Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Amusement park in the south discriminating obese? How can they be more fair?
Options
Replies
-
whocaresilikeit wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
People seem to be forgetting that women also have boobs. Boobs that are often larger when a woman is overweight. Add the boobs to the size of the overweight woman, and I cannot even imagine a ride where the safety device comes down over the shoulders and in front of the passenger being safe for a woman over size 18. (Please note, I weigh 300 pounds, so I'm not preaching from a pulpit of inexperience.) For other rides, you also have to take note that the center of gravity for a large woman is different as well, largely because of the boobs, and so even rides with lap bars would be unsafe. If the ride was adjusted to fit a size 18 woman with big boobs, a thin, flat-chested woman would likely fall out. It's a safety issue, not a "you're fat and ugly therefore we don't want you on our rides" issue. Men, even at 200 pounds likely don't have the issue of boobs, and as many people have said, a man is likely taller, therefore the weight distribution is different, so the same safety issue does not apply.
Thank you for your logic...it is refreshing to say the least.0 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
because a man can weigh 200lbs and not pose a danger due to that...a woman on the other hand would (in most cases not all)
note it said 225lbs and 40 inch waist or 52 inch chest...which would apply to both sexes.
for woman it said 200lbs or size 18
but by all means let all these short obese woman and extra large men get up to the front of the line and get in the tester seat to only find out they don't fit and have to walk back all the while everyone knowing why...it's called the walk of shame.
and here is an exact quote from the park owner
"Cedar Fair, the parent company of Knott’s Berry Farm and 10 other amusement parks, offers very specific size requirements for “guests of larger size.” Cedar Fair warns that men over 6 foot 2 inches or 225 pounds with a 40-inch waistline or 52-inch chest “may not be accommodated on some of our rides.” The park operator says women over 200 pounds who wear a size 18 or larger could have trouble fitting on some rides."
so again it's not excluding just warning and it has specifics for men too...but again by all means be upset over it.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/themeparks/la-tr-theme-parks-big-riders-20160511-story.html
If the safety of the ride is contingent on the weight of the rider, what danger does a 200lb woman pose that a 200lb man does not? If the safety of the ride is contingent on the size of the person, how is 40 inch waist of a man differ from a 40 in waist of a woman?
are you asking for real?
because if this is a real question then I might just roflmao.
1. People are too busy looking for reasons to be mad
2. The weight of the person is indicative of the size of that person and I am sure that if the woman was 6 ft tall and 200lbs she would fit in the tester seat just fine...I am sure they don't have a scale at the ride start.
see since I have shown that it wasn't jsut "women" singled out for "exclusion" it's now a fight on discrimination based on sizes...
and no where did the park say they couldn't ride it was a warning to say they might not fit...so be aware....
but again by all means get rid of the warning let them get in the tester seat and then walk back in shame...or better yet build all the rides to accommodate bigger people and exclude the smaller people and let them get their *kitten* up over instead.
I really wish people would read the entire story before assumptions are made and then posts based on assumptions...smh.
So what you are saying in the bolded statement is that the safety of the ride is contigent on the size of the person, not the weight. Correct? If so, why not say that a person must have a 40 inch or less waist and leave it at that?
well logic would say that if a woman has a 40 inch waist and is average height she is way past the 200lb mark that would make it difficult for her to fasten the restraints and/or take over the other seat or be over the seat itself making it very unsafe all the time for that person and their fellow riders because someone too big was on the ride due to lack of restrictions on the weight as well...note the female restrictions were 200lbs or size 18 and up.
I don't understand why people can't see the logic here...glad I don't do amusement parks...
First: your bolded statement is false
Second: you never answered my question. Is the safety of the ride contingent of the weight of the person or if they fit in the seat (size/measurement)?
If it is contingent of the weight, why 225 for men and 200 for women?
If it is contingent of the size, why not leave it at 40 inches? Why add the extra measurement for women?1 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
because a man can weigh 200lbs and not pose a danger due to that...a woman on the other hand would (in most cases not all)
note it said 225lbs and 40 inch waist or 52 inch chest...which would apply to both sexes.
for woman it said 200lbs or size 18
but by all means let all these short obese woman and extra large men get up to the front of the line and get in the tester seat to only find out they don't fit and have to walk back all the while everyone knowing why...it's called the walk of shame.
and here is an exact quote from the park owner
"Cedar Fair, the parent company of Knott’s Berry Farm and 10 other amusement parks, offers very specific size requirements for “guests of larger size.” Cedar Fair warns that men over 6 foot 2 inches or 225 pounds with a 40-inch waistline or 52-inch chest “may not be accommodated on some of our rides.” The park operator says women over 200 pounds who wear a size 18 or larger could have trouble fitting on some rides."
so again it's not excluding just warning and it has specifics for men too...but again by all means be upset over it.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/themeparks/la-tr-theme-parks-big-riders-20160511-story.html
If the safety of the ride is contingent on the weight of the rider, what danger does a 200lb woman pose that a 200lb man does not? If the safety of the ride is contingent on the size of the person, how is 40 inch waist of a man differ from a 40 in waist of a woman?
are you asking for real?
because if this is a real question then I might just roflmao.
