I'm sorry, but it's just another way for society to subordinate fat bodies. There's no two ways about it.
Obesity is a disease. This is not a question of beauty. You are statistically more prone to heart disease if you are overweight. What's wrong in incentivizing people to take care of themselves?
@cooldud_21:
Obesity is a disease. This is not a question of beauty. You are statistically more prone to heart disease if you are overweight. What's wrong in incentivizing people to take care of themselves?
Yep, and obese people were entirely responsible for their own circumstances.
Not only that, but they can flip a switch and become skinny if they so choose.
Hey wait a minute…so fat people/muscle heads have to pay for more on airplane tickets? Makes sense I guess...but it makes me feel weird thinking about it.
@crystalship:
the power of cosmetic surgery should make it a quick and easy fix. For the right price...
Yep, and obese people were entirely responsible for their own circumstances.
Not only that, but they can flip a switch and become skinny if they so choose.
Eating healthy is a choice. If you have a glandular problem that makes it impossible for you to lose weight, then I agree that such a policy is discrimination. But otherwise, yes, they can become skinny if they choose. At least skinnier than they are right now.
@cooldud_21:
Eating healthy is a choice. If you have a glandular problem that makes it impossible for you to lose weight, then I agree that such a policy is discrimination. But otherwise, yes, they can become skinny if they choose. At least skinnier than they are right now.
Okay fat people might have problems, but what about body builders? Sometimes it is their career to "look" like that and live that particular life style. I feel this police is stepping over some uncomfortable boundaries.
I'm sorry, but it's just another way for society to subordinate fat bodies. There's no two ways about it.
Edit: Fluff me, you people are fast. Crystal's post that I quoted here was the latest post in the thread when I started typing this.
–--------------------------------------
See, this is why I say it brings up interesting issues for discussion. The logistics is dull; but the principle of the thing is rather multi-faceted, if you're open minded enough to look at it from different angles.
Obviously, this reaction is a totally understandable one, not to mention fair. After all, discrimination against people based on their weight is a real societal issue. However, the thing to bear in mind is, 'discrimination', despite the incredibly negative connotation it has of late, is not, strictly speaking, a bad thing. People discriminate all the time. Absolutely anything that has an application process involves discrimination by its very nature, with the potential employers discriminating between the applicants based on, at the very least, fitness for the job.
The point when discrimination becomes an issue is when it is baseless, and this is the sense in which I find the word more often used these days. Discriminating against someone because of their race, or their gender, or their sexual orientation -- or, indeed, their weight -- when it has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand, aside from a personal bias, is a practice that people have quite rightly been fighting to stamp out.
Thus, the question becomes: which form of discrimination is this? Since it's perfectly clear to me which side Crystal comes down on, I will argue the other. This is a totally valid instance of discrimination, because a person's weight is directly related to the cost of transporting them. It is in no way irrelevant; nor, for that matter, is it entirely without precedent. After all, plenty of airlines will charge for luggage based on its weight, and while plenty of people complain about this, the complaints are always based on the annoyance at having more and more surcharges, and not about how such a charge is somehow inherently unfair.
With that in mind, what difference is there between a person having to pay more because they add more weight to the plane with their luggage, and a person having to pay more because they add more weight to the plane with their body? The obvious response to that is a matter of choice -- that it is far easier to simply pack lighter than it would be to lose weight for the flight -- but I find that a rather weak argument. First of all, while it is true in general, there are no doubt cases where a person has little choice in what they must pack to bring with them, and thus about incurring extra fees. More to the point, however, I do not find lack of choice in the matter to be a valid reason to oppose the measure. The fact of the matter is, people are discriminated against, in total fairness, for things they have no control over all the time. As an offhand example, someone who is too short would not be allowed to go on certain rides at a theme park, due to safety concerns. Obviously the person cannot help their height, which makes it unfortunate for them, but makes the discrimination no less valid. To me, the same clearly applies here. It would be an unfortunate policy for those who weigh more, certainly, but one based in sound reasoning, rather than another example of a cruel social injustice to be fought.
Okay fat people might have problems, but what about body builders? Sometimes it is their career to "look" like that and live that particular life style. I feel this police is stepping over some uncomfortable boundaries.
So they can pay for their weight. It's like, since a plane loses fuel at a rate proportional to it's weight, it's only logical that tickets should be priced such, no? If you're comfortable the way you are, just pay your fair share.
Your argument can be extended to baggage policies. "What about young families? They are forced to carry more baggage than people going on business trips. Is it fair to charge them extra?"
@crystalship:
the power of cosmetic surgery should make it a quick and easy fix. For the right price…
Oh look, what's this, an intersection with class (and therefore race)? What an unexpected development!
@cooldud_21:
Eating healthy is a choice. If you have a glandular problem that makes it impossible for you to lose weight, then I agree that such a policy is discrimination. But otherwise, yes, they can become skinny if they choose. At least skinnier than they are right now.
