NationStates Jolt Archive

What's that supposed to mean?

Poes law i guess.

You just wanted to see a cranial ejection

Pics plz

But companies are being forced (if I understand the ruling correctly) to cater to their "special needs" because they have a disability.

The "forced" irks me. Hence my earlier "why not use a carrot instead of a stick" question earlier.
of course they are. just as they are being forced to accomodate other disabilities.

obeying the law is a cost of doing business.

what carrot can the court use?

It was quite clearly just a silly remark made in jest, methinks you may be acting a bit drama-queenish here.

No Names Left Damn It's post was just a silly remark made in jest, as was mine in response. Valentasia, on the other hand.

Poes law i guess.
Ah ok... yeah, I think the same principle behind poe's law probably goes beyond just religious fundamentalism...

No Names Left Damn It's post was just a silly remark made in jest, as was mine in response.

Didn't seem that jesty, nor did the second.

Not to mention those of us with broad shoulders that cannot help that airplane seats are designed for people who are smaller than very, very common full-grown males. It's not like I'm lineman huge. I'm 6 feet and 215 pounds. I can lose weight (which would make no difference) but I cannot cut off my shoulders.

I'm also not disabled. Should I have to pay more just because I'm fully grown?
do you buy 2 tickets when you fly to ensure that you get an empty seat next to you?

But companies are being forced (if I understand the ruling correctly) to cater to their "special needs" because they have a disability.

The "forced" irks me. Hence my earlier "why not use a carrot instead of a stick" question earlier.

They do use a carrot, in the form of millions of dollars of subsidies that the airlines receive from the government every year.

Ah ok... yeah, I think the same principle behind poe's law probably goes beyond just religious fundamentalism...

I've had people "call poes law" on me for various different reasons. Some guy on youtube thought i was a troll because i made an anti Ron Paul video. I tend to not pay much attention to it. If anyone seriously has to rationalise another persons opinion in such a way i just feel sorry for them.

Poes law i guess.

funny how you knew what it was.

Didn't seem that jesty, nor did the second.

The "troll" and the "no" seemed exactly as jesty as "seat". My comment to Valentasia was not in jest, nor was it meant to be.

of course they are. just as they are being forced to accomodate other disabilities.

obeying the law is a cost of doing business.

what carrot can the court use?
So if the military becomes privatized, will they by law have to allow diabetics in? (Not that I as a agree with the idea of diabetics in the military even as a diabetic, but meh...)

I'm not all that concerned whether you believe it happened or not.

Translation: It didn't happen

funny how you knew what it was.

Yes. Hilarious. It's a barrel of fun having people constantly type "poe" at me for my religious and political beliefs.

My comment to Valentasia was not in jest, nor was it meant to be.

But it basically said my comment was a waste of time and trying to start a fight, so you can't have been joking.

So if the military becomes privatized, will they by law have to allow diabetics in? (Not that I as a agree with the idea of diabetics in the military even as a diabetic, but meh...)
beats me. i dont know the parameters of military service.

Translation: It didn't happen

If you like. Like i said, i don't care enough to go through this thread looking for it.

So if the military becomes privatized, will they by law have to allow diabetics in? (Not that I as a agree with the idea of diabetics in the military even as a diabetic, but meh...)

The military, privatised or not, falls under the 'Employment' section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and cannot discriminate against possible applications other than for bona fide occupational requirements.

Slowly, slowly, you are learning.

Yes. Hilarious. It's a barrel of fun having people constantly type "poe" at me for my religious and political beliefs.

Oh please. Either you're a guy who makes silly and trolling youtube vids, or you're pretending to be a guy who makes silly and trolling youtube vids.

Either way, getting called out on it now and then has to be par for the course. Sorry to break it to you, but we've had better satirists than you.

do you buy 2 tickets when you fly to ensure that you get an empty seat next to you?

No, I and the person next to me suffer. People often groan when they see me sitting there. And I am by no means unusually large. Now, honestly, airlines often try to accomodate me by moving the person in the middle seat.

My question to the people who think it is unfair that obese people take up more space, is it unfair that I am going into the space of the person next to me or getting that seat emptied to accomodate my size?

Yes. Hilarious. It's a barrel of fun having people constantly type "poe" at me for my religious and political beliefs.

I just want to step out of the discussion at hand for a brief moment to say that you have enormous potential, and we have been waiting for a truly skilled verbal hobgoblin for some time now. Disappointed again, and again by crudely crafted posts, heavy-handed reliance on poor spelling and grammar, and an inability to carry an argument...please don't add to that disappointment.

They are. If you're willing to eat yourself into a position where you cannot fit into a seat you should be willing to pay for two seats. I'm sure many fat people would rather pay for both seats anyway, since they'll be entitled to two in flight meals.

Should I have to pay for two seats. I'm not even slightly overweight.

The military, privatised or not, falls under the 'Employment' section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and cannot discriminate against possible applications other than for bona fide occupational requirements.

Slowly, slowly, you are learning.
Do you have to be so condescending? As of right now, diabetics are not allowed in the military... and I don't think that's necessarily all that unreasonable a discrimination either. I could just imagine being on the battlefield and having to test my blood sugar to know whether it was high or low (having to treat the blood sugar if it was low or else I would die) and getting a gunshot would while looking at the glucometer screen. I just don't consider diabetics joining the military a good idea, but not allowing them to is discrimination.

No, I and the person next to me suffer. People often groan when they see me sitting there. And I am by no means unusually large. Now, honestly, airlines often try to accomodate me by moving the person in the middle seat.

My question to the people who think it is unfair that obese people take up more space, is it unfair that I am going into the space of the person next to me or getting that seat emptied to accomodate my size?
its "unfair" that flying sucks. if it werent so quick id never do it.

its part of the flying experience that you run the risk of sitting next to a big guy, a smelly guy, a nut, a chatter, or a crying baby.

I just want to step out of the discussion at hand for a brief moment to say that you have enormous potential, and we have been waiting for a truly skilled verbal hobgoblin for some time now. Disappointed again, and again by crudely crafted posts, heavy-handed reliance on poor spelling and grammar, and an inability to carry an argument...please don't add to that disappointment.

I'm not going to be staying around. Apparantly i'm pretending to be a guy who makes silly youtube videos, because i mentioned an anti Ron Paul video i made. Yes... the only way anyone could possibly have any issues with Ron Paul is if they were "trolling".

Should I have to pay for two seats. I'm not even slightly overweight.

Can you fit in one seat? If so, why would you want two seats?

Can you fit in one seat? If so, why would you want two seats?

Elbow room ?
No annoying person right next to me ?

Do you have to be so condescending? As of right now, diabetics are not allowed in the military... and I don't think that's necessarily all that unreasonable a discrimination either. I could just imagine being on the battlefield and having to test my blood sugar to know whether it was high or low (having to treat the blood sugar if it was low or else I would die) and getting a gunshot would while looking at the glucometer screen. I just don't consider diabetics joining the military a good idea, but not allowing them to is discrimination.

Yes, I have to be condescending, but I'm also trying to encourage you to use that squishy grey matter floating around in your cranium.

When dealing with the issue of discrimination, there is a multifaceted approach you can take...but to make it simpler, think of it this way. First you determine whether something is discrimination or not, and if so, you then decide whether that discrimination is justified.

So, someone with diabetes has a legitimate illness that cannot be changed. Keeping them out of the military on that basis is discrimination under the grounds of disability. Now the military can argue that there is a bona fide occupational requirement for soldiers to be in top physical shape, and diabetes has enough potential to affect the safety of the person with diabetes, and those around him or her, to justify not letting that person in.

All I'm asking you to do here is think things out a little better, and I'm trying to show you what processes you can use in this legalistic discussion to do that.

Keep in mind, this particular analysis is for employment situations, not service situations (which we have been discussing).

Elbow room ?
No annoying person right next to me ?

If fat people are entitled to two seats for their comfort, then you should be allowed two seats too.

I don't think that fat people should be allowed two seats though. If i owned an airline you'd have to pay.

If you like. Like i said, i don't care enough to go through this thread looking for it.

Obese people don't act reasonably towards themselves. But that's by the by. To look at, they're disgusting. No two ways about it.

People who let themselves become that size are disgusting. If you like the look of them, that's cool. But it verges on a fetish.

I'm stupified. How can you not be disgusted by it? Maybe if the world got harder on the obese they'd be more inclined to sort themselves out.

No. I just don't make friends with obese people.

Fat enough to require 2 seats on an airplane.

Well, i've never flown economy class so i wouldn't know how big those seats are.
You weren't being called a troll for not flying coach, you were being called a troll in the context of your posts leading up to your boast.

It's really not difficult. I had to lose 5 pounds in a week for an audition. I looked online at some different diets, and found one that suited me. The Lemonade diet. I stuck to it for a whole seven days, and lost 8 pounds.
Ooooh, you're a fucking actor. Explains a lot.

I'm not going to be staying around. Apparantly i'm pretending to be a guy who makes silly youtube videos, because i mentioned an anti Ron Paul video i made. Yes... the only way anyone could possibly have any issues with Ron Paul is if they were "trolling".

Fine. Go ahead. Run away.

*weeps*

If fat people are entitled to two seats for their comfort, then you should be allowed two seats too.

I don't think that fat people should be allowed two seats though. If i owned an airline you'd have to pay.

Not in Canada.

If fat people are entitled to two seats for their comfort, then you should be allowed two seats too.

I don't think that fat people should be allowed two seats though. If i owned an airline you'd have to pay.
unless you owned an airline in canada.

Ooooh, you're a fucking actor. Explains a lot.

What does it explain?

unless you owned an airline in canada.

I don't intend to ever own anything in Canada.

I don't intend to ever own anything in Canada.

So if you travel to Canada, you're going to disrobe, toss away your luggage, and give away your organs? Biz-R.

So if you travel to Canada, you're going to disrobe, toss away your luggage, and give away your organs? Biz-R.

I'd never go to Canada. I'm very particular as to where i travel.

I don't intend to ever own anything in Canada.
fate may yet bring you to spend your vast untapped fortune on a canadian airline flying between moosejaw and ottawa. then you would have to provide space for whatever obese person buys a ticket regardless of his size. (as long as he can get through the airplane door i suppose)

you should not limit your future by denying possibilities.

I'd never go to Canada. I'm very particular as to where i travel.

Alright, that makes a lot more sense. What a strange image otherwise. Flaccid, minuscule genitals shriveled with the biting cold of the Canadian winter, sickly pale skin gleaming as Chinese immigrants harvest your gall bladder with the intention to falsely market it as having come from a black bear, while homeless people rifle through your discarded luggage, trying on feather boas and strap-on dildos.

Canada is a dangerous place. Land of the rabid beaver attacks.

Oh sweet fuck I swear to god my fucking head is going to pop off if one more of you idiots continue to talk about paying for seats versus paying for transportation. How is it possible to so fundamentally misunderstand the issue? It has to be deliberate. I'm too scared of the other alternative.

I have to admit I was ignorant that you actually pay for the transportation rather than the seat. But I'm still not entirely clear how that can be used to force the airline to provide wider seats or two seats? Surely if all you're paying for is the transport itself, you don't really have a say in how wide the seat is going to be?

It took 7 months to get my skin this sickly pale, in a way it's very much like a diet. I set myself a goal and had the mental dicipline to stick to it.

By the way, if anyone doubts whether Valentasia is a troll or not, just look at this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14237187&postcount=47

In his website he says this:


My genius extends far outside the realms of purely academic pursuits. I am considered by all that hear me to be a virtuoso level musician. The constant praise is satisfying to my ego, but the beauty i impart onto my audiences means that i give more than i take. I leave a small part of me on every stage i perform and in the hearts of my listeners. Fortunately, i'm always increasing my musical abilities, so there is no danger of me withering away.
My Magnum Opus is simply titled Luna: A Space Ballet, and is without a doubt the greatest piece of music ever written. It's the story of the Universe, and once it gains mainstream popularity it will be an invaluable tool in spreading the message of Valentaokyo. Musically, it was inspired partly by the Russian romantacism era conductors and pianists, Tchaikovsky especially, and partly by the sounds of space. The story the piece tells was inspired purely by reality, and tells the story of the god race, and how they built the Moon to seed life on planet Earth.
My current musical project is Valentin and the Selezynobots. A functions band. We take modern day hits and give them an 80's new wave makeover, with modern electro highlights. If you're getting married, or bar mitsvahd, or something, i strongly suggest you check out the sample mp3's below.
As for the future, i've already started writing a second ballet. This one will be a lot more traditional than Luna, and utilise standard instrumentation. Which, in many ways, is a lot more experimental.

And then searching for his name on google reveals this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r30AC2R0lIU

We have a professional troll here. (And yes, I did just waste 5 minutes on a guy who I'm actually pretty indifferent to).

fate may yet bring you to spend your vast untapped fortune on a canadian airline flying between moosejaw and ottawa. then you would have to provide space for whatever obese person buys a ticket regardless of his size. (as long as he can get through the airplane door i suppose)

you should not limit your future by denying possibilities.

My vast fortune isn't all that untapped. Im in a position to be able to choose what i do. I will never have to take a job i don't want to.

It took 7 months to get my skin this sickly pale, in a way it's very much like a diet. I set myself a goal and had the mental dicipline to stick to it.
congratulations.

I have to admit I was ignorant that you actually pay for the transportation rather than the seat. But I'm still not entirely clear how that can be used to force the airline to provide wider seats or two seats? Surely if all you're paying for is the transport itself, you don't really have a say in how wide the seat is going to be?
You have no say in how wide the seat is going to be...the seats must adhere to regulations. That's not the issue though...when you have a disability, you aren't saying anything about what the seats must be like. You are accessing your right to accommodation, which in this case would be two seats. For another person with a different disability, the accommodation necessary could be something else, such as being seated closer to the bathroom, etc.

The onus is on the airline to remove obstacles that would make it difficult or impossible for a person with a disability to be as mobile as other abled people.

You have no say in how wide the seat is going to be...the seats must adhere to regulations. That's not the issue though...when you have a disability, you aren't saying anything about what the seats must be like. You are accessing your right to accommodation, which in this case would be two seats. For another person with a different disability, the accommodation necessary could be something else, such as being seated closer to the bathroom, etc.

The onus is on the airline to remove obstacles that would make it difficult or impossible for a person with a disability to be as mobile as other abled people.

Makes sense. I figure the next thing the airlines will do is introduce a fee to reserve your seat. And should you happen to need two...

congratulations.

Thank you.



And to the guy who posted that segment from my website... you clearly didn't click on any of the audio samples. I'm not a professional troll, i'm a professional musician.

Makes sense. I figure the next thing the airlines will do is introduce a fee to reserve your seat. And should you happen to need two...

There already is a fee to reserve your seat if that's what you want to do...say you specifically want a window seat. All our airlines allow you to do that.

People with disabilities have to make prior arrangements for accommodation, that is already a requirement. The airline would not be able to charge them for two seat reservations though.

Thank you.