1. People are too busy looking for reasons to be mad
2. The weight of the person is indicative of the size of that person and I am sure that if the woman was 6 ft tall and 200lbs she would fit in the tester seat just fine...I am sure they don't have a scale at the ride start.
see since I have shown that it wasn't jsut "women" singled out for "exclusion" it's now a fight on discrimination based on sizes...
and no where did the park say they couldn't ride it was a warning to say they might not fit...so be aware....
but again by all means get rid of the warning let them get in the tester seat and then walk back in shame...or better yet build all the rides to accommodate bigger people and exclude the smaller people and let them get their *kitten* up over instead.
I really wish people would read the entire story before assumptions are made and then posts based on assumptions...smh.
So what you are saying in the bolded statement is that the safety of the ride is contigent on the size of the person, not the weight. Correct? If so, why not say that a person must have a 40 inch or less waist and leave it at that?
well logic would say that if a woman has a 40 inch waist and is average height she is way past the 200lb mark that would make it difficult for her to fasten the restraints and/or take over the other seat or be over the seat itself making it very unsafe all the time for that person and their fellow riders because someone too big was on the ride due to lack of restrictions on the weight as well...note the female restrictions were 200lbs or size 18 and up.
I don't understand why people can't see the logic here...glad I don't do amusement parks...
First: your bolded statement is false
Second: you never answered my question. Is the safety of the ride contingent of the weight of the person or if they fit in the seat (size/measurement)?
If it is contingent of the weight, why 225 for men and 200 for women?
If it is contingent of the size, why not leave it at 40 inches? Why add the extra measurement for women?
The blurb with descriptions of who is likely to not fit was added to be helpful. It's just there as forewarning that if this applies to you, you *might* not fit on this ride..it's not their criteria for rejecting passengers (which is if they can't cram you in the seat and close the restraint). And it was apparently worded to use the information that the person reading it is likely to know without going out and buying a tape measure, etc - their clothing size (men's pants and dress shirts are by measurements, and unfortunately ladies dress sizes have that stupid semi-useless numbering system) .4 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
because a man can weigh 200lbs and not pose a danger due to that...a woman on the other hand would (in most cases not all)
note it said 225lbs and 40 inch waist or 52 inch chest...which would apply to both sexes.
for woman it said 200lbs or size 18
but by all means let all these short obese woman and extra large men get up to the front of the line and get in the tester seat to only find out they don't fit and have to walk back all the while everyone knowing why...it's called the walk of shame.
and here is an exact quote from the park owner
"Cedar Fair, the parent company of Knott’s Berry Farm and 10 other amusement parks, offers very specific size requirements for “guests of larger size.” Cedar Fair warns that men over 6 foot 2 inches or 225 pounds with a 40-inch waistline or 52-inch chest “may not be accommodated on some of our rides.” The park operator says women over 200 pounds who wear a size 18 or larger could have trouble fitting on some rides."
so again it's not excluding just warning and it has specifics for men too...but again by all means be upset over it.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/themeparks/la-tr-theme-parks-big-riders-20160511-story.html
If the safety of the ride is contingent on the weight of the rider, what danger does a 200lb woman pose that a 200lb man does not? If the safety of the ride is contingent on the size of the person, how is 40 inch waist of a man differ from a 40 in waist of a woman?
are you asking for real?
because if this is a real question then I might just roflmao.
1. People are too busy looking for reasons to be mad
2. The weight of the person is indicative of the size of that person and I am sure that if the woman was 6 ft tall and 200lbs she would fit in the tester seat just fine...I am sure they don't have a scale at the ride start.
see since I have shown that it wasn't jsut "women" singled out for "exclusion" it's now a fight on discrimination based on sizes...
and no where did the park say they couldn't ride it was a warning to say they might not fit...so be aware....
but again by all means get rid of the warning let them get in the tester seat and then walk back in shame...or better yet build all the rides to accommodate bigger people and exclude the smaller people and let them get their *kitten* up over instead.
I really wish people would read the entire story before assumptions are made and then posts based on assumptions...smh.
So what you are saying in the bolded statement is that the safety of the ride is contigent on the size of the person, not the weight. Correct? If so, why not say that a person must have a 40 inch or less waist and leave it at that?
well logic would say that if a woman has a 40 inch waist and is average height she is way past the 200lb mark that would make it difficult for her to fasten the restraints and/or take over the other seat or be over the seat itself making it very unsafe all the time for that person and their fellow riders because someone too big was on the ride due to lack of restrictions on the weight as well...note the female restrictions were 200lbs or size 18 and up.
I don't understand why people can't see the logic here...glad I don't do amusement parks...
If a woman with a 40" waist is 'way past the 200lb mark', then why include 200lbs as a restriction at all? I think is the question.
seriously...because a woman who is 200lbs and average height would probably overflow into the next seat or over her seat or not be able to fasten the restraint due to boobs. which I already pointed out above.