Three things:
People who fall into the BMI category of "overweight" actually have lower mortality rates than people in any other category, even "normalweight" (god, I hate that term). It's only when people fall into the "obese" and "underweight" categories that they start experiencing serious health risks. Would you not say that this airline practice could potentially encourage people to become underweight (just like every other metamessage they've received throughout their entire lives), which is just as dangerous as being obese?
The only reason this is happening is because fat bodies are subordinated by society. That's kind of obvious. And it wouldn't be the case if not for Western colonialism. There were many cultures that privileged fat bodies, particularly those of women. Take Fiji for example. Before prolonged exposure to television, there were no women in their society who purged to lose weight. Three years after they were exposed to televised metamessages, 11% of women were doing it. This is a SOCIETAL phenomenon, and biology is simply being used as justification.
Charging extra money to people because of circumstances that were decided by their genetics and socioeconomic factors, is the definition of discriminatory. I would be very surprised if this got off the ground.
- People who fall into the BMI category of "overweight" actually have lower mortality rates than people in any other category, even "normalweight" (god, I hate that term). It's only when people fall into the "obese" and "underweight" categories that they start experiencing serious health risks. Would you not say that this airline practice could potentially encourage people to become underweight (just like every other metamessage they've received throughout their entire lives), which is just as dangerous as being obese?
Samoa is fighting a serious obesity problem. Those guys could do with reducing some weight is what I know.
@TheCrystalShip:
- The only reason this is happening is because fat bodies are subordinated by society. That's kind of obvious. And it wouldn't be the case if not for Western colonialism. There were many cultures that privileged fat bodies, particularly those of women. Take Fiji for example. Before prolonged exposure to television, there were no women in their society who purged to lose weight. Three years after they were exposed to televised metamessages, 11% of women were doing it. This is a SOCIETAL phenomenon, and biology is simply being used as justification.
This is not a stick-thin model vs the woman who won this year's Oscar discussion.
@TheCrystalShip:
- Charging extra money to people because of circumstances that were decided by their genetics and socioeconomic factors, is the definition of discriminatory. I would be very surprised if this got off the ground.
One can choose to be healthy within a budget, and choose to stay healthy regardless of ethnic or racial background.
@cooldud_21:
Samoa is fighting a serious obesity problem. Those guys could do with reducing some weight is what I know.
This is a way better point than anything you've brought up so far, because it actually addresses a verifiable problem inherent to the specific culture. But I still feel as if this will cause more harm than good, because the method of execution is so heavy-handed. There is almost always a better solution than punishing the people you're "trying to help".
@cooldud_21:
This is not a stick-thin model vs the woman who won this year's Oscar discussion.
What the fuck are you talking about.
@cooldud_21:
One can choose to be healthy within a budget, and choose to stay healthy regardless of ethnic or racial background.
I'm saying that race intersects with class.
- Charging extra money to people because of circumstances that were decided by their genetics and socioeconomic factors, is the definition of discriminatory. I would be very surprised if this got off the ground.
I address precisely this point in the last part of my post, though. Just because something is beyond a person's control (something which I'll simply grant you applies to one's weight, for the purpose of argument) does not automatically make it wrong to discriminate based upon it.
I think the only reason anybody would give a shit about this issue is so they could get cheaper airplane tickets, and not because they cared about overweight people
 
But I still feel as if this will cause more harm than good, because the method of execution is so heavy-handed. There is almost always a better solution than punishing the people you're "trying to help".
What the fuck are you talking about.
To put it in simple words: This is not a question of perception and the bullcrap you posted in the previous post. It is to do with a practical and real issue facing the airline.
@Panda:
I address precisely this point in the last part of my post, though. Just because something is beyond a person's control (something which I'll simply grant you applies to one's weight, for the purpose of argument) does not automatically make it wrong to discriminate based upon it.
I've seen far too much bullshit not to be wary of those practices. This has a much higher cost than the thrill of a roller coaster.
Can you give other examples of "good" discrimination?
Oi, this discussion is really putting my decision to undergo lap band surgery in the forefront of my mind…thanks guys >_<;
Can you give other examples of "good" discrimination?
Sex offenders released from prison not being allowed to work with or around children for 1
I've seen far too much bullshit not to be wary of those practices. This has a much higher cost than the thrill of a roller coaster.
Can you give other examples of "good" discrimination?
In general, or specifically in regards to something over which a person has no control?
I assume you mean the latter, based on context, but just to cover my bases in case you mean the former, then certainly. Again, like I had already said in my first post on the matter, it's absolutely all over the place. Someone applying for a job will be discriminated against based on their aptitude for it. Someone trying out for a sports team will be discriminated against based on their athleticism and skill. Someone applying to a school will be discriminated against based on their past achievements and perceived intelligence. All these are things that happen all the time; all are perfectly valid instances of discrimination. Indeed, without this sort of discrimination, one could argue that society would fairly quickly cease to even function.