And to the guy who posted that segment from my website... you clearly didn't click on any of the audio samples. I'm not a professional troll, i'm a professional musician.

Oh I saw. That E flat chord was absolutely brilliant! I actually just gave up my own guitar playing out of despair because of it. You have freed up so much time for me, by showing me your superior skills, and I rejoice in the new hours open for finger painting and drooling contests.

Thank you, gracias, merci, ay-ay mistahi!

There already is a fee to reserve your seat if that's what you want to do...say you specifically want a window seat. All our airlines allow you to do that.

People with disabilities have to make prior arrangements for accommodation, that is already a requirement. The airline would not be able to charge them for two seat reservations though.

That must be slightly different in Canada then, I'm not aware airlines here do that. You can reserve a seat online usually, but at no extra cost. It saves time when checking in at the airport.

I'm not so sure about not being able to charge extra. I've got no example of airlines, but I know that the German rail will charge you by seat if you want to reserve (it's not obligatory to reserve a seat, though sometimes advisable), and they will charge per seat, disability or not.

I'm fairly confident i'll be judged on my ballet and the album i'm recording with my band, as opposed to a video on youtube.

Alright, that makes a lot more sense. What a strange image otherwise. Flaccid, minuscule genitals shriveled with the biting cold of the Canadian winter, sickly pale skin gleaming as Chinese immigrants harvest your gall bladder with the intention to falsely market it as having come from a black bear, while homeless people rifle through your discarded luggage, trying on feather boas and strap-on dildos.

Canada is a dangerous place. Land of the rabid beaver attacks.
Winter isn't consistently cold throughout Canada; from what I've heard Vancouver's winters are much milder than Chicago's.

We haven't had a decent troll since Andaras, this should be fun.

Winter isn't consistently cold throughout Canada; from what I've heard Vancouver's winters are much milder than Chicago's.

I don't know, Montreal in winter can be pretty ... well, shrivelling.

Winter isn't consistently cold throughout Canada; from what I've heard Vancouver's winters are much milder than Chicago's.

I love that you don't challenge any of the other images presented :D

In Vancouver, it rains. All winter. Every bloody day.

I'll take snow, thanks. Though we currently have none.

I love that you don't challenge any of the other images presented :D
I didn't read your post very carefully and I didn't understand what the other "images" you were referring to were...

Ok to indulge the idiots, here is a 300lbs woman who was kicked off a Southwest Airline flight. Southwest fly primarily Boeing 737s.

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=93

http://www.wlwt.com/travelgetaways/6838150/detail.html

Hmm now why would Southwest Airline have a policy about passenger weight if it didn't matter that much....hmmm...curious.

Did you even read your own damned article?

In June 2003, Thompson boarded a Southwest flight to Nashville. Seeing that her legs and hip protruded onto the next seat, a supervisor told Thompson she'd have to purchase another ticket.

She wasn't kicked off because her weight endangered the plane. She was removed because they told her to purchase another seat so she cuould fit, and she refused.

Seriously, hardcore fail, even for you.

Seriously, hardcore fail, even for you.

Really Neo....really? You wadded through I forgot how many pages to find that post, and then to post your reply?

Do you have to be so condescending? As of right now, diabetics are not allowed in the military... and I don't think that's necessarily all that unreasonable a discrimination either. I could just imagine being on the battlefield and having to test my blood sugar to know whether it was high or low (having to treat the blood sugar if it was low or else I would die) and getting a gunshot would while looking at the glucometer screen. I just don't consider diabetics joining the military a good idea, but not allowing them to is discrimination.

It is not discrimination in the way that is being applied when discussing discriminatory hiring practices.

The fact is there is no protest to have requirements that must be met that are relevant to a job. Proposing that any discrimination argument or legislation forces orginizations private or public to hire people who are incapable of performing the job is not factual.

For example, how many orderlies with no legs have you seen? I mean, many hospitals are private. Surely, you've seen plenty, no? Or perhaps, it's perfectly legal to hire people based on their ability to perform the job.

She is being condescending because your argument is ignorant. It's not an opinion that it's ignorant. It's a fact. There hasn't been a single decision that supports your silly claim.

Im 6-4, im by no means thin but since im taller then 99.2% of all Americans and i have a width to match i simply can not fit in an airplane seat. You can call people fat but unless you want me to undergo an operation to reduce the width of my pelvic bone and shoulder blades then i just simply cant fit. When i sit in a plane, i have a steady pressure on both sholders nonstop for X number of hours. I bet i couldnt squeeze your sholders together lightly for 5 minutes without you going crazy, try it across the country. That goes double for my knees being buried into the back of the seat in front of me.

So baring shaving my bones down im simply too big to sit in tiny seats. So because the airlines refuse to make big enough seats i should pay double? Should i be charged two tickets at the movie theater? Should i be charged double for a standing room only concert? Im clearly taking up double the space of a 4-11 100lb girl and if the venue is charging standing room then im physically taking up 2x as much space right? I should also be charged double at a buffet cause i clearly eat more then a "normal" person. I should also be charged double for my clothes because they take more fabric to make. Size 14 shoes should cost 2x what a size 8 shoes does right? Its only fair...

Can you fit in one seat? If so, why would you want two seats?

My butt can. My shoulders can't. When I sit back, the person next to me loses about half of their seat if I'm on the window. If I'm in the aisle, I usually lean out into the aisle (which means I'm regularly slaughtered by serving carts). It is not infrequent to get off a plan with bruises. No, that's not a joke.

I'm smaller now, but I challenge the majority of people who are morbidly obese to a contest over who will reach further into the adjoining seat when sitting properly back when I was bulked up.

What I did was for my health and it meant I was wildly uncomfortable in planes.

Again, should I be charged for a second seat?

My butt can. My shoulders can't. When I sit back, the person next to me loses about half of their seat if I'm on the window. If I'm in the aisle, I usually lean out into the aisle (which means I'm regularly slaughtered by serving carts). It is not infrequent to get off a plan with bruises. No, that's not a joke.

I'm smaller now, but I challenge the majority of people who are morbidly obese to a contest over who will reach further into the adjoining seat when sitting properly back when I was bulked up.

What I did was for my health and it meant I was wildly uncomfortable in planes.

Again, should I be charged for a second seat?

Are your freakishly tall or something? I can't relate. I'm 5 foot 8, which is the national average height in the UK.

Are your freakishly tall or something? I can't relate. I'm 5 foot 8, which is the national average height in the UK.

Yes i am.

The post I linked to was made on the previous page...hardly forcing you to 'read through the whole thread'.

I love the whole "I have a life" reasoning when it comes to justifying wading into a discussion like a retarded hippopotamus on crack with a penchant for felching.

This is one of the best similes I have ever seen. :p

If fat people are entitled to two seats for their comfort, then you should be allowed two seats too.

I don't think that fat people should be allowed two seats though. If i owned an airline you'd have to pay.

Okay, so we've established that "they're disgusting" and "they did it to themselves" is not relevant, haven't we?

Good, so we won't hear anymore stupid arguments based on it, right? Right?

That's the point. Rationally, you object to people who are larger than you. Fine, we get it. However, by fact, I don't pay extra to stand on the Subway though I take up more space. I don't pay extra to stand on the bus. I don't pay more to use any other form of transportation despite that, on occasion, other people can't fit because I'm there.

But I'll tell you what. I think we should make up for it by paying big people more. See, when heavy packages show up, they walk past little tikes like you and ask me to carry it. I'm more valuable. I provide more service.

They also dont charge more for size 9 shoes instead of size 8. Or charge more for buying a medium shirt instead of a small.

They also dont charge more for size 9 shoes instead of size 8. Or charge more for buying a medium shirt instead of a small.

Actually they often do. But don't let that deter you ;)

Are your freakishly tall or something? I can't relate. I'm 5 foot 8, which is the national average height in the UK.

I'm six feet tall. Some of us are full grown, so we have to deal with problems that come with being a healthy and good-sized male.

Send me a check. Clearly, ideally, we should start adjusting for the services you do not provide that gentlemen like myself do. PM for my address.

I have no reply so I'm going to bitch because you just tore apart my argument.

Fixed that statement for you.

Or, you know, you could go ahead and dispute what he said... or admit you're actually wrong.

Really Neo....really? You wadded through I forgot how many pages to find that post, and then to post your reply?

Yes, that's what happens on a discussion board. You write something, i read it, and I reply to it. If you don't like me pointing out the fact that you obviously didn't read your own article, that's really your problem. I don't consider pointing out what you said less than a day ago, and refuting it, to be particularly unreasonable. They're your words, own up to them.

If you wish to avoid that in the future, be more discerning about what you link to, and whether or not it really says what you claim it says.

Actually they often do. But don't let that deter you ;)

They do? Who is "they"? I've shopped in areas from Rodea to MLK drive in Chattanooga, TN. I have yet to see a difference in price between an 8 and a 9.

They often charge extra for custom-made shoes. But then they also charge to tailor clothes no matter what the reason. It's a different service.

They also dont charge more for size 9 shoes instead of size 8. Or charge more for buying a medium shirt instead of a small.

I have shopped in stores where I paid $2-$3 more for a "plus" (L-XXXL) size shirt than for a "regular" (XS - Med) shirt of the same style.

I have shopped in stores where I paid $2-$3 more for a "plus" (L-XXXL) size shirt than for a "regular" (XS - Med) shirt of the same style.

I assume however you understand my point that this does not occur normally? I wear size 14.5 shoes and have never been asked to pay extra.

Okay, so we've established that "they're disgusting" and "they did it to themselves" is not relevant, haven't we?

Good, so we won't hear anymore stupid arguments based on it, right? Right?

That's the point. Rationally, you object to people who are larger than you. Fine, we get it. However, by fact, I don't pay extra to stand on the Subway though I take up more space. I don't pay extra to stand on the bus. I don't pay more to use any other form of transportation despite that, on occasion, other people can't fit because I'm there.

But I'll tell you what. I think we should make up for it by paying big people more. See, when heavy packages show up, they walk past little tikes like you and ask me to carry it. I'm more valuable. I provide more service.

My argument isn't based on that. I'm just saying, fat people are gross.

I'm glad that you find some self worth in being treated like an ox though.

I assume however you understand my point that this does not occur normally? I wear size 14.5 shoes and have never been asked to pay extra.

Or, maybe, they have a different standard for women. I have noticed that fat women frequently pay more for their size difference than fat men do.

My argument isn't based on that. I'm just saying, fat people are gross.

I'm glad that you find some self worth in being treated like an ox though.

Observing your style of debate and choice of words and attitude, I am forced to conclude that, while you're not fat, you are unpleasant. On the whole, I think I'd rather associate with a fat person than with you.

I'm six feet tall. Some of us are full grown, so we have to deal with problems that come with being a healthy and good-sized male.

Send me a check. Clearly, ideally, we should start adjusting for the services you do not provide that gentlemen like myself do. PM for my address.

6 feet isn't that tall, you should be able to fit in a seat on an airplane. If the problem is leg room, maybe you should upgrade to business class.

Observing your style of debate and choice of words and attitude, I am forced to conclude that, while you're not fat, you are unpleasant. On the whole, I think I'd rather associate with a fat person than with you.

I'd rather you associate with a fat person than me too.

Or, maybe, they have a different standard for women. I have noticed that fat women frequently pay more for their size difference than fat men do.

Is it any more rational charging women and not men for larger shoes then it is charging for 2 seats? (That is assuming women are in fact charged more for larger shoe sizes which i am not convinced is the case after doing a brief search of Target/Walmart websites)

Everyone is charged for custom shoe sizes. The seats on a plane need some customisation to accommodate an obese person.

Everyone is charged for custom shoe sizes. The seats on a plane need some customisation to accommodate an obese person.

Or tall person, or handicapped person...

Lets just get it over with and have a height tax.

Is it any more rational charging women and not men for larger shoes then it is charging for 2 seats? (That is assuming women are in fact charged more for larger shoe sizes which i am not convinced is the case after doing a brief search of Target/Walmart websites)

Not shoes, clothes. There is not infrequently a slightly higher price for clothes sizes above L or XL. I'm not entirely sure how this came up or why it's relevant to the discussion, though.

This thread amuses me.

Not shoes, clothes. There is not infrequently a slightly higher price for clothes sizes above L or XL. I'm not entirely sure how this came up or why it's relevant to the discussion, though.

Because peoples argument is that fat/tall/handicapped people take up more resources in the same way a larger size of a piece of clothing takes up more resources yet one is the same price and the other they are trying to charge double for.

My argument isn't based on that. I'm just saying, fat people are gross.

I'm glad that you find some self worth in being treated like an ox though.

Not self-worth. That's regular worth. I'm providing a value that little guys like you cannot. It's okay if you want to discount it though. I'm sure it's gotta be a little demeaning when you have to ask me to boost you up so you can get something off the top shelf.

Wait, are people still feeding this cat? He's pretty clearly a 'in it for the lulz' type, you don't have to dance for his organ grinder.

Not self-worth. That's regular worth. I'm providing a value that little guys like you cannot. It's okay if you want to discount it though. I'm sure it's gotta be a little demeaning when you have to ask me to boost you up so you can get something off the top shelf.

I'd actually find it more demeaning if somebody asked me to carry a heavy box for them.

Not shoes, clothes. There is not infrequently a slightly higher price for clothes sizes above L or XL. I'm not entirely sure how this came up or why it's relevant to the discussion, though.

What? Where? I seriously have never encountered this (or at least never noticed).

I'm sure it's gotta be a little demeaning when you have to ask me to boost you up so you can get something off the top shelf.

Im the official light bulb changer because i can palm most ceilings. And at least 2 or 3x a year i have a random stranger in a store ask me to get something for them thats out of reach. But there are a few parts of society that just arnt considerate of tall wide people and airplanes are one of the glaring examples.

I'd actually find it more demeaning if somebody asked me to carry a heavy box for them.

So you find being a burden less demeaning then being useful. Hmmm.... that says a lot.

What? Where? I seriously have never encountered this (or at least never noticed).

Well, I've noticed it in women's clothes, not men's, for the rather obvious reason that I don't exactly spend a lot of time looking at prices on men's clothes. :p I couldn't honestly tell you what stores or manufacturers, seeing as the price differences don't affect me, but I've definitely seen it. The differences are never very large, though - it'll generally be something like $22.99 for sizes S, M, L, XL versus $24.99 for sizes XXL and XXXL.

What? Where? I seriously have never encountered this (or at least never noticed).

It doesn't say it anymore, but if you select 3XL you get charged a few bucks more than for a LG here (http://www.bowlingshirt.com/loungem/printed/?productid=1621&change_option1id=4542&option1id=4545&productid=1621).

I see it now and then.

So you find being a burden less demeaning then being useful. Hmmm.... that says a lot.

By the way, not to spoil your troll-poking fun, but I just have to note that no one ever asks YOU to squeeze through that tight space for them. Being small isn't entirely useless, mister. :tongue:

6 feet isn't that tall, you should be able to fit in a seat on an airplane. If the problem is leg room, maybe you should upgrade to business class.

