out. I am one such other.

I am sorry if I have offended you in any way, but I've found nearly all of your posts offensive in one way or another. The one I quoted at the beginning of this post is just one of the better examples of how you completely ignore the content of their replies, and simple use the quote button to swerve onto some tangent and become verbally aggressive.

My apologies for the lengthy, off topic post. I felt it was worth it if the disruption costs me a few points.

So, Velma, I'll state my position one more time, and will gladly debate you on the perceived fairness of my position versus yours. I only ask you that you bring your "logic and reasoning" kit with you. You may decline by simply inferring that I hate everyone over 200 lbs and believe anyone with over 5.5% (7% after all is fat, I can quote my source for you if you like) body fat is not worth the air they breath.

If a person does not fit in a single seat, and requires two seats, that person should be required to pay for two seats. Just like if, while at the terminal food court, the same person required two double double half pound bacon cheesy burgers to feel satisfied, that person would be required to actually purchase two double double half pound bacon cheesy burgers.

The same reasoning applies whether a person is obese because they eat a kilo of deep fried chili dogs as an appetizer, or if thyroid disease has bestowed upon them their own gravitational field.

The person who's vision is damaged to the point of requiring the use of extremely strong glasses will pay more for their glasses than someone who requires only a bit of magnification for reading. The poor blind guy understands however, that as unfortunate as it may be, his personal situation requires a steeper financial obligation to mitigate than most people. If life were completely fair, he wouldn't need the glasses anyway.

Would it be fair if all of us quit exercising, started living off of Big Macs and ice cream, and attained a minimum weight of 400 pounds? Then we would all have to purchase two seats. Or, the airline could simply make the seats twice as big, allowing us to purchase only one! Oh, rats, then they'd just charge us double because they could only ferry half as many people. See what I'm getting at? If a person doesn't fit in one seat, that means they're occupying at least a portion of the seat next to them. That, in turn, means that there's room for one less person on the plane. Now I can't get home for Christmas because the left side of the guy in the seat next to the one I paid for has laid claim to it.


[edit on 11/21/2008 by Unit541]

This thread is now killed. Star if you agree.

Originally posted by VelmaLu
Fat, in and of itself, is not a predictor of health. Thinness does not mean healthy.

Get your facts straight. Just hate fat people because they are different and stop labeling them as unhealthy.

This was just too good to pass up.

Fat, as in your dimensions require that you occupy two seats, isn't exactly a good indicator of longevity. Simply having 400 lbs of fat under your skin isn't going to kill you, you're right. However, any number of things that come along with obesity will get you. Will it be the diabetes, the bilary calculosis, arthrosis of the spine? Maybe cardiovascular disease or arterial hypertension. Or, since obesity is a specific risk factor for adverse anesthetic reactions, maybe you'll be lucky and go in your sleep while you're in for liposuction.

But other than that, no, fat isn't a predictor of health. Glad we all have our facts straight here.

I wasn't the one claiming that 7% body fat meant healthier than 35% body fat. There was another poster who said, "My percentage does, however, make me less of a health risk than that of someone with say, 35% body fat."

I was merely responding to that assertion. So let me repeat it for you, since you conveniently left it out of your snip. . .

"Body fat percentage has nothing to do with health risk."

That was the point.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by VelmaLu]

Would it be fair if all of us quit exercising, started living off of Big Macs and ice cream, and attained a minimum weight of 400 pounds? Then we would all have to purchase two seats. Or, the airline could simply make the seats twice as big, allowing us to purchase only one! Oh, rats, then they'd just charge us double because they could only ferry half as many people. See what I'm getting at? If a person doesn't fit in one seat, that means they're occupying at least a portion of the seat next to them. That, in turn, means that there's room for one less person on the plane. Now I can't get home for Christmas because the left side of the guy in the seat next to the one I paid for has laid claim to it.

Why use that example? Why don't you address it not using FAT PEOPLE as an example, but other people who take up too much space?

Or, are you ONLY talking about fat people? Just be clear about it.

Let's talk about a body builder, with a large upper body and plenty of muscle. Would you include them in your group?

It seems no one wants to really answer the question, instead wants to use this thread to bash fat people.

You want to debate it, then clearly draw the line. Under what circumstances should a person have to pay for two seats? The guy who jams his knees into the seat in front of him? The pregnant woman? They guy in the wheelchair? How about someone with medical equipment?

Originally posted by VelmaLu
I wasn't the one claiming that 7% body fat meant healthier than 35% body fat. There was another poster who said, "My percentage does, however, make me less of a health risk than that of someone with say, 35% body fat."

I was merely responding to that assertion. So let me repeat it for you, since you conveniently left it out of your snip. . .

"Body fat percentage has nothing to do with health risk."

That was the point.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by VelmaLu]

You posed the same argument, and it's just as pointless.

BMI of 30% is considered obese. 40% is considered gravely obese. Those that are lucky enough to only be regular obese (30% BMI) are considered to be two to three times more likely to expire prematurely than those with a lower BMI of say 15%. These are widely accepted figures, not conjured up for the sake of argument.

What you have implied is that being obese has nothing to do with body fat. Sounds absurd when put that way doesn't it. A 400lb person has a much higher BMI than a 200lb person. Fact. This man's BMI is higher because he has more fat. In fact, he has enough to make him weigh 400 lbs!

Originally posted by VelmaLu

Why use that example? Why don't you address it not using FAT PEOPLE as an example, but other people who take up too much space?

Or, are you ONLY talking about fat people? Just be clear about it.