However, as I said, I presume you are asking for other instances of valid discrimination over matters which a person has no control. If I wanted to give a cheating answer, I would simply use the same examples as I did above. After all, depending on how heavily you wish to blame societal factors, you could argue that the conditions one was born into and raised in have just as much of an effect on their intelligence, knowledge, and skill set as they do on their weight. Passing on that argument, there are admittedly fewer examples, although that is not to say there are none. A movie that is to have a character that is large and imposing, for example, would not likely take an actor of small stature and build for the role.
That's a frivolous issue, I know, just as much as the roller coaster example I already gave. However, I don't feel that that at all changes the basic principle here. You bring up the issue of 'cost', which I actually feel is a separate matter entirely. That's not to say that it isn't a perfectly valid argument against the policy; any policy, after all, should be evaluated based on its costs versus its benefits. Rather, the issue I am trying to argue is only whether the policy is flawed on a very basic, moral sort of level, and I do not believe that it is.
Oi, this discussion is really putting my decision to undergo lap band surgery in the forefront of my mind…thanks guys >_<;
There are easier ways - but I would need to be at home to post most of the links associated with it - Look up Fat Head in youtube though if you want it explains a lot more in detail - Like even if you get lap band and continue drinking soft drinks with corn syrup for sweetner you'd be consuming a ton of callories via a liquid that breaks down quickly and doesn't make you full.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Can you give other examples of "good" discrimination?
People with Epilepsy and Narcolepsy not allowed to pilot commercial planes …
the cost of weighting people, ie hiring people to stand there as people are weighed, adding in weight machines plus their maintenance, and general overall fuckery of making people stand an additional 3-5 minutes in line per person at the airport probably would negate any 'benefit' skinnier passengers could hope to gain from this
basically it just makes fat people pay more to feel even shittier about themselves, while airlines get to charge slightly more per ticket to certain people. you really think they'd give you a discount?
 
the cost of weighting people, ie hiring people to stand there as people are weighed, adding in weight machines plus their maintenance, and general overall fuckery of making people stand an additional 3-5 minutes in line per person at the airport probably would negate any 'benefit' skinnier passengers could hope to gain from this
basically it just makes fat people pay more to feel even shittier about themselves, while airlines get to charge slightly more per ticket to certain people. you really think they'd give you a discount?
No, of course not. But you're arguing logistics, which, as I said before this even turned into the debate it has, is an obvious reason why this policy is flawed. That doesn't make discussing the underlying issues it raises any less valid, though. It's still an interesting mental exercise, even if it doesn't hold much in the way of direct pragmatic value.
@cooldud_21:
- What is your solution?
To solve a problem, you need to look for its cause.
Many Samoan babies already exhibit health risks as soon as they're born, and the problem only intensifies during early childhood development. Work is already being done to encourage breastfeeding and discourage the use of formula, which would have been my immediate "patch". But since the health risks are apparent even before a baby can consume formula, there are obviously other factors involved here.
@cooldud_21:
To put it in simple words: This is not a question of perception and the bullcrap you posted in the previous post. It is to do with a practical and real issue facing the airline.
If we disagree on such a simple issue, to the point where you dismiss well-established theory as "bullcrap", I'm not sure we can even have this discussion. Societal issues aren't "real" or "practical"? They're irrelevant to this case entirely? Why am I making myself feel bad about this, when there's such a fundamental communication breakdown going on?
Oi, this discussion is really putting my decision to undergo lap band surgery in the forefront of my mind…thanks guys >_<;
Sorry, should we stop?
@Panda:
In general, or specifically in regards to something over which a person has no control?
I assume you mean the latter, based on context, but just to cover my bases in case you mean the former, then certainly. Again, like I had already said in my first post on the matter, it's absolutely all over the place. Someone applying for a job will be discriminated against based on their aptitude for it. Someone trying out for a sports team will be discriminated against based on their athleticism and skill. Someone applying to a school will be discriminated against based on their past achievements and perceived intelligence. All these are things that happen all the time; all are perfectly valid instances of discrimination. Indeed, without this sort of discrimination, one could argue that society would fairly quickly cease to even function.
However, as I said, I presume you are asking for other instances of valid discrimination over matters which a person has no control. If I wanted to give a cheating answer, I would simply use the same examples as I did above. After all, depending on how heavily you wish to blame societal factors, you could argue that the conditions one was born into and raised in have just as much of an effect on their intelligence, knowledge, and skill set as they do on their weight.
There is always good and bad to everything. Of course there is rational basis for barring students from an art school, if they don't have the skills. But the educational system is inherently flawed, and as you say, tends to strip educational opportunities from people based on factors beyond their control. As someone who actively works to maintain or restore those opportunities, while I can understand what you're saying, I don't think it makes me inherently wrong. I just try to help marginalized people whenever I can, because of my personal history. And it doesn't make you inherently wrong. You're just trying to… Well, I don't know what your motivations are. You probably aren't as personally invested in this as I am, which is why I'm the only one who's getting worked up about it, but still.
@Panda:
Passing on that argument, there are admittedly fewer examples, although that is not to say there are none. A movie that is to have a character that is large and imposing, for example, would not likely take an actor of small stature and build for the role.