The problem is shoulder room. Do you actually read what you reply to or do you just spew out words? See, when I say I'm having trouble with broad shoulders, I'm not suggesting the problem is leg room.

Meanwhile, most domestic flights don't have business class. Also, as my flights are paid for by the companies that I consult to, they choose which class I fly. (Though when first class exists, I'm often upgraded.)

Regardless, again, you demonstrate that I deserve to make more at every job you and I would both hold. Not only is my cost of living higher, but I'm actually more useful than you.

By the way, not to spoil your troll-poking fun, but I just have to note that no one ever asks YOU to squeeze through that tight space for them. Being small isn't entirely useless, mister. :tongue:

Yeah, but he doesn't have the benefit of being extremely small, either. He's not particularly physically useful.

Of course, being useful is "demeaning".

The differences are never very large, though - it'll generally be something like $22.99 for sizes S, M, L, XL versus $24.99 for sizes XXL and XXXL.

So what is the justification of not charging extra for small vs XL when the fabric difference is probably several 100% but the difference in material from an XL and XXL isnt even close to the same increased usage of materials. Its clearly a biased system against large people.

By the way, if anyone doubts whether Valentasia is a troll or not, just look at this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14237187&postcount=47

In his website he says this:



And then searching for his name on google reveals this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r30AC2R0lIU

We have a professional troll here. (And yes, I did just waste 5 minutes on a guy who I'm actually pretty indifferent to).
I'm sort of sad, the song links didn't work for me, but you missed the best part of that website:

The 28th of January, 1986, saw the worst tragedy in aerospace history befall the Challenger space shuttle and her crew. An O-ring seal on its right solid rocket booster failed, causing the shuttle to, in laymans terms, blow the hell up. Seven of the worlds most brilliant scientific minds were killed that day, and space travel was grounded for two years.
This would have been disastrous for humanities knowledge of the stars had it not been for an event that took place across the Atlantic ocean, in Greenwhich, London.
The birth of me. Valentin Selezynov.This guy is a riot!

By the way, not to spoil your troll-poking fun, but I just have to note that no one ever asks YOU to squeeze through that tight space for them. Being small isn't entirely useless, mister. :tongue:
Well, we don't really ask you, we just pick you up and shove you into the space and say, "Quit whining about spiders. Grab that for me and I'll put you down."

So what is the justification of not charging extra for small vs XL when the fabric difference is probably several 100% but the difference in material from an XL and XXL isnt even close to the same increased usage of materials.

I don't really know, though my best guess would be that the extra charge isn't actually for the additional material so much as for the rarer size - kind of like an advance special order.

If fat people are entitled to two seats for their comfort, then you should be allowed two seats too.

I don't think that fat people should be allowed two seats though. If i owned an airline you'd have to pay.

Unless your airline flew to Canada, in which case you wouldn't be able to.

I'm sort of sad, the song links didn't work for me, but you missed the best part of that website:

This guy is a riot!

He is?

I'd prefer that people who choose to perform actually practice before doing so. I realize that everyone and their brother can make a video, so now they all think they're incredibly famous because they're on youtube, but the least they could do is have a little pride.

And I'm not talking about his playing, which of course our troll friend realizes is terrible. I'm talking about his acting. Seriously, have some pride, "Valentin".

Morbid obesity is considered a disability, and you cannot discriminate against someone with a disability (ie, charge them for two seats).

People who travel with an aid do not have to pay airfare for the seat that aid takes. It's called accommodation, and it is the positive reinforcement of human rights in this country.

I'm sorry, but morbid obesity isn't really a disability, because unlike someone who actuallly has a disability, they have a modicum of control over that disability. While I can certainly see the issue of charging people more for wheelchairs as RyanAir did (and possibly still does, though I'm not certain), just because someone eats too much and lives a sendentary lifestyle doesn't mean they deserve special treatment.

He is?

I'd prefer that people who choose to perform actually practice before doing so. I realize that everyone and their brother can make a video, so now they all think they're incredibly famous because they're on youtube, but the least they could do is have a little pride.

And I'm not talking about his playing, which of course our troll friend realizes is terrible. I'm talking about his acting. Seriously, have some pride, "Valentin".Oh I haven't seen or heard anything he's done. I'm going solely off the posts like this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14239143&postcount=38

and of course his website. The videos and songs might ruin it for me.

I'm sorry, but morbid obesity isn't really a disability, because unlike someone who actuallly has a disability, they have a modicum of control over that disability. While I can certainly see the issue of charging people more for wheelchairs as RyanAir did (and possibly still does, though I'm not certain), just because someone eats too much and lives a sendentary lifestyle doesn't mean they deserve special treatment.

unless it is a thyroid or a hormonal imbalance. those are not easy to control.

I'm sorry, but morbid obesity isn't really a disability, because unlike someone who actuallly has a disability, they have a modicum of control over that disability. While I can certainly see the issue of charging people more for wheelchairs as RyanAir did (and possibly still does, though I'm not certain), just because someone eats too much and lives a sendentary lifestyle doesn't mean they deserve special treatment.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

...

I'm sorry, but morbid obesity isn't really a disability, because unlike someone who actuallly has a disability, they have a modicum of control over that disability. While I can certainly see the issue of charging people more for wheelchairs as RyanAir did (and possibly still does, though I'm not certain), just because someone eats too much and lives a sendentary lifestyle doesn't mean they deserve special treatment.

Do people that are 6-4 deserve a seat where they can sit without constant unrelenting pressure on shoulders and hips and knees for hours and hours at a time? Or do i just have fat sholders and knees?

This guy is a riot!

I find him annoying. Why can't he keep his Narcissitic thoughts to himself like the rest of us. Now where did I leave my Napoleon Hat?

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

That's Life.

What's Life?

A magazine.

How much does it cost?

A dollar.

That's too much.

...

Yay! :D

An obese person taking two seats and paying for one is discriminating against thin people. Damn fascists.

Who has considered the idea of a 'fat tax'?

I think for that, you'd need to come up with a really, really watertight reason why the person in question needs to travel, and why airtravel is the only option...
Death in the family; must travel home for funeral.

Kid in horrid accident/must be hospitalized for dangerous illness; fastest way to reach them.

Business.

Obesity isn't a disease, it's a symptom.

Maybe being lazy and gluttonous is a disease though.
Perhaps trolling is a disease as well.

No disabled person chooses to be that way.
Au contraire, Black Adder. (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Health/story?id=1806125)

But is it the same service?
You get on Flight 007 in NY, he gets on Flight 007 in NY.
You get off Flight 007 in Chicago, he gets off Flight 007 in Chicago.

Yup, same service.

Perhaps trolling is a disease as well.



trolling causes laziness and gluttony.

I find him annoying. Why can't he keep his Narcissitic thoughts to himself like the rest of us. Now where did I leave my Napoleon Hat?
He's White Gold... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkdSh6acZJo&feature=related)

I'm bored with it for another reason. There's nothing particularly clever about it. The 'self absorbed egomaniac' character is nothing new. Aside from White Gold there's also Jack Black, Chris Elliot, Ben Stiller, Steve Martin, Steven Colbert, etc.

But while those comedians invite you not to laugh with them but at them, the internet hack version of that hopes to laugh at you. Like all trolls, the idea is to exploit a basic tennat of civil discourse, benefit of the doubt. Presumably the humor is derived from "I said something provocative and it provoked people!" (I have wondered before if these people get the same giddy satisfaction from door knobs, "I twisted the door knob and the door opened! LULZ!") It's a tired bit. Hell, NSG has had a few already, and one resident one that does a better job of selling it. There is nothing particularly compelling about it. It's just hacky. It's like someone thinking putting captions on cat pictures is clever.

By the way, if anyone doubts whether Valentasia is a troll or not, just look at this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14237187&postcount=47

In his website he says this:



And then searching for his name on google reveals this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r30AC2R0lIU

We have a professional troll here. (And yes, I did just waste 5 minutes on a guy who I'm actually pretty indifferent to).
'Twas pointed pages ago, actually.

Do people that are 6-4 deserve a seat where they can sit without constant unrelenting pressure on shoulders and hips and knees for hours and hours at a time? Or do i just have fat sholders and knees?


Different situation altogether, you can't choose or treat your height, nor is there any reason to do so. Besides, the amount of legroom in coach seats is profoundly stupid anyway, I'm just a hair over 6' and I find them to be uncomfortable.

Yes, there should be a standard for that, obviously, sticking someone who is too tall into a seat has negative health consequences, namely, deep vein thrombosis, and I would suggest anyone who gets it to sue the pants off the airlines until there is a reasonable accomidation made or they go out of buisness.

You're aware, of course, that obesity has a strong genetic component?



It also has a large ass component. Maybe the fatties should eat the cost...as they are adept at eating already. I work at a car rental agency...should we upgrade obese people to SUV's for free just because they can not fit in the subcompact they reserved. If you are big get a first class ticket...the seats are bigger.

It also has a large ass component. Maybe the fatties should eat the cost...as they are adept at eating already. I work at a car rental agency...should we upgrade obese people to SUV's for free just because they can not fit in the subcompact they reserved. If you are big get a first class ticket...the seats are bigger.

What did you eat yesterday?

It also has a large ass component. Maybe the fatties should eat the cost...as they are adept at eating already. I work at a car rental agency...should we upgrade obese people to SUV's for free just because they can not fit in the subcompact they reserved. If you are big get a first class ticket...the seats are bigger.
You obviously don't work in a rental car agency, because they can and do upgrade people for free for all KINDS of reasons. I wanted a Metro, because of the price, and that I could get into. The rental agent upgraded me to Sable, at no extra cost, because they were available and in her opinion safer.

Please at least have a cogent argument when appealing to authority.

trolling causes laziness and gluttony.

Ah, as a physically active thin person i must seriously be afflicted.

It also has a large ass component. Maybe the fatties should eat the cost...as they are adept at eating already. I work at a car rental agency...should we upgrade obese people to SUV's for free just because they can not fit in the subcompact they reserved. If you are big get a first class ticket...the seats are bigger.

Dude, this nonsensical ignorance was old on the first page.

First of all, let's not ignore your pathetic lack of understanding of people with weight problems. People who are obese are generally not adept at eating already. In fact, they generally eat pretty poorly and oftentimes too little.

Second, disabled people are reserving a particular kind of car. If they need something special they are required to make arrangements if they are disabled and need something special to accomodate them.

Third, when you fly you reserve a trip. They don't reserve a plane for you. When you reserve a car, *gasp* you're reserving a CAR.

Ah, as a physically active thin person i must seriously be afflicted.

What does physical activity have to do with laziness?

Not to mention that we actually have you in the thread saying you'd rather be a burden than carry one.

I'm sort of sad, the song links didn't work for me, but you missed the best part of that website:

This guy is a riot!

My website isn't quite finished yet, though the song's should be clickable.

When i get around to putting up the Valentaokyo page the space bit in my about me section will make more sense. Basically, i have worked out how humanity came to be. An alien organisation built the Moon in order to act as an incubator with which to seed intelligent life on Earth.

What does physical activity have to do with laziness?

Not to mention that we actually have you in the thread saying you'd rather be a burden than carry one.

That's not what i said. If someone came up to me in supermarket and asked me to help them, i'd take offense. I do not work in a supermarket. That line of work is below me. I will happily lift my own boxes. In fact, one time when i was a kitchen and bathroom designer, i had to carry a wc down a step because the fitter was late.

basically, i have worked out how humanity came to be. An alien organisation built the moon in order to act as an incubator with which to seed intelligent life on earth.

lmao?

lmao?

It's not funny in the least. I have evidence to back up this claim. Maybe i'll make a thread about it.

That's not what i said. If someone came up to me in supermarket and asked me to help them, i'd take offense. I do not work in a supermarket. That line of work is below me. I will happily lift my own boxes. In fact, one time when i was a kitchen and bathroom designer, i had to carry a wc down a step because the fitter was late.

Right, we get it. You're too lazy to help. Your point is taken.

As far as what's below you, if this embarrassingly obvious trolling isn't beneath you...

I'm getting a bit sick of being called a "troll".

Yes... thinking that fat people are disguisting is just so ludicrous. The only way anyone could ever type such a thing is if they wanted to annoy an internet community.

My website isn't quite finished yet, though the song's should be clickable.

When i get around to putting up the Valentaokyo page the space bit in my about me section will make more sense. Basically, i have worked out how humanity came to be. An alien organisation built the Moon in order to act as an incubator with which to seed intelligent life on Earth.

Again, seriously, a little bit of pride. If you're going to choose to be something, make an effort, my little friend.

Come up with new things. A new approach. A quality way of presenting your trolling. Anything.

Instead, as CTOAN points out, you turn the knob and when the knob turns you shout, "score!" But, hey, if you've got nothing ACTUALLY going on, you might as well declare victory over mundane things any one with a keyboard and fingers can accomplish.

Maybe i'll make a thread about it.

I beg you to do this, please! It would be most epic, sir!

I'm getting a bit sick of being called a "troll".

Yes... thinking that fat people are disguisting is just so ludicrous. The only way anyone could ever type such a thing is if they wanted to annoy an internet community.

Uh-huh. Yes, and the terrible, terrible music, the silly narcissism, and utter nonsense arguments. Plus, the utter inability to follow even your own argument and bad acting... oh, wait, that last bit isn't on purpose.

I beg you to do this, please! It would most epic, sir!

This is one of the things that makes me sad about NSG. Your low standards encourage people not to raise their bar.

Expect better from people, you'll get it. Don't encourage them to half-assed troll. If he's gonna troll he should be lazy, he should make a real effort that is actually impressive. He doesn't.

How's he gonna get better if we don't correct him?

It's not funny in the least. I have evidence to back up this claim. Maybe i'll make a thread about it.

Please do, it should be good for a couple of chuckles...


I'm getting a bit sick of being called a "troll".
You should probably stop acting like one if you want people to stop calling you one.

I'm not even going to dignify any suggestion that i am a troll with a response, but i am actually paid to perform. My music isn't terrible, it's fantastic.

This is one of the things that makes me sad about NSG. Your low standards encourage people not to raise their bar.

Expect better from people, you'll get it. Don't encourage them to half-assed troll. If he's gonna troll he should be lazy, he should make a real effort that is actually impressive. He doesn't.

How's he gonna get better if we don't correct him?

I think the drama that ensues from him being a rubbish troll is much funnier than if he were to be a successful troll.

I'm not even going to dignify any suggestion that i am a troll with a response, but i am actually paid to perform. My music isn't terrible, it's fantastic.

Lol.

You continue to dignify suggestions that you are a troll by responding to them.

My music isn't terrible, it's fantastic.

That would be a matter of opinion...
Not that I have an opinion on your mucial abiulities since I can't be arsed to go listen to it.

Lol.

You continue to dignify suggestions that you are a troll by responding to them.

I just wanted people to know that i am paid to perform my music.

I just wanted people to know that i am paid to perform my music.

And you thought we would care?