Let's talk about a body builder, with a large upper body and plenty of muscle. Would you include them in your group?

It seems no one wants to really answer the question, instead wants to use this thread to bash fat people.

You want to debate it, then clearly draw the line. Under what circumstances should a person have to pay for two seats? The guy who jams his knees into the seat in front of him? The pregnant woman? They guy in the wheelchair? How about someone with medical equipment?

I'm sorry, I can no longer be nice. If you actually READ peoples responses to you, you'd know that yes, people have "answered the question". It doesn't matter if your morbidly obese, or a 350 pound body builder with 3% body fat.

Here's your "clearly drawn line": If you DON'T FIT IN ONE SEAT, YOU PAY FOR TWO.

I used OBESE people in my example, because the thread was about OBESE people, not bodybuilders. Do us a favor, and please make sure you comprehend a post before you issue an inflammatory response to something that obviously few right past you.

[edit on 11/21/2008 by Unit541]

Nice try with the hyperbole. You can introduce all the straw man arguments you want. We weren't talking BMI.

Do you remember the original thread that garnered your response? It was where a poster claimed his lower body fat percentage meant he was healthier than someone with a higher one.

Of course, if you have some research showing that someone with a body fat percentage of 7% is automatically healthier than someone with a 35% body fat, I'll be more than delighted to retract my statements and apologize.

I'd be willing to bet I could find some cancer sufferers with a body fat percentage under 10%. . . or smokers. . . AIDS patients. . .

Originally posted by VelmaLu
Nice try with the hyperbole. You can introduce all the straw man arguments you want. We weren't talking BMI.

Do you remember the original thread that garnered your response? It was where a poster claimed his lower body fat percentage meant he was healthier than someone with a higher one.

Of course, if you have some research showing that someone with a body fat percentage of 7% is automatically healthier than someone with a 35% body fat, I'll be more than delighted to retract my statements and apologize.

I'd be willing to bet I could find some cancer sufferers with a body fat percentage under 10%. . . or smokers. . . AIDS patients. . .

AND again you fail. I never said that it automatically means that. I said m 7% lower than someone at 35% (which is clinically obese) means I have less health risks.


Seriously, you are about to be labeled as a troll by many upstanding posters here. We can disagree all we want, but to ignore EVERYTHING we are saying, makes you a troll.

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by VelmaLu

Why use that example? Why don't you address it not using FAT PEOPLE as an example, but other people who take up too much space?

Or, are you ONLY talking about fat people? Just be clear about it.

Let's talk about a body builder, with a large upper body and plenty of muscle. Would you include them in your group?

It seems no one wants to really answer the question, instead wants to use this thread to bash fat people.

You want to debate it, then clearly draw the line. Under what circumstances should a person have to pay for two seats? The guy who jams his knees into the seat in front of him? The pregnant woman? They guy in the wheelchair? How about someone with medical equipment?

I'm sorry, I can no longer be nice. If you actually READ peoples responses to you, you'd know that yes, people have "answered the question". It doesn't matter if your morbidly obese, or a 350 pound body builder with 3% body fat.

Here's your "clearly drawn line": If you DON'T FIT IN ONE SEAT, YOU PAY FOR TWO.

I used OBESE people in my example, because the thread was about OBESE people, not bodybuilders. Do us a favor, and please make sure you comprehend a post before you issue an inflammatory response to something that obviously few right past you.

[edit on 11/21/2008 by Unit541]

I think you're the one not bothering to read.

I did read your response and you didn't address my question which included ALL people who take up too much space, such as people who are tall, pregnant women, or people in wheelchairs. I'd like you to SPECIFICALLY address those folks.

I'd just like to know how far you would go with this. Should tall people who inconvenience others by jamming their knees in the backs of the seat have to buy a ticket for the seat in front of them?

It's a simple question. Really, you can answer it without getting upset or perceiving insult when none was given.

WE HAVE COUNTLESS TIMES. Being tall is a genetic problem or good thing. Being fat.... 95% or so of the time is NOT genetic!!!!!!! So your question is answered. Again.

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by VelmaLu
Nice try with the hyperbole. You can introduce all the straw man arguments you want. We weren't talking BMI.

Do you remember the original thread that garnered your response? It was where a poster claimed his lower body fat percentage meant he was healthier than someone with a higher one.

Of course, if you have some research showing that someone with a body fat percentage of 7% is automatically healthier than someone with a 35% body fat, I'll be more than delighted to retract my statements and apologize.

I'd be willing to bet I could find some cancer sufferers with a body fat percentage under 10%. . . or smokers. . . AIDS patients. . .

AND again you fail. I never said that it automatically means that. I said m 7% lower than someone at 35% (which is clinically obese) means I have less health risks.


Seriously, you are about to be labeled as a troll by many upstanding posters here. We can disagree all we want, but to ignore EVERYTHING we are saying, makes you a troll.

You said:

"My percentage does, however, make me less of a health risk than that of someone with say, 35% body fat."

And I said, "It doesn't." Your lower body fat percentage is not a predictor of health risk.

Do you get that? You can have 7% body fat and be a smoker, heavy drinker, AIDS infected cancer patient. Therefore, your body fat percentage wouldn't mean squat against someone with 35% body fat who did not have those lifestyle issues.

I let your post above speak for itself. Back on topic. % wise or not. A person who occupies two seats, should pay for those two seats

To the rational members:

Please stop trying to prove a point. You won't do it.

Dedicate your debate powers to a thread where your opposition is rational.

Thank you.