That's a frivolous issue, I know, just as much as the roller coaster example I already gave. However, I don't feel that that at all changes the basic principle here. You bring up the issue of 'cost', which I actually feel is a separate matter entirely. That's not to say that it isn't a perfectly valid argument against the policy; any policy, after all, should be evaluated based on its costs versus its benefits. Rather, the issue I am trying to argue is only whether the policy is flawed on a very basic, moral sort of level, and I do not believe that it is.
I'm sorry for my Marxist slip. I don't usually place emphasis on economic incentive.
As for whether the policy is immoral or not, based on everything you've said about "good versus bad" discrimination, we would have to decide whether that should be judged by actions or intentions. And then we'd need to decide what these people's intentions are, which would be extremely difficult.
Let me say right now, that their intentions were certainly influenced by the societal subordination I was talking about earlier. At the same time, they are introducing this policy because of very real concerns about the obesity epidemic afflicting their country (most of which are financial concerns, but bear with me). So, can we say that their intentions are definitively good or bad, even if they were influenced by an oppressive society? Probably not. You could even say, that they're just as much a victim of their own culture as the passengers. Especially considering the role of Western influence in this specific case.
Now, let's look at their actions. People who have no control over their own circumstances are charged more for trying to board an airplane. This would also affect people who carry more baggage or have larger families, which isn't necessarily outside of their control, but sometimes is. Now, this airline practice would negatively impact all of those people and positively impact the airline, as well as its employees. Not very surprising, considering that the airline is a business, and it wants to make money. Looks like they simply took resources from one group of people for the sake of another group, with their own lives and problems.
So basically, if I were someone else, I probably wouldn't see as much of a problem with this. But I'm a fatty-loving, anti-capitalist queer, motherfuckers. It's impossible to stop me from siding with marginalized groups, LOL. Fuck "unbiased" parties.
@Panda:
No, of course not. But you're arguing logistics, which, as I said before this even turned into the debate it has, is an obvious reason why this policy is flawed. That doesn't make discussing the underlying issues it raises any less valid, though. It's still an interesting mental exercise, even if it doesn't hold much in the way of direct pragmatic value.
valid if you like to argue about pointless shit i suppose
oh wait, this is AP
 
the cost of weighting people, ie hiring people to stand there as people are weighed, adding in weight machines plus their maintenance, and general overall fuckery of making people stand an additional 3-5 minutes in line per person at the airport probably would negate any 'benefit' skinnier passengers could hope to gain from this
basically it just makes fat people pay more to feel even shittier about themselves, while airlines get to charge slightly more per ticket to certain people. you really think they'd give you a discount?
I like how you didn't even bother with social theory
and skipped straight to an argument that normal people are actually going to agree with.
Wow, I really gotta work on appealing to people outside my demo.
I think the only reason anybody would give a shit about this issue is so they could get cheaper airplane tickets, and not because they cared about overweight people
It gives me a good incentive to lose weight. That's for sure.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Can you give other examples of "good" discrimination?
Folks with special conditions/needs being kept away from procuring firearms, driving, and other activities where they might accidently/unwillingly harm themselves or others.
Oh also the discrimination of kids against the same too (lord knows what would happen if it were legal for kids to have guns and drive). We'd have the KND in real life. Now that would be…scary.
Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pomeranianhero
deviantart: http://pomeranianhero.deviantart.com/
valid if you like to argue about pointless shit i suppose
oh wait, this is AP
Dismissing it as 'pointless shit' merely because it doesn't have a directly relevant application is somewhat narrow-minded and, much as I loathe the phrase, anti-intellectual, I think. The debate, to me at least, doesn't really have anything to do with the particular policy itself, which I've already agreed is silly for the reasons you said. In terms of questioning whether discriminating against someone based on their weight is necessarily always wrong, however, it addresses a valid societal issue.
Granted, I am personally coming at this from a purely detached point of view, as Crystal quite rightly observes. Frankly, I only argued the side I did because I made my original post before seeing that all others had taken that side; I would likely have argued on Crystal's side if I had seen that. Crystal, however, clearly feels quite strongly on the issue, and not to come to the defense of someone who doesn't need it, but I find it rather extremely unfair to dismiss something someone is so passionate about as 'pointless' as offhandedly as you have done.
@Crystal: no, don't stop on my account. If anything, the discussion is making me want to set an appointment with the doc now. I've been putting it off for long enough.
@Cymelion: I understand there are other methods, but my mother went through the same operation and she's looking better than she ever has, lost 180 lbs because of it.
From my perspective, raising the air fair won't make M&Ms any less delicious.
takes a deep breath and puts a toe into the water tentatively
It gives me a good incentive to lose weight. That's for sure.
Yeah but where would you stop? If every kg helps you lose another dollar, at some point it's going to become a meaningless and frantic race to save as much money as possible. Encouraging people to lose as much weight as possible is kind of irresponsible in my opinion.