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/hl_nm/us_obesity)

What I want to know is what is wrong with the airline charging the obese people extra for taking up two seats? That is one less seat that the airlines can sell to a passenger, so they should be allowed to make up that loss seat somehow, and the fact that they lost that seat to an obese person, it should stand to reason that the obese person should pay for the extra seat.
I like chubby girls, but come on. Allowing people to have two seats for the price of one just because they refuse to eat less? Bull. Absolute bull.

And you thought we would care?

What are you paid to do Dyakovo?

I just wanted people to know that i am paid to perform my music.

So is Britney Spears. Quite the company you keep, my tiny friend.

So is Britney Spears. Quite the company you keep, my tiny friend.

You think that's a bad thing why? I'm not a big fan, but the lady has talent.

I like chubby girls, but come on. Allowing people to have two seats for the price of one just because they refuse to eat less? Bull. Absolute bull.

Or refuse to eat more, of course. I suppose, though, there is nothing requiring your post to actually be educated in regards to the subject of it.

I think the drama that ensues from him being a rubbish troll is much funnier than if he were to be a successful troll.

Nah, successful ones are way more fun. I'd trade fifty of this kid for one Jhahannam/Hammurab any day.

I'm sorry, but morbid obesity isn't really a disability, because unlike someone who actuallly has a disability, they have a modicum of control over that disability. *snip*

I'm sorry but you lack the qualifications to make that judgment.

Or refuse to eat more, of course. I suppose, though, there is nothing requiring your post to actually be educated in regards to the subject of it.
I simplified it on purpose.

And if this is going to be a Valentasia centered thread, I'm going to smack you all with starving weasles.

I like chubby girls, but come on. Allowing people to have two seats for the price of one just because they refuse to eat less? Bull. Absolute bull.

Except as has been pointed out many times already they are getting two seats for the price of one, they are getting one trip for the price of one.

You think that's a bad thing why? I'm not a big fan, but the lady has talent.

Like I said, really, please, raise the bar, friend. We've seen a lot of trolls. We expect better.

What are you paid to do Dyakovo?

Not that it has any bearing on this discussion, but I am a truck driver (lorry driver to you)

I simplified it on purpose.

Because you wanted it to be wrong?

Not that it has any bearing on this discussion, but I am a truck driver (lorry driver to you)

*pumps arm*

Not that it has any bearing on this discussion, but I am a truck driver (lorry driver to you)

cosmic

Like I said, really, please, raise the bar, friend. We've seen a lot of trolls. We expect better.

I'm not so sure that you are expecting better. All anyone has to do to be considered a troll by you is be grossed out by the obese or call Britney Spears talented. I think you need to cast your net a little further.

I'm not so sure that you are expecting better. All anyone has to do to be considered a troll by you is be grossed out by the obese or call Britney Spears talented. I think you need to cast your net a little further.

Again, read THEN reply. I've already pointed out why I think you're a troll. It's an opinion, but it's an educated opinion that you're a troll.

Calling Britney Spears talented simply confirms what we already know to be true.

I'm not calling you a troll because you said BS was talented. I said you're a bad troll because of it.

Because you wanted it to be wrong?
Now I'm confused.


You win.

Again, read THEN reply. I've already pointed out why I think you're a troll. It's an opinion, but it's an educated opinion that you're a troll.

Calling Britney Spears talented simply confirms what we already know to be true.

I'm not calling you a troll because you said BS was talented. I said you're a bad troll because of it.

You're boring me now.

Lets let the mods decide who is a troll. Its a good topic thats degenerated into silly side insults.

Well a person who called me a troll in this thread also gave me an infraction, whatever that is.

Lets let the mods decide who is a troll. Its a good topic thats degenerated into silly side insults.

Exactly.

You're boring me now.

Good, we're even. I promise I'll be much more entertaining if you put even a mild effort into becoming a talented troll.

Ask Jhaha. He found me quite entertaining, but that was because he had a demonstrated talent.

Lets let the mods decide who is a troll. Its a good topic thats degenerated into silly side insults.

They did. That's how he got the infraction, most likely.

How about if the business accepts hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies? Then, it can be argued, the business should have to "eat" a cost any time their real meal ticket, the government, tells them to.


Is that a condition to accepting subsidies? I suspect there is a contract in place that spells out terms and conditions for both sides. Show me where the gov't can tell airlines to give preferential treatment to fatties. Or any other group that isn't covered by the ADA...

no but the law (in canada) does.
Well, duh. Isn't that what we're discussing? The right and wrong of the decision?

Myrm, here's (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/index.html) the Canadian Human Rights Act. It applies in this case due to constitutional division of powers (airlines are within the federal sphere). Provincial human rights acts would apply were we discussing transportation that does not cross borders...such as taxis and metropolitan transport systems.

In both federal and provincial human rights acts, discrimination on the grounds of disability is prohibited.

In this particular case, s.5 of the CHRA is at play:
It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or

(b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

A detailed explanation of how obesity is characterised as a a disability can be found here (http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/2001_lr/page36-en.asp).

Now that we have a better background, where do you want to go with this?

Well a person who called me a troll in this thread also gave me an infraction, whatever that is.

You would be referring to Kat, who happens to be a mod. As to what an infraction is, maybe rather than spending your time making up numbers to support your conspiracy theories you should go out and buy a dictionary

Myrm, here's (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/index.html) the Canadian Human Rights Act. It applies in this case due to constitutional division of powers (airlines are within the federal sphere). Provincial human rights acts would apply were we discussing transportation that does not cross borders...such as taxis and metropolitan transport systems.

In both federal and provincial human rights acts, discrimination on the grounds of disability is prohibited.

In this particular case, s.5 of the CHRA is at play:


A detailed explanation of how obesity is characterised as a a disability can be found here (http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/2001_lr/page36-en.asp).

Now that we have a better background, where do you want to go with this?
First, Canada has the ability to do whatever it wants, regarding transportation that is originating in that country. I think the decision is stupid because it's not clear that obesity is a disability. It's also stupid because there are not any good guidelines about when the person is obese, or when that person 'needs' an extra seat. When I skim through the link that you provided, I find that there are not any pre-defined conditions that determine either obesity or disability due to obesity.

So my first question is, "How fat does someone need to be to have the 'right' to two seats in an airplane?"

My second question is "Who decides?".

If you want to go into the mechanics of the decision, fine, but I think the phrase, "functionally disabled by obesity" is fraught with problems in interpretation. Everyone that's a little tight into a seat could ask for a second seat, couldn't they?

Where to go from here? I hear your single again... How 'bout a drink?

First, Canada has the ability to do whatever it wants, regarding transportation that is originating in that country. I think the decision is stupid because it's not clear that obesity is a disability. It's also stupid because there are not any good guidelines about when the person is obese, or when that person 'needs' an extra seat. When I skim through the link that you provided, I find that there are not any pre-defined conditions that determine either obesity or disability due to obesity.

So my first question is, "How fat does someone need to be to have the 'right' to two seats in an airplane?"

My second question is "Who decides?".

If you want to go into the mechanics of the decision, fine, but I think the phrase, "functionally disabled by obesity" is fraught with problems in interpretation. Everyone that's a little tight into a seat could ask for a second seat, couldn't they?

Where to go from here? I hear your single again... How 'bout a drink?

This is simply an argument from ignorance. Because you don't understand how the relevant agencies and courts can determine whether or not someone is disabled, there must not be a way to do so. :rolleyes:

Similarly, why is not clear that obesity sometimes is not, but sometimes is, a disability. Just as many other conditions that may qualify as a disability have various causes and degrees of severity, so does obesity.

Finally, the obsession of this thread with "fatties" misses the point. This decision is about those who require extra seats do to disabilities. The applicants that brought this case were:


Joanne Neubauer of Victoria, who has severe rheumatoid arthritis, needs a wheelchair for mobility, uses personal care attendants in her daily life and requires additional seating for an attendant when she travels by air;


Eric Norman, a resident of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, with a rare disease resulting in paraplegia, who required an attendant for air travel. Following Mr. Norman's death in 2006, the application was continued on his behalf by his Estate;


the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, an organization composed of representatives from provincial and major national disability organizations.


Linda McKay-Panos was granted intervener status after a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal determined that she was a person with a disability as a result of obesity.

First, Canada has the ability to do whatever it wants, regarding transportation that is originating in that country. I think the decision is stupid because it's not clear that obesity is a disability. It's also stupid because there are not any good guidelines about when the person is obese, or when that person 'needs' an extra seat. When I skim through the link that you provided, I find that there are not any pre-defined conditions that determine either obesity or disability due to obesity.

So my first question is, "How fat does someone need to be to have the 'right' to two seats in an airplane?"

My second question is "Who decides?".

If you want to go into the mechanics of the decision, fine, but I think the phrase, "functionally disabled by obesity" is fraught with problems in interpretation. Everyone that's a little tight into a seat could ask for a second seat, couldn't they?

Where to go from here? I hear your single again... How 'bout a drink?

At what point does an inability to see become a disability?

How much pain do you need to have when you walk to warrant a wheelchair and disabled access?

Certainly, you hold all disabilities to the same standard of having to have hard and fast descriptors, right?

How much pain is disabling? How unable to bend your neck do you have to be?

This is simply an argument from ignorance. Because you don't understand how the relevant agencies and courts can determine whether or not someone is disabled, there must not be a way to do so. :rolleyes:

Similarly, why is not clear that obesity sometimes is not, but sometimes is, a disability. Just as many other conditions that may qualify as a disability have various causes and degrees of severity, so does obesity.

Finally, the obsession of this thread with "fatties" misses the point. This decision is about those who require extra seats do to disabilities. The applicants that brought this case were:


Joanne Neubauer of Victoria, who has severe rheumatoid arthritis, needs a wheelchair for mobility, uses personal care attendants in her daily life and requires additional seating for an attendant when she travels by air;


Eric Norman, a resident of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, with a rare disease resulting in paraplegia, who required an attendant for air travel. Following Mr. Norman's death in 2006, the application was continued on his behalf by his Estate;


the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, an organization composed of representatives from provincial and major national disability organizations.


Linda McKay-Panos was granted intervener status after a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal determined that she was a person with a disability as a result of obesity.

So tell me then, when does a fat person get a second seat? Use practical terms that a ticket agent and flight attendant can understand, please.

At what point does an inability to see become a disability?

How much pain do you need to have when you walk to warrant a wheelchair and disabled access?

Certainly, you hold all disabilities to the same standard of having to have hard and fast descriptors, right?

How much pain is disabling? How unable to bend your neck do you have to be?
Again, you're ignoring that there is a practical side to this. I'm uncomfortable in a coach seat because my legs are too long. I should get an upgrade, or at least an exit aisle seat. The better way to say that would be "Why am I not entitled to better seating?"

What's the criteria? It must be objective to be applied uniformly.

I like the idea of fitting in a container like they use for carry-ons... If you can't pass through this door, you're too fat for one seat.

So my first question is, "How fat does someone need to be to have the 'right' to two seats in an airplane?"
My second question is "Who decides?".From the CTA (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/media/communique/2008/080110-2_e.html) site:
The airlines are expected to develop a screening process to assess eligibility under the one-person-one-fare policy....For persons disabled by obesity, the Agency cites the practical experience of Southwest Airlines, which screens for entitlement to an additional seat by determining whether a person can lower the seat's armrests.

So right now, it's unclear how the determination is going to be made. They were waiting to find out if the SCC was going to hear the case, so it's unlikely they've developed anything yet...but I'm guessing that for now, the little 'armrest' test is going to determine it.



If you want to go into the mechanics of the decision, fine, but I think the phrase, "functionally disabled by obesity" is fraught with problems in interpretation. Everyone that's a little tight into a seat could ask for a second seat, couldn't they?

From the original CTA decision (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2008/A/AT/6-AT-A-2008_e.html):


[This applies to...]persons who are disabled as a result of obesity. Again, the Decision does not apply to persons who are obese but not disabled as a result of their obesity. In applying the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Linda McKay-Panos v. Air Canada, the Agency determined that persons with severe obesity may be disabled for the purposes of Part V of the CTA, but only where they do not fit in an aircraft seat.

So not just a little tight...actually physically unable to lower the arm-rest.

Where to go from here? I hear your single again... How 'bout a drink?
This made me laugh :D...Sure, you fly up here, and I'll let you buy me a drink.

Again, you're ignoring that there is a practical side to this. I'm uncomfortable in a coach seat because my legs are too long. I should get an upgrade, or at least an exit aisle seat. The better way to say that would be "Why am I not entitled to better seating?"

What's the criteria? It must be objective to be applied uniformly.

I like the idea of fitting in a container like they use for carry-ons... If you can't pass through this door, you're too fat for one seat.


It's not about comfort or discomfort. Frick, IMO, air travel is about the worst bloody way to get anywhere, and as someone else stated, the only reason I use it at all is because it's fast.

You may be uncomfortable with your long legs...but you are not rendered completely immobile. McKay-Panos was.

Again, you're ignoring that there is a practical side to this. I'm uncomfortable in a coach seat because my legs are too long. I should get an upgrade, or at least an exit aisle seat. The better way to say that would be "Why am I not entitled to better seating?"

What's the criteria? It must be objective to be applied uniformly.

I like the idea of fitting in a container like they use for carry-ons... If you can't pass through this door, you're too fat for one seat.

In most cases they use a doctor's determination. Here they will still use a doctor's determination to determine if you qualify as disabled. They will ask, as Neesika is showing, those attending the airlines to determine whether or not the person fits in the seat.

Why not people whose legs are too long? Well, frankly, I think they should have rows designated for taller people. However, it doesn't apply here because being tall (or having broad shoulders like I do) is not a disability.

I think it's also important to include this part of the CTA's ruling (http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2008/A/AT/6-AT-A-2008_e.html):

The Agency found that Air Canada's and WestJet's fare policies and the airport improvement fee policy applied by the Gander Airport Authority constitute obstacles to the mobility of persons who require additional seating to accommodate their disabilities to travel by air as they represent an economic disadvantage which effectively limits travel opportunities in respect of employment, education, leisure, medical care, and emergencies available to these persons.

And yet economic issues are factored into the analysis of accommodation. That's the 'undue hardship' determination. No one is forced to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

If economic issues are factored into the analysis, why is the carrier, rather than the government, absorbing the cost?

We're not discussing people wanting more seating space, and demanding they be given it for free, we're discussing people who need more seating space.

No, you're discussing people wanting more space and demanding it be given for free.

You do not need to travel by air.

one person, one ticket, genital viewing not required.

/win

Air Canada's armrest test seems a bit fuzzy to me. One employee might consider shoving the armrest down until the passenger complains of pain to be "capable of being put down." For that matter, one passenger might complain of pain for being touched with the armrest at all, another might shove the armrest down themselves and say it's fine even if it is uncomfortable.

But it's good to see there is some attempt at a test of fitting in a seat. Tape measurements aren't much use, because people are different shapes and fit differently into the seats. A test of stature by some kind of frame for when they're standing up wouldn't work as well.