If the weight thing were really a problem, I think a much better policy would be to charge according to range. Like say up to 30kg you pay a certain price, 30kg-50kg another price, 50kg-70kg another price, etc. Because I really don't think someone weighing 40kg and another person weighing 50kg would be a huge problem and it seems silly to penalise two people within the same range differently.
Also all the logistics which is going to cost them a lot already makes it really not worth it, like taboo said.
News Flash:
Rising trend in folks vigorously exercising before going on vacation.
Anorexia is on the rise for international businessmen and consulate employees.
Customers are wearing less clothes when arriving at airports.
Mass airport restaurants are being shut down due to lack of customers.
Rise in protests from the fat people coalition on unfair airfare prices. "We already have a hard time fitting in seats and getting special seat belts! Now you expect us to pay more?"
Also as cooldud himself said there are people suffering from glandular problems who cannot control what they weigh and this is discrimination against them. I'm pretty sure they already go through enough on a day to day basis.
Handsome man save me from the monsters. 
Avatar credits to rcerione
the cost of weighting people, ie hiring people to stand there as people are weighed, adding in weight machines plus their maintenance, and general overall fuckery of making people stand an additional 3-5 minutes in line per person at the airport probably would negate any 'benefit' skinnier passengers could hope to gain from this
basically it just makes fat people pay more to feel even shittier about themselves, while airlines get to charge slightly more per ticket to certain people. you really think they'd give you a discount?
They have weighing machines and staff at check-in counters already. It's for your luggage. Instead of just putting your luggage there, they make you stand up alongside it. Voila.
If we disagree on such a simple issue, to the point where you dismiss well-established theory as "bullcrap", I'm not sure we can even have this discussion. Societal issues aren't "real" or "practical"? They're irrelevant to this case entirely? Why am I making myself feel bad about this, when there's such a fundamental communication breakdown going on?
I do not dismiss your theory as bullcrap. Your theory is unrelated to the matter at hand, which is why, to me, most of what you posted is, in fact, complete and utter bullcrap. Nowhere in your posts did you go towards the overhead on the part of the airline to carry obese passengers. This is the problem that the airline proposes to solve. This problem is pertinent because the people the airline serves suffer from an obesity problem.
Let me say right now, that their intentions were certainly influenced by the societal subordination I was talking about earlier. BUT, they are introducing this policy because of very real concerns about the obesity epidemic afflicting their county. So, can we say that their intentions are definitively good or bad, even if they were influenced by an oppressive society? Probably not. You could even say, that they're just as much a victim of their own culture as the passengers. Especially considering the role of Western influence in this specific case.
See? You have imagined all these motivations behind the airline's policy, ranging from societal pressure to them being good guys trying to tackle obesity in their country. Newsflash:
"Airlines don't run on seats, they run on weight, and particularly the smaller the aircraft you are in the less variance you can accept in terms of the difference in weight between passengers,"
This is what Mr. Head Honcho of the airline has to say on their motivation.
Now, let's look at their actions. People who have no control over their own circumstances are charged more for trying to board an airplane. This would also affect people who carry more baggage or have larger families, which isn't necessarily outside of their control, but sometimes is. Now, this airline practice would negatively impact all of those people and positively impact the airline, as well as its employees. Not very surprising, considering that the airline is a business, and it wants to make money. Looks like they simply took resources from one group of people for the sake of another group, with their own lives and problems.
Oh God. Before the airline even gives it's per kilo quote, you automatically assume that this will be bad for, well, all the consumers and good for the company. Again from the article:
Under the new model, Mr Langton described how some families with children were now paying cheaper fares. "There are no extra fees in terms of excess baggage or anything - it is just a kilo is a kilo is a kilo," he said.
I know very well why you make everything a crusade. But seriously, I have told you this before and I will tell you this again, you do not need to fight just about everything under the sun.
It gives me a good incentive to lose weight. That's for sure.
My god. It's already happening.
Folks with special conditions/needs being kept away from procuring firearms, driving, and other activities where they might accidently/unwillingly harm themselves or others.
Funny story.
When I went to the psychiatric facility, I actually had to sign something that barred me from joining the military or buying firearms.
I think a much better policy would be to charge according to range. Like say up to 30kg you pay a certain price, 30kg-50kg another price, 50kg-70kg another price, etc. Because I really don't think someone weighing 40kg and another person weighing 50kg would be a huge problem and it seems silly to penalise two people within the same range differently.
Yeaaah this would probably be the best way to go about it. I'm sure a few kgs either way isn't going to be a biggie so as long as a range is maintained that would probably work well.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Funny story.
When I went to the psychiatric facility, I actually had to sign something that barred me from joining the military or buying firearms.
What a shame. I'm sure these were on your "To do list"
@cooldud_21:
-snip-
Like I said, I can't argue with you,
because you're not even open to the possibility that their motivations were anything but logical, pragmatic, and objective.
At least I admitted that there were other factors at play besides "we are scheming capitalist dogs who hate fat people!"
@cooldud_21:
I know very well why you make everything a crusade. But seriously, I have told you this before and I will tell you this again, you do not need to fight just about everything under the sun.
What are you trying to say?
Like I said, I can't argue with you,
because you're not even open to the possibility that their motivations were anything but logical, pragmatic, and objective.
They are a corporation. Why would they willingly discriminate against a large section of their clientele? It would be a total and unmitigated PR disaster.
At least I admitted that there were other factors at play besides "we are scheming capitalist dogs who hate fat people!"
And yet most of your content addresses those factors.
What are you trying to say?
Nothing. sigh
@cooldud_21:
They are a corporation. Why would they willingly discriminate against a large section of their clientele? It would be a total and unmitigated PR disaster.
Ever hear of Southwest Airlines?
@cooldud_21:
And yet most of your content addresses those factors.
My reply to Panda Bear is a little more comprehensive than my earlier stuff.
@cooldud_21:
Nothing. sigh
Well, I'm gonna guess that you were referring to my personal motivations.
I'm well aware that I hurt myself by doing this. That I should just find a fat dyke to move in with and forget about all this shit.
But I can't. Not after things that have happened along the way. The problem is balancing that duty with my own happiness.
Although I'm not a capitalism-hating queer, I absolutely agree with Crystal. Sizism is one of the last yet-socially/politically-acceptable -isms prevalent in our society. It's still at the point where most people don't even see what's wrong it.
"Fat people are lazy slobs whose hardships regarding weight are, in every case, entirely and absolutely their own damn fault, and they're not attractive to me physically, so fuck 'em!" is not at all an uncommon position (usually in not so many words), and fat is very often used for ad hominem attacks on the basis of it being an inherent negative/flaw (see, this, and understand the inexorable tie to feminism: http://www.returnofkings.com/2099/the-9-ugliest-american-feminists. )
If fuel costs are demonstrably and significantly higher depending on whether an individual weighs 150 or 250 pounds, then price differentiation is a sound and not unreasonable business decision. The fact that this would also target bodybuilders makes the issue a bit different than the practice of making fat people pay for multiple seats (which is entirely about size; not weight).
But the point where it becomes genuinely insidious discrimination is with shit like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/male-jurors-assume-fat-women-guilty-study-weight-discrimination_n_2464728.html http://jezebel.com/5959682/doctors-are-shitty-to-fat-patients
The airline thing isn't the crusade I would personally pick, but that doesn't mean there aren't very real problems that do deserve attention (and which will most likely get it, in the form of painstaking, gradual reform via a shifting of societal perception over the next century or so). Fortunately, modern history has typically trended progressively and towards equality, so I'm hopeful.
…And personally, despite being a straight white able-bodied male (only way I could be more of society's "norm" is if I were Christian), I full well understand Crystal's need to crusade. It comes from a different place, I suppose (single mother upbringing? growing up in one of the literally gayest towns in the northeast? going to a college dominated by greek fraternities with the worst sexual assault statistics in the ivy league?), but I feel it too. It's not "every little thing." It's injustices and bigotry in society against anyone who doesn't fit the mold.
As for whether the policy is immoral or not, based on everything you've said about "good versus bad" discrimination, we would have to decide whether that should be judged by actions or intentions. And then we'd need to decide what these people's intentions are, which would be extremely difficult.
I think what you bring up here is an important distinction, which I want to address, because otherwise I'm beginning to feel that we might be talking past each other. I definitely think the matter of 'intent' as opposed to, as you put it, 'action' – although I would probably phrase it as 'outcome' -- is an important one. Specifically, what I have been trying to argue this entire time is based purely on intent. I find it rather interesting that you, yourself, say that it would be extremely difficult to know the intent behind this policy, and yet have been incredibly quick to dismiss it as being based on a societal bias against people that are overweight. Frankly, that seems like some fairly severe cognitive dissonance on your part.
Obviously, it's possible that the airline is implementing this policy because they simply hate fat people, or have been influenced by society to be subconsciously biased against them. However, that is in no way the only explanation. As much as I feel you'll dislike me saying this, there is a perfectly valid economic reasoning for the policy. Absolutely all societal issues aside, the simple fact of the matter is that a person that weighs more costs an airline more money on any given flight than one who weighs less. It is not at all out of the realm of possibility, to me, that an airline might therefore choose to charge based on weight, purely as a result of that.
Now, obviously the outcome of such a policy, the effect it would have, needs to be considered as well. And of course, good intentions, or at least non-malicious ones, would not excuse any harm the policy might have. In that regard, you raise valid reasons for why such a policy would be bad, even with the logistical issues of implementing it aside.
The point is, you should argue against that, then. Which, admittedly, you mostly have been. However, there have been points in your posts when you have come across as, intentionally or not, assaulting the intentions of the people behind it. Frankly, I think that only serves to weaken your stance. The harsh truth of the matter, as I suspect you yourself are all too aware, is that not all instances of a group being weighed down (no tasteless pun intended) come about as a result of some sort of unfair bias. Again, that doesn't make such instances any less worth bringing to light and attempting to change, but, to me, it is best to simply stick to pointing out the societal cost, rather than making potentially unfounded accusations of bigotry.