I'd like to see a test of whether a passenger can change position in the seat ... including being able to work their shoulders without touching the passenger next to them, extend their legs enough to bend the knees, and shift their weight from one buttock to the other.

Neesika, you say this isn't about comfort, but being able to move around in the seat isn't just a matter of comfort, it's a reasonable expectation that people should be able to do that to protect themselves from deep vein thrombosis.

Personally, I'd say if someone needs two seats, they have to pay for two seats. I don't really see the logic in anything else.

That said, I'm no lightweight myself, and although being far from needing more than one seat, some airlines have their seats narrower and closer than others. Amusingly, it's not the cheap ones. I'm very comfortable on Ryan Air or Aer Lingus planes. It's the outrageously expensive ones that seem to enjoy ripping off their economy classes, first and foremost Lufthansa. The chairs are just about wide enough, and the seatbelts require some aerobics to lock. Which, in all honesty, I find pretty embarassing. And needless, since as I said I'm perfectly fine on most other airlines... :(

Honey, I've seen a few photos, if you're no lightweight, then bring on the no-lightweights. You, my dear, are delightfully curvy.

Did you (collective, not you particularly, Intangelon) have to sit with the screaming infant behind you?

The infant has an excuse.

Or the kid who kicked your seat?

I can address the kid's behavior to the parents, or if he's traveling alone, the flight attendant.

Or someone who just ate curry/garlic pizza/stinks of cigarettes?

Easy enough to avoid. Gum, cough drop (both of which I take with me on flights to combat dry air), aiming my nose the other way.

Did you have to sit next to the asshole who has no concept that you're NOT his new best friend and won't shut the hell up?

Also easy to avoid. Stop looking at them and don't answer. Have the balls to tell them you'd rather not talk.

Or the one with the tiny bladder who insists on the window seat and has to get up every fifteen minutes?

This is how common? It's never happened to me. I fly a lot.

How about the frankly fugly one who should wear a bag over their head? Oh my GOD, why should you have to sit in the same PLANE as them?

Kat, this kind of bullshit is normally beneath you. I'm not talking about being unpleasant to look at, and I think you know it.

What about the one how has their dog or cat in a carrier under the seat! PET HAIR, OMG! SMELLS! And I might hear it BARK!

And just when I think you've lost your sense of proportion...

The fashion tragedy?

...you whip that one out. At long last, have you no sense?

I know I had to sit next to the person who panicked for six hours and kept insisting we were going to crash. That was a joy.

So?

Jesus Christ, I'm very very glad that so very many people are so very very PERFECT that they can afford to bitch and whine and snarl like the fabled dog in the manger about something that costs them absolutely NOTHING and is a temporary inconvience to them but is a life-threatening and often humiliating condition to someone else. But hey, someone else might be getting something MORE THAN I'M GETTING, so let's attack them. Let's call them names and keep trumpeting about the forty Big Macs they eat a day because we're so much better than they are spending six hours (or more) a day sitting on our asses talking big on the internet like we eat sunshine and shit rainbows.

Jesus, Kat, who pissed in your Wheaties? Did you not read the article about the woman suing Virgin Atlantic and winning because she was effectively squashed for 11 hours next to an obese passenger? She suffered a deep vein thrombosis from the cramped quarters and inability to move herself around from being cornered by this person's girth. How you think that compares to a "fashion tragedy" is beyond me. Your reduction to absurdity is questionable at best.

If my personal space is being so cramped that I can't move myself even enough to avoid DVT, guess what? I'm being adversely affected by someone who needs to buy a second seat to accommodate their ponderous bulk.

The hilarious thing is that the people who said them have no idea how ugly and stupid the things they said in this thread make them look.

Far more hilarious is you, in full self-righteous mode, fully ignoring the high-profile incident mentioned and linked in this very thread (by Wilgrove, no less) that at least makes ONE case for this idea. Your attempt to cast EVERYONE who thinks a second seat should be at least considered as unrepentantly fat-hating is itself ugly and stupid. Are there some who have evidenced such prejudice? Yes. Do you know for a fact that all who have suggested that a second seat might be reasonable are, in fact, so afflicted with hate or prejudice? You sure as hell do not.

Mod, heal thyself.

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I don't feel like reading 27 pages of people who've never struggled with weight be little petulant assholes, so I'll just put this out there-

Handicapped seating takes up two or more seats. A person with a handicap gets that seating regardless of whether they were born with that handicap or if they got it trying to ollie their skateboard off the roof of their house and over their parent's car. So, since we don't additionally punish a self infected handicap from injury the arguments that obesity is a self inflicted handicap (and if you are large enough that you need two seats, it's a handicap) have no basis in additional punishment.

Now THAT is a rational argument. The difference, however, is that the airline has the right to charge for each seat used. As of now, they sell seats, not space by size or weight (well, unless you're going to ship yourself instead of riding in the passenger cabin). The handicapped seat is still one seat. If the obese are legitimately disabled, as Neesika has pointed out, then those larger seats should be available for them to purchase.

But they can't fix that handicap. If you're fat you can do something, and it could've been avoided in the first place.

Not always, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Why not people whose legs are too long? Well, frankly, I think they should have rows designated for taller people. However, it doesn't apply here because being tall (or having broad shoulders like I do) is not a disability.
They do. Bulkhead rows and exit rows. You have to ask for them, and in the case of exit rows, you have to be fit enough to open the emergency door in an emergency. How do they determine that? In most cases, unless you've a visible impairment to move, just asking you if you feel you can do it.

If economic issues are factored into the analysis, why is the carrier, rather than the government, absorbing the cost?

They aren't "factored in." They're a limit, which the company must prove in order NOT to accommodate the passenger.

I don't think any reasonable person could claim that lifting one of the armrests is "undue hardship." Fitting a wider door to the plane to accomodate a passenger would be.

Now, your concern is with the airline having one fare where they could have two (for "selling two seats" to use the fallacious model of what is being sold) ... on a fully booked plane. I don't think that's undue hardship, given that planes still fly with unsold seats. It's within the usual operations of the airline.

No, you're discussing people wanting more space and demanding it be given for free.

One more time. Needing, not wanting.

You do not need to travel by air.

Sometimes you do. Dying relatives. Job requirements. Appearance in court.

Do you think there should be some test of how much a person needs to fly before they're granted the same service as someone else who doesn't need to take that test?

Simpler just to presume that their reason to want to fly from A to B is at least as legitimate as any other paying customer.

Well, duh. Isn't that what we're discussing? The right and wrong of the decision?
youd think

but we seem to be discussing whether or not fat people can control their size and whether or not valentasia is a troll.

are you generally opposed to the disabled being given extra consideration for free on airplane trips?

If economic issues are factored into the analysis, why is the carrier, rather than the government, absorbing the cost?



No, you're discussing people wanting more space and demanding it be given for free.

You do not need to travel by air.
Really?

If you're across the country and you're called because your spouse just got hit by a truck, or you just found out your kid died in a car crash, you damned well need to get there as fast as possible.

Jesus, Kat, who pissed in your Wheaties? Did you not read the article about the woman suing Virgin Atlantic and winning because she was effectively squashed for 11 hours next to an obese passenger? She suffered a deep vein thrombosis from the cramped quarters and inability to move herself around from being cornered by this person's girth. How you think that compares to a "fashion tragedy" is beyond me. Your reduction to absurdity is questionable at best.

If my personal space is being so cramped that I can't move myself even enough to avoid DVT, guess what? I'm being adversely affected by someone who needs to buy a second seat to accommodate their ponderous bulk.


no

you are being hurt because you are seated next to someone who should have been GIVEN a second seat. its not the big guy's fault that you are squished, its the airline's.

Really?

If you're across the country and you're called because your spouse just got hit by a truck, or you just found out your kid died in a car crash, you damned well need to get there as fast as possible.

that does not mean by any damn stretch of the imagination that fat people should be given more space as a right, they should damn well pay more for the extra space they take up and the pain they normally cause passengers sat next to them through crushing, i've had that happen to me before and it is not pleasant!

I'm six foot three for me flying is a nightmare and i don't get special treatment

fat people are fat because they eat badly and don't exercise enough, the idea that they should be given more space for free is a travesty! especially when tall people, who are tall through no fault of there own, are not given special seating!

Not always, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Yes. We talk in limiting cases, of course, to make the points.

Staying a healthy weight is easier for some people than for others. Any blanket rule about "fat people are lazy" or whatever fails to take into account that the same level of willpower or sacrifice of happiness doesn't produce the same result for everyone.

It's fraught with inaccuracy to apply the same expectation of self-interest (in their health) to everyone ... even without the limiting cases (people who can't lose weight without suffering worse health effects like malnutrition; and people who can eat whatever they damn please without putting on weight.)

Really?

If you're across the country and you're called because your spouse just got hit by a truck, or you just found out your kid died in a car crash, you damned well need to get there as fast as possible.
Why a truck? Are you bigoted against truck drivers? ;)

Far more hilarious is you, in full self-righteous mode, fully ignoring the high-profile incident mentioned and linked in this very thread (by Wilgrove, no less) that at least makes ONE case for this idea. Your attempt to cast EVERYONE who thinks a second seat should be at least considered as unrepentantly fat-hating is itself ugly and stupid. Are there some who have evidenced such prejudice? Yes. Do you know for a fact that all who have suggested that a second seat might be reasonable are, in fact, so afflicted with hate or prejudice? You sure as hell do not.

Mod, heal thyself.
I think you should perhaps practice your usually very good talent for reading and see that I did not have a problem with discussing who needs another seat, but with the nasty remarks people are making and the general snide superiority some are exhibiting.
Forumite, heal thyself.

that does not mean by any damn stretch of the imagination that fat people should be given more space as a right, they should damn well pay more for the extra space they take up and the pain they normally cause passengers sat next to them through crushing, i've had that happen to me before and it is not pleasant!


Saying "damn" doesn't make your argument any stronger.

You should also consider that the poster you are replying to has given several similar examples of "hardship" from sitting next to other passengers. Did you (collective, not you particularly, Intangelon) have to sit with the screaming infant behind you?

Or the kid who kicked your seat?

Or someone who just ate curry/garlic pizza/stinks of cigarettes?

Did you have to sit next to the asshole who has no concept that you're NOT his new best friend and won't shut the hell up?

Or the one with the tiny bladder who insists on the window seat and has to get up every fifteen minutes?

How about the frankly fugly one who should wear a bag over their head? Oh my GOD, why should you have to sit in the same PLANE as them?

What about the one how has their dog or cat in a carrier under the seat! PET HAIR, OMG! SMELLS! And I might hear it BARK!

The fashion tragedy?

I know I had to sit next to the person who panicked for six hours and kept insisting we were going to crash. That was a joy.

*snip for brevity*

Are you, Quarkleflurg, really prepared to test passengers for garlic breath? Make them sit a "mind your own business" test? How about unpleasant looking rashes?

And then explain to the passenger that the reason their ticket price just doubled is because they smell?


I'm six foot three for me flying is a nightmare and i don't get special treatment

It's my argument that you should. But I think Kat is more the thick-skinned type and is only defending such "special treatment"* in this particular case: of obesity which is recognized as a disability. In Canada.

*(it's equal treatment, actually, and only appears special because airlines have made the mistake of installing standard seats that are too small.)

fat people are fat because they eat badly and don't exercise enough, the idea that they should be given more space for free is a travesty! especially when tall people, who are tall through no fault of there own, are not given special seating!

Your argument has been made repeatedly. Getting passionate about it now with words like "travesty!" isn't going to make it any stronger.

fat people are fat because they eat badly and don't exercise enough, the idea that they should be given more space for free is a travesty! especially when tall people, who are tall through no fault of there own, are not given special seating!

What about body builders with their 275 lbs and overly broad and musclebound shoulders and bulging biceps. Its clearly their fault for being in such good shape so they should be double charged as well. This will teach them from becoming so fit.

while fat people MAY be able to lose weight (statistics argue against it) they cannot lose weight THAT DAY. so THAT DAY they are disabled no matter what weightloss they may achieve in the future.

Why a truck? Are you bigoted against truck drivers? ;)
No, actually, I have extended family that drive.

It was just the first moving object splatting a person I could think of.

No, actually, I have extended family that drive.

It was just the first moving object splatting a person I could think of.

I was just razzing you Kat, hence the smiley...
Besides it was no less a ridiculous response than many of the others in this thread.

I was just razzing you Kat, hence the smiley...
Besides it was no less a ridiculous response than many of the others in this thread.
That'll learn me to always take you seriously. :)

The airlines have made the seats way to small and seem to have made no effort to determine what is an average comfortable size for a person. Their research into appropriate seat size seems to be based on fallacy that people are like chickens, and can be crammed into cage-like areas. PETA should go after them on behalf of humans! If they would get and install an average-size seat based on the average height and width of each population from around the world, then charging for two seats might be reasonable but, as it stands, they create a false need for charging for the two seats.

This, actually, makes sense in a suspicious-about-businesses'-motives kind of way. Make a big deal about the average seat size and how small it can get to maximize fares, and then make a segment of the flying public pay extra. Hmmmm...I have to say, it wouldn't surprise me.

Thank you.

And to the guy who posted that segment from my website... you clearly didn't click on any of the audio samples. I'm not a professional troll, i'm a professional musician.

No. Not really. Given that the "perfect" E5 chord could be played by someone with one arm and three fingers -- it's an open chord -- and that it could be "played" by dropping the guitar, I have to assume that you're some kind of quasi-avant-garde absurdist comedian looking to follow up on Andy Kaufman. I hate to break it to you, but Kaufman's a bit like Pollock or Mondrian or John Cage. Once there's been one, there can't be another. But hey, so long as your vain attempts do not involve you being on the dole while you engage in such deliberate failure, have at it, and more power to you.

My website isn't quite finished yet, though the song's should be clickable.

When i get around to putting up the Valentaokyo page the space bit in my about me section will make more sense. Basically, i have worked out how humanity came to be. An alien organisation built the Moon in order to act as an incubator with which to seed intelligent life on Earth.

"Genius."

no

you are being hurt because you are seated next to someone who should have been GIVEN a second seat. its not the big guy's fault that you are squished, its the airline's.

Fair enough. But what if the flight was booked solid? Further posit: what if the flight is overbooked by one and nobody can be bumped? Here's someone using two seats.

I think you should perhaps practice your usually very good talent for reading and see that I did not have a problem with discussing who needs another seat, but with the nasty remarks people are making and the general snide superiority some are exhibiting.
Forumite, heal thyself.

Surely those with nasty opinions are free to express them? Why validate/encourage them with an equally irrational overreaction? I happen to agree with you overall here, Kat, I was just stunned by your willingness to post something even more absurd than those posts with which you were appalled.

They aren't "factored in." They're a limit, which the company must prove in order NOT to accommodate the passenger.

I don't think any reasonable person could claim that lifting one of the armrests is "undue hardship."