I like a little chub a flub, myself
Ever hear of Southwest Airlines?
I have. What about them?
@TheCrystalShip:
My reply to Panda Bear is a little more comprehensive than my earlier stuff.
And even that reply is full of misplaced anti-corporate bias which I already replied to.
@TheCrystalShip:
Well, I'm gonna guess that you were referring to my personal motivations.
I'm well aware that I hurt myself by doing this. That I should just find a fat dyke to move in with and forget about all this shit.
But I can't. Not after things that have happened along the way. The problem is balancing that duty with my own happiness.
All I was saying was: Do not imagine negative discrimination and some -ism exists when there usually is none. Not everything is a huge conspiracy where someone is out to get some oppressed minority.
And CCC, I very well know that overweight people are discriminated against. I was taunted for my weight most of my childhood. However, the point is, this issue is not related to the airlines one. And yes, if a lot of passengers are 250 lbs instead of 150, it will cause an appreciable impact on the fuel expenditure of the plane.
@Panda:
Dismissing it as 'pointless shit' merely because it doesn't have a directly relevant application is somewhat narrow-minded and, much as I loathe the phrase, anti-intellectual, I think. The debate, to me at least, doesn't really have anything to do with the particular policy itself, which I've already agreed is silly for the reasons you said. In terms of questioning whether discriminating against someone based on their weight is necessarily always wrong, however, it addresses a valid societal issue.
Granted, I am personally coming at this from a purely detached point of view, as Crystal quite rightly observes. Frankly, I only argued the side I did because I made my original post before seeing that all others had taken that side; I would likely have argued on Crystal's side if I had seen that. Crystal, however, clearly feels quite strongly on the issue, and not to come to the defense of someone who doesn't need it, but I find it rather extremely unfair to dismiss something someone is so passionate about as 'pointless' as offhandedly as you have done.
 
@Panda:
I think what you bring up here is an important distinction, which I want to address, because otherwise I'm beginning to feel that we might be talking past each other. I definitely think the matter of 'intent' as opposed to, as you put it, 'action' – although I would probably phrase it as 'outcome' -- is an important one. Specifically, what I have been trying to argue this entire time is based purely on intent. I find it rather interesting that you, yourself, say that it would be extremely difficult to know the intent behind this policy, and yet have been incredibly quick to dismiss it as being based on a societal bias against people that are overweight. Frankly, that seems like some fairly severe cognitive dissonance on your part.
Yes, I meant "outcome".
And by "intentions", I specifically meant what was running through their minds, not what influenced their line of thought.
@Panda:
Obviously, it's possible that the airline is implementing this policy because they simply hate fat people, or have been influenced by society to be subconsciously biased against them. However, that is in no way the only explanation. As much as I feel you'll dislike me saying this, there is a perfectly valid economic reasoning for the policy. Absolutely all societal issues aside, the simple fact of the matter is that a person that weighs more costs an airline more money on any given flight than one who weighs less. It is not at all out of the realm of possibility, to me, that an airline might therefore choose to charge based on weight, purely as a result of that.
Now, obviously the outcome of such a policy, the effect it would have, needs to be considered as well. And of course, good intentions, or at least non-malicious ones, would not excuse any harm the policy might have. In that regard, you raise valid reasons for why such a policy would be bad, even with the logistical issues of implementing it aside.
The point is, you should argue against that, then. Which, admittedly, you mostly have been. However, there have been points in your posts when you have come across as, intentionally or not, assaulting the intentions of the people behind it. Frankly, I think that only serves to weaken your stance. The harsh truth of the matter, as I suspect you yourself are all too aware, is that not all instances of a group being weighed down (no tasteless pun intended) come about as a result of some sort of unfair bias. Again, that doesn't make such instances any less worth bringing to light and attempting to change, but, to me, it is best to simply stick to pointing out the societal cost, rather than making potentially unfounded accusations of bigotry.
I don't think they hate fat people, at least not consciously. And economic incentive is obviously a huge factor.
But I do concede that I've been more flippant than I would be in an academic setting. As someone who has said before, that one must always exercise caution when defending an unpopular opinion, I've acted hypocritically. CCC has told me time and time again to be more cautious when discussing social injustice on the forums. I'm just a livewire when I'm not afraid of political repercussions, I guess.
@cooldud_21:
All I was saying was: Do not imagine negative discrimination and some -ism exists when there usually is none. Not everything is a huge conspiracy where someone is out to get some oppressed minority.
See, you see it as the exception, but I see it as the rule. "There usually is none"?
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, because a conspiracy is a consciously meditated scheme. I'm not saying that they're wringing they're hands, grinning like madmen. I'm saying that it wasn't an entirely objective decision, and that we should be wary of these things. Especially considering the similar, though more extreme cases that CCC posted.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/c4a7e21ee39dbd98173d1b072bd3c736/tumblr_mkaba6EkFG1qf7klco1_500.gif
Yes, hun, I know, you like to make pithy responses to things. The gif is cute, although your 'Ur a gay' come back to when I disparaged the fine barbecue of Texas was better, I think.
Like I've said, though, I have no panda in this race. If you want to dismiss it as me enjoying arguing about pointless things, then I enjoy arguing about pointless things, no fur off my back. If your attitude actually bothers anyone to whom this discussion is more important, such as Crystal, I'm sure they're more than capable of saying so on their own. I'd simply hope that you'd have the common decency to at least respect that if it should be the case.
See, you see it as the exception, but I see it as the rule. "There usually is none"?
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, because a conspiracy is a consciously meditated scheme. I'm not saying that they're wringing they're hands, grinning like madmen. I'm saying that it wasn't an entirely objective decision, and that we should be wary of these things. Especially considering the similar, though more extreme cases that CCC posted.
I see. Then there is a difference in our respective worldviews. I will leave it at that.
CCC has told me time and time again to be more cautious when discussing social injustice on the forums. I'm just a livewire when I'm not afraid of political repercussions, I guess.
…Just as far as bringing it up in the manga section. The people there aren't willing to discuss these things in any sort of reasonable or academic manner (just one-liners and insults) and it quickly gets off topic, which results in mass deletion of posts. Just saying that we should pick our battles... or rather, pick our battlegrounds.
@Panda:
Like I've said, though, I have no panda in this race. If you want to dismiss it as me enjoying arguing about pointless things, then I enjoy arguing about pointless things, no fur off my back. If your attitude actually bothers anyone to whom this discussion is more important, such as Crystal, I'm sure they're more than capable of saying so on their own. I'd simply hope that you'd have the common decency to at least respect that if it should be the case.
I think that Taboo is just apolitical. She usually responds in a brusque fashion, and doesn't seem too interested in the nitty gritty.
Which is hard for me because social politics are my entire life. But as long as someone doesn't disagree with me on a fundamental issue, I'm not too bothered by them. Even my relationship with Monkey King was salvaged after our first couple of squabbles. Unlike Strelok and Hody Jones, LOL.
@Panda:
Yes, hun, I know, you like to make pithy responses to things. The gif is cute, although your 'Ur a gay' come back to when I disparaged the fine barbecue of Texas was better, I think.
ohhh haha that was YOU?
i like it when you point out subtly obvious things in my posts though
i didn't know i needed it in my life
I think that Taboo is just apolitical. She usually responds in a brusque fashion, and doesn't seem too interested in the nitty gritty.
yeah tbh i really don't care about arguments here, but i have a problem with humiliating people for someone's potential financial gain (when really, plane ticket prices are always changing anyways)
I think people are ignoring the fact that Samoa airlines is a pretty small company. They have tiny planes which only carry a few people and are a lot more susceptible to weight. Being a small airline also means that the logistics of weighting people isn't that hard either. I agree with trapped dolphin about charging based on weight ranges in order to simplify things.
Now I think that the idea that the plane company 'needs to do this in order to get rid of Samoa's weight problem' is an incredibly shitty one. If that's actually the rationale behind this move, well then fuck that.
But otherwise, from a practical sense, I see nothing wrong with it. You're paying a company to move your mass from one place to another. They already do things like this for baggages over a certain threshold, charging you extra based on weight increments. Yes people who are tall, people who are bulky, people who are fat (choice or not who cares?) will have to pay more, that's life. Plane tickets are not just something that people are entitled to, like a need or anything. It's a private service provided to you by a private company.
Weight has a direct impact on fuel costs for the airline company. I don't necessarily think that its just a cash grab, but we'll wait and see. Should smaller people have to subsidize the fuel costs of larger people in the wake of rising ticket prices? That's not exactly fair either.
I can see how it could be humiliating but I don't think that's a big deal either. Like when you rent skis, you need to be weighed in order to rent the right type of ski for your body. Is that kind of thing a problem for people? Seems more like a personal issue if anything
But anyway we need to remove this idea of "hey fat people are gross/unhealthy so we need to punish them!"
@Panda:
Yes, hun, I know, you like to make pithy responses to things. The gif is cute, although your 'Ur a gay' come back to when I disparaged the fine barbecue of Texas was better, I think.
Come to Texas and have some good BBQ.
No really, this place is nuts. Like EVERY OTHER FRIGGIN household here does BBQ in their yard.
You see small barbecue pits around every corner, even in apartments. That's how BBQ-nuts they are here.
I'm sure Taboo has one. Or two. Or lives in one.
But anyway we need to remove this idea of "hey fat people are gross/unhealthy so we need to punish them!"
Hmm, will terminating them entirely be an acceptable alternative?
Hmm, will terminating them entirely be an acceptable alternative?
NOOOOO! If there were ever a zombie apocalypse (or any moment when I turn into a zombie or a cannibal on an island), fat people are essential to my survival!