There was a link earlier that showed one passenger who had to sit next to an obese one who did just that, and suffered permanent injuries as a result. The person sued the airline, and won significant compensation. That, I believe, constitutes undue hardship on the company, and since there is now precedent, it is reasonable to expect more such lawsuits.

So, what would you prefer then? Require people who need more than one seat to fit to pay for the seats they use, or pay out settlements for injuries resulting from incidents as was linked earlier?

Or maybe you would rather passenger carriers be run to the ground, and everyone can revert to cars, buses, trains and ships.

It is after all, a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.


Fitting a wider door to the plane to accomodate a passenger would be.




Now, your concern is with the airline having one fare where they could have two (for "selling two seats" to use the fallacious model of what is being sold) ... on a fully booked plane. I don't think that's undue hardship, given that planes still fly with unsold seats. It's within the usual operations of the airline.


It is not a question of a fully booked plane or not, though it does play a factor. The reasoning is very simple. You pay for what you use. Use one seat? Pay for one seat. Use two seats? Pay for two seats. Why is that so hard to swallow?


One more time. Needing, not wanting.


No, it is not. It is merely an increased sense of entitlement that turns wants into needs.


Sometimes you do. Dying relatives. Job requirements. Appearance in court.


Aside from the first, which is not a necessity, the other two are generally not so sudden as to make leaving earlier via slower means impossible.

Air travel is not a necessity. It is a convenience that is paid for. No more, no less.


Do you think there should be some test of how much a person needs to fly before they're granted the same service as someone else who doesn't need to take that test?

No, I think people should pay for the services and goods they use, no more, no less.


Simpler just to presume that their reason to want to fly from A to B is at least as legitimate as any other paying customer.

Because they want to go from point A to B as quickly as possible, the key point being want.

Really?

If you're across the country and you're called because your spouse just got hit by a truck, or you just found out your kid died in a car crash, you damned well need to get there as fast as possible.

None of this can be considered a necessity. It is a convenience. People had the same issues of relatives and spouses dying hundreds of miles away from where they were well before there were aircraft.

You do not need to be there as fast as possible. You want to be there as fast as possible. Tying in emotional factors to make it into a need is no different than those who use horrific crimes as an example of why the death penalty should be used more.

Cold hearted? Perhaps, but it is also fair.

It is not a question of a fully booked plane or not, though it does play a factor. The reasoning is very simple. You pay for what you use. Use one seat? Pay for one seat. Use two seats? Pay for two seats. Why is that so hard to swallow?

Because you are not "buying" a seat on the plane you are buying transportation from point A to point B

Surely those with nasty opinions are free to express them? Why validate/encourage them with an equally irrational overreaction? I happen to agree with you overall here, Kat, I was just stunned by your willingness to post something even more absurd than those posts with which you were appalled.
It was intentionally taken over the top from about the midpoint on to point up how absurdly self-centered others' remarks were. Truly, do you think I would refer to ANYONE as a "fashion tragedy"?

Fair enough. But what if the flight was booked solid? Further posit: what if the flight is overbooked by one and nobody can be bumped? Here's someone using two seats.
.

what if it was?

what are you suggesting .. that the extra-large people not be allowed to fly on full flights?

the only question is does he pay for the extra seat or does he not. he cant change his size at will.

None of this can be considered a necessity. It is a convenience. People had the same issues of relatives and spouses dying hundreds of miles away from where they were well before there were aircraft.

You do not need to be there as fast as possible. You want to be there as fast as possible. Tying in emotional factors to make it into a need is no different than those who use horrific crimes as an example of why the death penalty should be used more.

Cold hearted? Perhaps, but it is also fair.
No, it's not fair.

They get ONE trip on the flight.
They get ONE meal on the flight.

They pay for ONE TICKET on the flight.

The fact that the airline is willing to inconvenience its passengers by not providing enough legroom and acting as if everyone is five feet seven inches tall and no more than a hundred and fifty pounds is not the concern of the passenger. Hell yes, there should be more suits against the airlines when they do stupid things like trying to squeeze three people into a space only two can occupy -- or when they keep passengers on the tarmac for ten hours, refuse to deboard them, refuse to feed them, and refuse to let them use the toilets.

Please don't act as if the airlines are the victims here of the few people who need more room to fly safely... they often treat all passengers like suitcases.

If you honestly believe there is no need to rush to a loved one's side because they might be dying, or are hurt badly, and that it is only a convenience. there's something very, very wrong with you.

It was intentionally taken over the top from about the midpoint on to point up how absurdly self-centered others' remarks were. Truly, do you think I would refer to ANYONE as a "fashion tragedy"?

I suppose not. I like to think the best of those I've come to admire on NSG, but to be truthful, nobody ever really knows unless they've met them, do they?

I don't think those who are disgusted with obesity are necessarily self-centered. Unless part of the definition of that condition is the inability to see things from someone else's viewpoint. I'm an optical illusion man, myself. That's an Amanda Filipachi idea from her novel Nude Men. I'm neither pretty or ugly enough to merit any kind of notice whatsoever. Or, to put it in comedian Dan St.Paul's words: "Some guys walk down the street and people look and say 'Wow! Look at THAT guy!' Others walk down the street and people look and say 'Ugh! Look at THAT guy!' I walk down the street and people say 'what guy?'" As such, I find either disgust or hyper appreciation of the way people look to be kinda weird. To quote one more reference: people are people.

what if it was?

what are you suggesting .. that the extra-large people not be allowed to fly on full flights?

the only question is does he pay for the extra seat or does he not. he cant change his size at will.

First off, that quote was me, not NAS (how did that even happen?).

If there's one seat left open, and an obese person pays for it, and there's no policy about even needing an extra seat let alone paying for one, and shows up, does he get seated? Should he? Should someone get bumped? Who?

No, it's not fair.

They get ONE trip on the flight.
They get ONE meal on the flight.

They pay for ONE TICKET on the flight.

The fact that the airline is willing to inconvenience its passengers by not providing enough legroom and acting as if everyone is five feet seven inches tall and no more than a hundred and fifty pounds is not the concern of the passenger. Hell yes, there should be more suits against the airlines when they do stupid things like trying to squeeze three people into a space only two can occupy -- or when they keep passengers on the tarmac for ten hours, refuse to deboard them, refuse to feed them, and refuse to let them use the toilets.

Please don't act as if the airlines are the victims here of the few people who need more room to fly safely... they often treat all passengers like suitcases.

Agreed completely to here.

If you honestly believe there is no need to rush to a loved one's side because they might be dying, or are hurt badly, and that it is only a convenience. there's something very, very wrong with you.

Not from a business standpoint, which I think was the idea. The need is a relative need. This could be a should vs. ought problem.

No, it's not fair.

They get ONE trip on the flight.
They get ONE meal on the flight.

They pay for ONE TICKET on the flight.

Let me take a freight example. You pay on a variable pricing package for the weight and size of what you intend to send. Obviously the larger and heavier the package, the more you pay. No one really complains about that system.

Because the cargo in this example is human, it should be different?


The fact that the airline is willing to inconvenience its passengers by not providing enough legroom and acting as if everyone is five feet seven inches tall and no more than a hundred and fifty pounds is not the concern of the passenger. Hell yes, there should be more suits against the airlines when they do stupid things like trying to squeeze three people into a space only two can occupy


Would you be willing to pay much higher fares then? Or higher taxes to subsidize all airlines to comply to the rulings of more space?

There is always a cost associated with this, and it must come from somewhere. If you want more room, and you want it to be standardized, you must pay for it with higher fares across the board, or the companies will go under.

Which is it will you prefer?

Or would you rather have your cake and eat it? Low fares, plenty of room and air travel?

What the moral stance often fails to factor in at all is the question of who is paying the bill. All very well to say they should have more room on the aircraft, that they shouldn't charge for extra seats used, but not one of these people making the argument have said a single thing regarding who is paying for the difference in cost now.


Please don't act as if the airlines are the victims here of the few people who need more room to fly safely... they often treat all passengers like suitcases.

Suitcases who demand constantly lower fares, and complain when they get what they paid for.

Actual suitcases are more docile and less troublesome to deal with.


If you honestly believe there is no need to rush to a loved one's side because they might be dying, or are hurt badly, and that it is only a convenience.

People have rushed to their loved ones before well before air travel. They coped. Did air travel make all other forms of travel impossible?


there's something very, very wrong with you.

So I've been told. Or perhaps it means I do not react very emotionally when it comes to matters of family.

Curious how you are willing to demand special treatment of those with physical differences and yet when someone does not have the same responses as you do to certain things, there is "something wrong with them".

How very curious.

If economic issues are factored into the analysis, why is the carrier, rather than the government, absorbing the cost?



No, you're discussing people wanting more space and demanding it be given for free.

You do not need to travel by air.

I do. Otherwise a job that has no physical requirements whatsoever would not be available to me. Lots of people in my profession need special accommodation.

And, if you actually read what you're replying to, it says if there is undue economic cost of those accommodations, then you don't have to meet them. Undue just means significant. As such, you're complaining about insignificant economic effects.

Let me take a freight example. You pay on a variable pricing package for the weight and size of what you intend to send. Obviously the larger and heavier the package, the more you pay. No one really complains about that system.

Because the cargo in this example is human, it should be different?Yes. And it is by law that it is different. See how easy that was? Or do you honestly propose we should all be herded into cattle cars and stand all the way to our destination like beef to the slaughter -- mmm, can't say that is safe at all for passengers, can we?

Would you be willing to pay much higher fares then? Or higher taxes to subsidize all airlines to comply to the rulings of more space? Why should there be any higher fare or need for subsidy? The number of people medically needing a second seat is minuscule. Lift the damned armrest -- no structural change needed. As for the tall, the airlines have the ability to accomodate them as I mentioned before -- at the bulkhead seats and exit aisles. Is is really such a stretch of the imagination that these seats ALREADY AVAILABLE should be given to those who need them?

There is always a cost associated with this, and it must come from somewhere. If you want more room, and you want it to be standardized, you must pay for it with higher fares across the board, or the companies will go under.
Baloney. The articles Neesika provided already proved we are talking about a number of people that are statistically not very significant. We're not talking about half the population, or ten percent. There is already the wherewithal to accommodate people without changing the structure of the plane. Please stop being dense.

What the moral stance often fails to factor in at all is the question of who is paying the bill. All very well to say they should have more room on the aircraft, that they shouldn't charge for extra seats used, but not one of these people making the argument have said a single thing regarding who is paying for the difference in cost now.No it doesn't. I'm paying the bill. You're playing the bill. The child who's charged an adult fare is paying the bill, and the person who requires, medically, two seats is paying the bill.

There's no real difference in cost. Hell, you book your seat today, and I book the seat next to you a month ago, and we're not even paying the same fare, are we?

What if I use my airline miles? I've got that seat for free, and you had to pay $400 for yours. Is that unfair too? Let me repeat here -- the airlines are NOT THE VICTIMS. If they NEED to maximize their flights to break even or profit, they would NEVER take off with an empty seat, and they would NEVER comp anyone, or let them fly for free or upgrade. But they do, all the time.

Actual suitcases are more docile and less troublesome to deal with. Yes, and are often damaged, lost, misdirected, and rifled through by airline personnel from time to time. I don't think you really meant to argue that we should treat people like luggage?



People have rushed to their loved ones before well before air travel. They coped. Did air travel make all other forms of travel impossible?Do you intend on rowing and sailing across the Atlantic because it was good enough for the Vikings, so it should be good enough for us?

Plan on taking a wagon train out west?



So I've been told. Or perhaps it means I do not react very emotionally when it comes to matters of family.

Curious how you are willing to demand special treatment of those with physical differences and yet when someone does not have the same responses as you do to certain things, there is "something wrong with them".

How very curious.
Curious that pointing out that a lack of empathy and a lack of affect are abnormal?
Not really.

First off, that quote was me, not NAS (how did that even happen?).

If there's one seat left open, and an obese person pays for it, and there's no policy about even needing an extra seat let alone paying for one, and shows up, does he get seated? Should he? Should someone get bumped? Who?
if he is last on and requires 2 seats, he doesnt get on.

im pretty sure i screwed it up but i couldnt get his name off and then forgot that i needed to.

I do. Otherwise a job that has no physical requirements whatsoever would not be available to me. Lots of people in my profession need special accommodation.


Your theoretical jobs cannot be reached by travel other than air?


And, if you actually read what you're replying to, it says if there is undue economic cost of those accommodations, then you don't have to meet them. Undue just means significant. As such, you're complaining about insignificant economic effects.

And what is undue economic cost? Who is the one to make the judgment? Given the glossing over that the moral camp here is making of the economic question, it is easy to believe that they would consider million dollar economic costs to be insignificant.

Yes. And it is by law that it is different. See how easy that was?

I also see that you avoided the question of economics that I raised. Why is that?

Now THAT is a rational argument. The difference, however, is that the airline has the right to charge for each seat used. As of now, they sell seats, not space by size or weight (well, unless you're going to ship yourself instead of riding in the passenger cabin). The handicapped seat is still one seat. If the obese are legitimately disabled, as Neesika has pointed out, then those larger seats should be available for them to purchase.

Except you don't buy seats. You buy a trip, as has been pointed out. Transportation from one place to another. You can purchase additional services, but the base service is simply a trip.

Your theoretical jobs cannot be reached by travel other than air?

Not theoretical. I'm in Chattanooga, TN, right now. I live in Chicago. I come here nearly every week.

Would you like to call my hotel? I'll give you number.

How about my cell? "Theoretically," they have different area codes.


And what is undue economic cost? Who is the one to make the judgment? Given the glossing over that the moral camp here is making of the economic question, it is easy to believe that they would consider million dollar economic costs to be insignificant.

Amusing. I love people say stuff like this. If you don't know what you're talking about why do you talk? Do you like to demonstrate you don't understand?

What is disabling pain? If you can't give me an exact definition that anyone can apply? You can't? Of course you can't. Because you're not an expert. Undue hardship is a common term applied all over the map in terms of legal requirements. It applies to adjusting buildings. It applies to all sorts of concessions one is required to reasonably accomodate the handicap. And it varies from business to business. First, it has to be significant.

How many flights have obese people on them? What percentage?

How obese does one have to be?

I think it's discrimination that normal-sized persons aren't allowed to get two seats for the price of one just because they are still able to see their own genitals without the help of a mirror.
So women get to have free seats automatically?

Well, I guess it's possible to see it without a mirror, but it's not very comfortable. I doubt heavily pregnant women can... are they functionally obese?

Is my friend who is 6'8" tall functionally disabled in an aircraft and entitled to bulkhead seating at no extra charge?

Let me take a freight example. You pay on a variable pricing package for the weight and size of what you intend to send. Obviously the larger and heavier the package, the more you pay. No one really complains about that system.

Because the cargo in this example is human, it should be different?

Excellent argument. Two flaws, we don't currently do that at all. That's the point. If they always did it by weight and size that would be a different argument. But they don't. They charge the same.

Second, they have you book a trip. Airlines have made it clear to me in the past that they sold me a trip not a seat, when they changed that seat on me without warning or compensation.

They don't get it both ways.

There was a link earlier that showed one passenger who had to sit next to an obese one who did just that, and suffered permanent injuries as a result. The person sued the airline, and won significant compensation. That, I believe, constitutes undue hardship on the company, and since there is now precedent, it is reasonable to expect more such lawsuits.

No, it doesn't. The airline was at fault, and harm came to the passenger as a result of what they did. Which was seat a passenger who was too big for the seat.

What they should have done is give that passenger two seats.

The hypothetical case where the very large passenger turns up having only booked one seat, and no free seats are available, is covered by the requirement that a passenger requiring accommodations has to notify in advance. In that case, the very large passenger would be at fault and would not be seated.

You did read the posts of The Cat-Tribe and of Neesika, I hope?

So, what would you prefer then? Require people who need more than one seat to fit to pay for the seats they use, or pay out settlements for injuries resulting from incidents as was linked earlier?

Neither, of course.

Or maybe you would rather passenger carriers be run to the ground, and everyone can revert to cars, buses, trains and ships.

Yes, yes, of course NAS, of course that's what I want. Us freedom-hating communists are going to destroy the entire fabric of free enterprise, by stuffing ourselves night and day, topping up with some lipo-injection, and flying on the most crowded flights we can find! We will crush the delicate flower of competition beneath an irresistible wave of our own blubber!

It is after all, a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

When you leave out the reasonable requirement that this entire thread IS ABOUT, yes it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

:rolleyes:

I also see that you avoided the question of economics that I raised. Why is that?
My browser crapped out, and I had to go back and edit.

Your "economic arguments" are ridiculous, anyway, as pointed out repeatedly by multiple persons on this thread.

Not theoretical. I'm in Chattanooga, TN, right now. I live in Chicago. I come here nearly every week.

Would you like to call my hotel? I'll give you number.

That will not be necessary. Lacking details, I had assumed you were talking about a job as an example.

Still, I would ask this. Before the advent of aircraft, how do you suppose people dealt with far away jobs?


What is disabling pain? If you can't give me an exact definition that anyone can apply? You can't? Of course you can't. Because you're not an expert. Undue hardship is a common term applied all over the map in terms of legal requirements. It applies to adjusting buildings. It applies to all sorts of concessions one is required to reasonably accomodate the handicap. And it varies from business to business. First, it has to be significant.

How many flights have obese people on them? What percentage?


This would be a question I am not certain if there has even been a study on. However, if global trends are an indication, obesity is on the rise, especially in first world nations. Logically, that would also mean an increase in obese flyers, correct?


I didn't avoid it. I addressed it. Unfortunately, you don't understand that it would cost more for the government to compensate them it's worth. If the costs were undue, they would have a case. If they created a hardship, you'd have a point. They don't.


The airlines feel differently.


The reply about undue hardship is in reply to your economic question. It's amusing that unless I break up your post and put them right together you cannot link the direct nature of the ideas.

Does it? Or does it simply mean I view things differently from how you do? I cannot for example, make logical sense of the moral camp's arguments in this debate, and I suspect the same applies on the reverse.

My browser crapped out, and I had to go back and edit.

Your "economic arguments" are ridiculous, anyway, as pointed out repeatedly by multiple persons on this thread.

If every person here doesn't debunk his silly argument then it stands. Obviously, we aren't all having the same debate. We each have to regurgitate the same points individually.

It doesn't count that I and several others already explained what undue hardship is.

If you every person here doesn't debunk his silly argument then it stands. Obviously, we aren't all having the same debate. We each have to regurgitate the same points individually.

It doesn't count that I and several others already explained what undue hardship is.

Sometimes I really wish you'd proof read...

That will not be necessary. Lacking details, I had assumed you were talking about a job as an example.

Still, I would ask this. Before the advent of aircraft, how do you suppose people dealt with far away jobs?

They didn't exist. But then, there also weren't large enterprise asset management software projects, either, so that makes it easier.

Oddly, enough, employment tends to change as technology does. It's almost like jobs have a relationship with technology. Crazy, right?

This would be a question I am not certain if there has even been a study on. However, if global trends are an indication, obesity is on the rise, especially in first world nations. Logically, that would also mean an increase in obese flyers, correct?

Perhaps. There's not reason to believe there would be a direct relationship.

So, you're arguing that some time later this will cause undue hardship? You realize that when it does actually happen (rather than some idiotic argument that *wringing hands* it might) they can make that argument, right?

The airlines feel differently.

No one cares how they "feel". They are welcome to prove it causes undue hardship. So far, they've been able to show anything resembling undue hardship. Nor have you.

Does it? Or does it simply mean I view things differently from how you do? I cannot for example, make logical sense of the moral camp's arguments in this debate, and I suspect the same applies on the reverse.

If you can't make sense of something, it's a shortcoming. If you can demonstrate it doesn't make sense, that's a victory in debate. Someday, you'll learn the difference.

Sometimes I really wish you'd proof read...

Yeah, I know. Especially late at night. I'll fix it.

EDIT: The other problem is that my friggin touchpad is really sensitive and I regularly jump my typing to some other line. I don't always see what stuff I typed in the wrong place. It's pretty frustrating and makes me want to rip it out.

Not from a business standpoint, which I think was the idea. The need is a relative need. This could be a should vs. ought problem.

A business standpoint?

Did you get bitten by the troll or something? It's really weird to hear this market fundamentalism coming from you.

I was trying to work my way around my own mistake of calling a "very good reason" a "need" ... but now I won't even bother. Food is a need. Air to breathe is a need.

The "need to make a profit" however is a weaker reason to do anything than the "very good reasons" I cited to fly.

If providing some larger seats, assessing the need of some passengers for them or for two standard seats, and avoiding their fraudulent use increases costs to airlines, then they'll raise the ticket price. Fewer people will fly -- but that's it. A new balance is achieved, a better service is provided at a higher cost. The entire industry doesn't spiral into the ground by some chicken-little magic.

*snip*

EDIT: The other problem is that my friggin touchpad is really sensitive and I regularly jump my typing to some other line. I don't always see what stuff I typed in the wrong place. It's pretty frustrating and makes me want to rip it out.

Sticky-taping cardboard over it might work. Très elegant, too! ;)

They didn't exist. But then, there also weren't large enterprise asset management software projects, either, so that makes it easier.

Reeeeaaaaaalllllllyyyy?


So, you're arguing that some time later this will cause undue hardship?


Actually, I find that I have quite fallen into the trap of arguing "undue hardship", which was not the position I had taken to begin with. Well played.

My argument has been, and should only be, that one pays for the services and goods used, no more, no less.

Fare on aircraft is sold on a per seat basis, much the same with many transport services. That is why there are multiple seat classes, and one is to book them in advance, rather than choosing seats willy nilly upon boarding the craft. Perhaps it is different where you live, but that is how it is done here.

If you have a problem with that, then you should direct your energies towards having airlines change their sales model should you not?


If you can't make sense of something, it's a shortcoming. If you can demonstrate it doesn't make sense, that's a victory in debate. Someday, you'll learn the difference.

Demonstrating something that doesn't make sense doesn't necessarily mean that the other party will see it as not making sense either. NSG should have taught you that a long time ago. It should also have taught you that in arguments like these, the moral and fair use/economic camp can both be right, or both be horribly wrong, insofar as sense goes.

If every person here doesn't debunk his silly argument then it stands. Obviously, we aren't all having the same debate. We each have to regurgitate the same points individually.

It doesn't count that I and several others already explained what undue hardship is.

Time of the particular post you were referring was rather before your reply regarding economic issues. I rather suppose you expect me to be a seer of things that will happen in the future.

Seriously though, when are tall people getting free upgrades to bulkhead seats?

Is it because they have apparent advantages in other aspects of life that they have to pay to be accommodated? Are they not functionally disabled with their knees up to their chins behind someone's reclined seat?

Reeeeaaaaaalllllllyyyy?

Kind of missed the point there didn't you, Jocko?

My need prior to airlines wasn't relevant, because my job didn't exist. Nor did my industry.

Actually, I find that I have quite fallen into the trap of arguing "undue hardship", which was not the position I had taken to begin with. Well played.

My argument has been, and should only be, that one pays for the services and goods used, no more, no less.

Fare on aircraft is sold on a per seat basis, much the same with many transport services. That is why there are multiple seat classes, and one is to book them in advance, rather than choosing seats willy nilly upon boarding the craft.

If you have a problem with that, then you should direct your energies towards having airlines change their sales model should you not?

The "good" here is a trip. No more. No less. Handicapped people cannot be charged more for access to the same goods as non-handicapped people. The reason is that until someone stopped, basically, handicapped people's lives were severely and unnecessary limited.

Fares are sold on a per trip basis. For example, if I'm flying from Chicago to Miami with a layover in Atlanta, I'm not permitted to simply jump on the same flight in Atlanta and skip the Chicago to Atlanta part. I have to take the whole trip. Don't believe me? Call your airline.

The problem isn't their sales model is per seat, because it isn't. The problem is you don't know what you're talking about. You book a trip, not a seat.


Demonstrating something that doesn't make sense doesn't necessarily mean that the other party will see it as not making sense either. NSG should have taught you that a long time ago. It should also have taught you that in arguments like these, the moral and fair use/economic camp can both be right, or both be horribly wrong, insofar as sense goes.

But the other party isn't the only one here. There are lots of people in the thread. In debate you aren't only trying to sway the other party. You're convincing the audience you have a better argument.

You can't be right and wrong when it comes to sense. You are either applying logic or you're not.

Time of the particular post you were referring was rather before your reply regarding economic issues. I rather suppose you expect me to be a seer of things that will happen in the future.

It wasn't before ALL of the replies, however. Several posts have informed you of the flaws in your "economic" argument. They are rather glaring.

Seriously though, when are tall people getting free upgrades to bulkhead seats?
You need only ask. They cost the same as every other seat in the class you're paying for.

You need only ask. They cost the same as every other seat in the class you're paying for.
It depends on the airlines... some require you to pay extra if you want to select a seat when you buy your ticket.

Seriously though, when are tall people getting free upgrades to bulkhead seats?

I'm in favour of that.

I must note that I'm not really on-topic with my ideas of providing more or less room per person, since the thread deals with the extreme cases ("functional disability") whereas I speculate about a system of seating that tries to offer every passenger the same options to move around.

The main issue with height is leg-room, right? For one thing, it's not exactly proportional to height -- some people have long legs. For another, if you're carrying fat around your butt, that would push your knees towards the seat in front, so even if you weren't quite tall enough to qualify for the bulkhead seat you might need it for the legroom.

A formula using thigh measurements, height and weight would make a closer approximation. Whn you actually get to the airport, you could be sat in a "dummy" chair to see if you have sufficient room.

Is it because they have apparent advantages in other aspects of life that they have to pay to be accommodated? Are they not functionally disabled with their knees up to their chins behind someone's reclined seat?

Yep. And ... yep.

Leaving only the question: should government regulation force all airlines to make such accommodations ... or should it be left to airlines to offer size options as a feature of their service?

I'd argue the former, because the latter method would probably have roomier seating available for those who need it being offered only as part of a premium service. Ie you'd only get space options if you also paid for better food, cleaner carpets, better audio-visual entertainment ... things you don't medically need the way we need to be able to move around without touching some other passenger.

Kind of missed the point there didn't you, Jocko?

My need prior to airlines wasn't relevant, because my job didn't exist. Nor did my industry.

I didn't miss the point at all. Jobs far from one's place of residence have existed well before the advent of aircraft. It is irrelevant that in your case, it is software development. All that mattered was distance.

How did people deal with it then? Usually by moving. People still do.


The "good" here is a trip. No more. No less. Handicapped people cannot be charged more for access to the same goods as non-handicapped people. The reason is that until someone stopped, basically, handicapped people's lives were severely and unnecessary limited.


The good here is a trip, yes, but only on as many seats as you buy. As I said, it could be simply the way your country treats the good being sold, but they are treated as seats here, or rather, the right to sit on that seat at a specific time and place on a specific trip.


But the other party isn't the only one here. There are lots of people in the thread. In debate you aren't only trying to sway the other party. You're convincing the audience you have a better argument.

I'm not trying to convince an audience. I am trying to convince the people I am arguing with. Perhaps that makes me a bad debater, but it does not matter overmuch to me.


You can't be right and wrong when it comes to sense.

Trends on NSG beg to differ. Or at least people from opposing camps believe that they are right and applying logic, or in some cases, faith, but those don't matter.

You need only ask. They cost the same as every other seat in the class you're paying for.

When you do have that option (choosing any seat) you don't have to "qualify" for it by being tall. It's first come first served on those seats, and they are limited in number.

The good here is a trip, yes, but only on as many seats as you buy. As I said, it could be simply the way your country treats the good being sold, but they are treated as seats here, or rather, the right to sit on that seat at a specific time and place on a specific trip.

Normally, I don't consider where someone lives relevant, but since you claim to know how seats are sold "there" ... where is "here" ?

Normally, I don't consider where someone lives relevant, but since you claim to know how seats are sold "there" ... where is "here" ?

SE Asia is the most I ever give in a public forum about the where. If you want more, PM me.

SE Asia is the most I ever give in a public forum about the where. If you want more, PM me.

Fair enough.

EDIT: On second thoughts, I can hardly argue about what the legal definition is in your country, if I'm bound by my own word not to name that country. So ... I won't PM.

I didn't miss the point at all. Jobs far from one's place of residence have existed well before the advent of aircraft. It is irrelevant that in your case, it is software development. All that mattered was distance.

How did people deal with it then? Usually by moving. People still do.

How did people deal with living too far from town to get to the hospital before cars?

Well, guess we don't need ambulances.

I'm not a software developer. I work on projects that increase the maintenance efficiency of various industries. In the short term, I prevent injuries measurably. In the long term, I reduce the cost of electricity when I work for energy company, gasoline for oil companies, pharmaceuticals for pharma, medical devices also pharma, medical service for hospitals, education for schools and universities.

I need to travel by plane as much as people need fire trucks and ambulances. I do return on investment studies so unlike other people, I can actually show the effect of my presence. I'm not asked to come because companies just want to waste money on my travel.

The amusing bit is that people survived with penicillin, ambulances, fire trucks, pacemakers, stints, etc. Your argument fails because didn't have doesn't equal didn't need.

The more ignorant thing about your idiotic claim that I could just move is that most companies initially purchase my services for two weeks. The length of my service varies and is not particularly reliable. I could be working in CA tomorrow, literally. I have been to as many as four job sites in a week all too far to travel by car.



The good here is a trip, yes, but only on as many seats as you buy. As I said, it could be simply the way your country treats the good being sold, but they are treated as seats here, or rather, the right to sit on that seat at a specific time and place on a specific trip.

Not my country. The airlines. I fly at least once a week. It's been very clearly explained to me by the airline that they haven't sold me an actual seat but a trip. Again, if you don't actually know what you're talking about, now would be a good time to stop talking.

You do not have the right to sit in THAT seat. Not at all. They can change your seat without your permission. They can even change the plane if they like. They can move you. I've been moved around before because the plane was so small that they need to even people out. I didn't reserve my seat. I reserved the trip.


I'm not trying to convince an audience. I am trying to convince the people I am arguing with. Perhaps that makes me a bad debater, but it does not matter overmuch to me.[/QUOTE]

Well, you're not accomplishing either. You're also wildly inconsistent. A bit ago you suggested I didn't understand that convincing other people on NSG was not likely. I guess you stick around for the donuts, huh?



Trends on NSG beg to differ. Or at least people from opposing camps believe that they are right and applying logic, or in some cases, faith, but those don't matter.

Trends aren't an argument. Logically you can only adhere to logic or not or it can not be relevant. It can't be both or all three. It doesn't matter how popular an idea is or what a "trend" says (particularly a trend you pulled out of your ass). It's not about what people believe. It's about whether things make logical sense or not. I'm not asking you to understand. It won't change the facts.

How did people deal with living too far from town to get to the hospital before cars?

They walked, used horses or other means of getting from point A to B. There are always alternatives. The needs didn't go away, but a lot of conveniences simply became available along the way, that's all.


I'm not a software developer.


Then I was mistaken.


I need to travel by plane as much as people need fire trucks and ambulances. I do return on investment studies so unlike other people, I can actually show the effect of my presence. I'm not asked to come because companies just want to waste money on my travel.

Your occupation involves travel, fair enough. If aircraft magically disappeared overnight, it would still involve travel however. Just slower travel. Demand and wants, namely, showing up in many places faster, simply scaled up to take advantage of conveniences.

Need vs want differences are blurry at best when a lot of wants become treated as needs, a problem I admit.


The amusing bit is that people survived with penicillin, ambulances, fire trucks, pacemakers, stints, etc. Your argument fails because didn't have doesn't equal didn't need.

Needs are very basic when you get right down to it.


The length of my service varies and is not particularly reliable. I could be working in CA tomorrow, literally. I have been to as many as four job sites in a week all too far to travel by car.

New information that provides more, previously unknown, factors to take into consideration. Was it that hard to do in the first place?


Not my country. The airlines.


And these airlines based in, and are bound by the laws of your country correct?


You do not have the right to sit in THAT seat. Not at all. They can change your seat without your permission. They can even change the plane if they like. They can move you.


This is part of the disclaimer they have when you make a booking I believe, but barring such action on the company's side, that is the seat, plane and time you have bought a right to be on.


You're also wildly inconsistent.


How so?


A bit ago you suggested I didn't understand that convincing other people on NSG was not likely. I guess you stick around for the donuts, huh?

Metaphorical donuts, but yes, I suppose that is so. Why else would anyone stay on NSG, given the very low probabilities of anyone changing their views after an argument here?


Logically you can only adhere to logic or not or it can not be relevant.


Obviously


It can't be both or all three. It doesn't matter how popular an idea is or what a "trend" says (particularly a trend you pulled out of your ass). It's not about what people believe. It's about whether things make logical sense or not. I'm not asking you to understand. It won't change the facts.

Facts will be facts, no matter what one believes, certainly. But I would like to furnish an example of why facts may have two different interpretations of logical sense on NSG. Do you remember the thread not too long ago dealing with the announcement regarding the new Star Trek movie?

It eventually turned into an argument of poor design philosophy versus good design philosophy, with both sides presenting views that were logical and made sense to them, yet were at direct odds with one another.

How do you explain that?

I'm not really certain how any of this really impacts you all anyway.

Why is it whenever someone's rights are vindicated, that people automatically feel cheated...as though they themselves lost something? I don't quite understand it.


I'll be even more disappointed if this thread goes on as long as the most excellent sex thread.

I'll be even more disappointed if this thread goes on as long as the most excellent sex thread.

It would have a long way to go before it could manage that, and I think most of us are getting pretty bored with this thread now, so the sex thread's lead is probably safe. :tongue:

I'll be even more disappointed if this thread goes on as long as the most excellent sex thread.Oh, I see what you did. :p

I'm not really certain how any of this really impacts you all anyway.


A lot of things debated on NSG don't impact any of us, at least directly, but that doesn't mean we don't argue, get in a fit, and all manner of internet hand waving shouting over all of them. It's part of what makes NSG... NSG I suppose.

A business standpoint?

Did you get bitten by the troll or something? It's really weird to hear this market fundamentalism coming from you.

Oh, I'm sorry. Next time I'll have you vet my posts before I hit "submit". How is it me espousing market fundamentalism to say "I think that was the idea". Doesn't that phrase imply, as I meant it to, that my post was an attempt to clarify the business-end argument? Did I say I worshiped it? Good Lord, man, fire that venomous cannon in another direction!

I was trying to work my way around my own mistake of calling a "very good reason" a "need" ... but now I won't even bother. Food is a need. Air to breathe is a need.

The "need to make a profit" however is a weaker reason to do anything than the "very good reasons" I cited to fly.

Transportation can never be a need, then?

I agree that the need to profit isn't quite up there with the Maslowian troika of food, shelter and safety, but for those in the business, that's kinda what's providing those other three. Unless they're all working gratis.

If providing some larger seats, assessing the need of some passengers for them or for two standard seats, and avoiding their fraudulent use increases costs to airlines, then they'll raise the ticket price. Fewer people will fly -- but that's it. A new balance is achieved, a better service is provided at a higher cost. The entire industry doesn't spiral into the ground by some chicken-little magic.

Or so it is hoped. The auto industry, while of course different than airlines, have yet to understand that after 30+ years of the alarm bells going off.

Except you don't buy seats. You buy a trip, as has been pointed out. Transportation from one place to another. You can purchase additional services, but the base service is simply a trip.

Okay, I keep reading this point, and right at the time when I'm ready to type "fair enough" and just leave it alone, I can't. If they're not selling seats, then why are there so many seats on the plane? Seems to me they could pack more in if they used a Japanese-nap-automat-style rack system. Probably safer, too. Everyone napping and all.

Somewhere along the way, it was decided that seats would be the airlines' M.O. The terminology is interchangeable -- fare/seat/ticket. So I'm pretty convinced that you really are purchasing a seat, no matter how it's being spun. Until I see an airline try it some other way, that is.

Now, as I said, handicapped passengers are accommodated with larger or adaptable seats or seating areas configurable for a wide range of ADA-mandated conditions. If obesity is to be one of those conditions, then sell the disability-level obese a handicapped seat. It won't cost any more, but they'll be more comfortable, and nobody will have to endure the compelling experience of feeling like they're being swallowed by the pseudopodia of the ectomorph in the next incredibly shrinking seat.

If there are only a certain number of handicapped seats on any given flight, that's something the dysfunctionally obese will have to take up with the airlines. Because there's not nearly enough lawsuit action in US courts these days.

I'm not really certain how any of this really impacts you all anyway.

Why is it whenever someone's rights are vindicated, that people automatically feel cheated...as though they themselves lost something? I don't quite understand it.

I'll be even more disappointed if this thread goes on as long as the most excellent sex thread.

A bit hypocritical, no? It doesn't impact you, either, yet you're a dogged defender of those being slagged -- as if you had any hope of changing minds so cluttered with preconceptions about their fellow men and women based solely on what size or shape they are. Minds are where it's at, of course, but you of all people should know that barely a recognizable minority is there yet.

Perhaps it's because the "vindication" itself is part of what's up for debate. Sweetness, if everything the world went in such a way as to be completely understood by you, do you think this world would be the inconvenient and populist banality to which it usually defaults?

Okay, I keep reading this point, and right at the time when I'm ready to type "fair enough" and just leave it alone, I can't. If they're not selling seats, then why are there so many seats on the plane? Seems to me they could pack more in if they used a Japanese-nap-automat-style rack system. Probably safer, too. Everyone napping and all.

Somewhere along the way, it was decided that seats would be the airlines' M.O. The terminology is interchangeable -- fare/seat/ticket. So I'm pretty convinced that you really are purchasing a seat, no matter how it's being spun. Until I see an airline try it some other way, that is.

...

So restaurants are selling seats as well?

The fact that all businesses in a certain sector have adopted a simple, cheap, common and relatively safe technique for dealing with a problem (i.e. having people sit in the things we've been sitting in for centuries) it hardly means that the seat and the service are inseparable. Imagine that planes did take up your revolutionary rack system...would it cease to be the same fundamental service, or simply a different expression of that service (like a restaurant that allows you to eat there or take your meal and leave).

Also, it's been mentioned but I think it bears repeating...airlines make it appear as if they are selling you a particular seat, in a particular spot and on a specific plane, but as they often overbook that is simply an illusion. In point of fact you can always be shifted about, and it happens quite routinely. If they intend to claim that they are in fact selling us a seat, then it is incumbent on them to cease this operation and always put the person who bought a seat into that seat...otherwise they're not holding up their end of the deal.

...

So restaurants are selling seats as well?

What do they do with you when there are no seats in the restaurant? I've not yet been to one where they offer a window box or a seat in the restroom. It's a rotten analogy, but they, too, are selling seats. That's kinda the whole restaurant experience. A "seated" meal. But hey, enough reality.

The fact that all businesses in a certain sector have adopted a simple, cheap, common and relatively safe technique for dealing with a problem (i.e. having people sit in the things we've been sitting in for centuries) it hardly means that the seat and the service are inseparable. Imagine that planes did take up your revolutionary rack system...would it cease to be the same fundamental service, or simply a different expression of that service (like a restaurant that allows you to eat there or take your meal and leave).

That's a different service. It's called "take out". Many restaurants offer it, some do not. You're not compelled to tip as much either, as you've received only the bare minimum of service. I don't think this analogy works in your favor.

Also, it's been mentioned but I think it bears repeating...airlines make it appear as if they are selling you a particular seat, in a particular spot and on a specific plane, but as they often overbook that is simply an illusion. In point of fact you can always be shifted about, and it happens quite routinely. If they intend to claim that they are in fact selling us a seat, then it is incumbent on them to cease this operation and always put the person who bought a seat into that seat...otherwise they're not holding up their end of the deal.

Have you flown recently? You can change your seat assignment -- funny term that, "assignment"...it's almost like they're telling you exactly what seat you'll be expected to occupy, aren't they? -- as you check in, and flight attendants are usually very generous in allowing those who could not book seats together to ask other passengers to switch in order to accommodate those traveling together, but on the whole, they'd rather you stay where you were slated to be. Just because they make occasional exceptions doesn't mean that you didn't pay for a seat. Were that the case, boarding passes wouldn't bother with seat assignment numbers at all, would they?

I'm in favour of that.

Leaving only the question: should government regulation force all airlines to make such accommodations ... or should it be left to airlines to offer size options as a feature of their service?

I'd argue the former, because the latter method would probably have roomier seating available for those who need it being offered only as part of a premium service. Ie you'd only get space options if you also paid for better food, cleaner carpets, better audio-visual entertainment ... things you don't medically need the way we need to be able to move around without touching some other passenger.

I think that's where I have to part ways on this one though. As a service industry, just like say ... a Bus, Subway, Train, or other transit service... you are in fact paying for what you get - i.e. the more you pay the nicer the accomodations, just like a hotel.

Therefore if you buy coach on the crummy plane, you get a crummy, scrunched up seat, and if you do happen to be of a size that requires two of those seats, I think it would be the same as upgrading yourself to first class where the seats are twice as big. You have to pay more to accomodate yourself. It may not appear fair at first but let's look at those other options...

Train and Subway: If there are no bench seats left open... you are left standing hanging on to a bar or stirrup, or you have to take up two of those weird "connect-a-chairs" (if you need to that is).

Bus: Flat rate as well. If you can't find a seat to yourself on many city buses (again, if need be) then you aren't allowed to stand and hold a railing and you simply have to wait for the next one.

So: I see both sides of the argument yes. However I do not see why the airline industry should have to be treated unfairly compared to any other. Especially via 'forced government control' as it were.

youd think

but we seem to be discussing whether or not fat people can control their size and whether or not valentasia is a troll.

are you generally opposed to the disabled being given extra consideration for free on airplane trips?
Hell, no, I'm not opposed to giving special consideration to disabled people.

I am concerned that there are no objective standards with which to determine whether or not a person is entitled to two seats because of obesity, when the ticket is purchased. The phrase that I read from the linked article, presumably from the one man, one fare decision is vague and would allow just about anyone that claimed to be uncomfortable should be given an extra seat.

If you can't do that at the time the ticket is purchased and some other passenger with a confirmed seat is bumped -- then he is inconvenienced far more than is reasonable.

In most cases they use a doctor's determination. Here they will still use a doctor's determination to determine if you qualify as disabled. They will ask, as Neesika is showing, those attending the airlines to determine whether or not the person fits in the seat.

Why not people whose legs are too long? Well, frankly, I think they should have rows designated for taller people. However, it doesn't apply here because being tall (or having broad shoulders like I do) is not a disability.
As long as the criteria is objective and can be applied before bumping another passenger, fine. If the criteria can't be applied at ticket purchase, and there is no room to rearrange passengers to accommodate the disability, the disabled should be bumped to the next suitable flight.

How does that play with the "it's not my fault crowd"?

Were that the case, boarding passes wouldn't bother with seat assignment numbers at all, would they?
Does Southwest still do that? Airtran and S/W used to just give out boarding passes that determined the order you would board in. You picked the seat when you got on board.

1) Airline seats, at least on most American airlines, are too small. I say this as somebody who is barely 5' tall and of medium build. If the seats are small enough to be uncomfortable for ME, they are too small for the average person. Period.

2) I admit it: I hate being seated next to a fat person. It's not kind of me. I'm not proud of it. But when I see that the person next to me is fat, I groan inwardly. They will be spilling into my seat. I will not get to use an armrest. The already-tight conditions will be that much more uncomfortable for EVERYONE.

3) Fat people, at least in America, aren't any more likely to be rich than skinny people. If fat people are told that they would have to pay full price for two seats, they simply won't do it. Most of them CAN'T do it. They can't afford it. So they will buy the one seat and then fail to fit into it, spilling over into the space that other people paid for.

Result: Even if you don't give fat people a two-for-one deal, they're going to end up USING two-for-one because their bodies are still going to have to occupy that much space. It's just that if you book the flight full and they are only given one seat, they'll be taking up a second seat that is also occupied by somebody else. :P

Personally, I think airline travel is cramped and uncomfortable and it's goddam rude to push yourself into anybody else's space when you're already in such a cramped situation. This includes tall people who extend their legs into my leg room, sharp-elbowed motherfuckers who won't share the damn armrest, individuals who have either not bathed at all or who have chosen to drench themselves in perfume before boarding, parents who allow their children to crawl over you, and couples who purchase the aisle and window seats and then proceed to hold a conversation OVER you as you sit between them. I resent rudeness and I think rude people should be categorically barred from air travel. The thing is, though, tall people can't help but be tall, and a lot of fat people can't help but be fat, and simply BEING that size isn't rude. It's how they choose to deal with it.