What if I'm 250lbs with a 35" waist. Do I get to ride?
If I do, then it is the 40" waist measurement that is the restriction, not the weight, and weight should not be a considering factor.
If I do not, then it is the weight that is the restriction, not the measurement, and the measurement should not be a considering factor.
If the ride requires BOTH less than a 40" waist and 200lbs, then I can see why they would need both restrictions.0 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
because a man can weigh 200lbs and not pose a danger due to that...a woman on the other hand would (in most cases not all)
note it said 225lbs and 40 inch waist or 52 inch chest...which would apply to both sexes.
for woman it said 200lbs or size 18
but by all means let all these short obese woman and extra large men get up to the front of the line and get in the tester seat to only find out they don't fit and have to walk back all the while everyone knowing why...it's called the walk of shame.
and here is an exact quote from the park owner
"Cedar Fair, the parent company of Knott’s Berry Farm and 10 other amusement parks, offers very specific size requirements for “guests of larger size.” Cedar Fair warns that men over 6 foot 2 inches or 225 pounds with a 40-inch waistline or 52-inch chest “may not be accommodated on some of our rides.” The park operator says women over 200 pounds who wear a size 18 or larger could have trouble fitting on some rides."
so again it's not excluding just warning and it has specifics for men too...but again by all means be upset over it.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/themeparks/la-tr-theme-parks-big-riders-20160511-story.html
If the safety of the ride is contingent on the weight of the rider, what danger does a 200lb woman pose that a 200lb man does not? If the safety of the ride is contingent on the size of the person, how is 40 inch waist of a man differ from a 40 in waist of a woman?
are you asking for real?
because if this is a real question then I might just roflmao.
1. People are too busy looking for reasons to be mad
2. The weight of the person is indicative of the size of that person and I am sure that if the woman was 6 ft tall and 200lbs she would fit in the tester seat just fine...I am sure they don't have a scale at the ride start.
see since I have shown that it wasn't jsut "women" singled out for "exclusion" it's now a fight on discrimination based on sizes...
and no where did the park say they couldn't ride it was a warning to say they might not fit...so be aware....
but again by all means get rid of the warning let them get in the tester seat and then walk back in shame...or better yet build all the rides to accommodate bigger people and exclude the smaller people and let them get their *kitten* up over instead.
I really wish people would read the entire story before assumptions are made and then posts based on assumptions...smh.
So what you are saying in the bolded statement is that the safety of the ride is contigent on the size of the person, not the weight. Correct? If so, why not say that a person must have a 40 inch or less waist and leave it at that?
well logic would say that if a woman has a 40 inch waist and is average height she is way past the 200lb mark that would make it difficult for her to fasten the restraints and/or take over the other seat or be over the seat itself making it very unsafe all the time for that person and their fellow riders because someone too big was on the ride due to lack of restrictions on the weight as well...note the female restrictions were 200lbs or size 18 and up.
I don't understand why people can't see the logic here...glad I don't do amusement parks...
If a woman with a 40" waist is 'way past the 200lb mark', then why include 200lbs as a restriction at all? I think is the question.
seriously...because a woman who is 200lbs and average height would probably overflow into the next seat or over her seat or not be able to fasten the restraint due to boobs. which I already pointed out above.
What if I'm 250lbs with a 35" waist. Do I get to ride?
If I do, then it is the 40" waist measurement that is the restriction, not the weight, and weight should not be a considering factor.
If I do not, then it is the weight that is the restriction, not the measurement, and the measurement should not be a considering factor.
If the ride requires BOTH less than a 40" waist and 200lbs, then I can see why they would need both restrictions.
Thank you! That was the point I was trying to get across.0 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
because a man can weigh 200lbs and not pose a danger due to that...a woman on the other hand would (in most cases not all)
note it said 225lbs and 40 inch waist or 52 inch chest...which would apply to both sexes.
for woman it said 200lbs or size 18
but by all means let all these short obese woman and extra large men get up to the front of the line and get in the tester seat to only find out they don't fit and have to walk back all the while everyone knowing why...it's called the walk of shame.
and here is an exact quote from the park owner
"Cedar Fair, the parent company of Knott’s Berry Farm and 10 other amusement parks, offers very specific size requirements for “guests of larger size.” Cedar Fair warns that men over 6 foot 2 inches or 225 pounds with a 40-inch waistline or 52-inch chest “may not be accommodated on some of our rides.” The park operator says women over 200 pounds who wear a size 18 or larger could have trouble fitting on some rides."
so again it's not excluding just warning and it has specifics for men too...but again by all means be upset over it.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/themeparks/la-tr-theme-parks-big-riders-20160511-story.html
If the safety of the ride is contingent on the weight of the rider, what danger does a 200lb woman pose that a 200lb man does not? If the safety of the ride is contingent on the size of the person, how is 40 inch waist of a man differ from a 40 in waist of a woman?
are you asking for real?
because if this is a real question then I might just roflmao.
1. People are too busy looking for reasons to be mad
2. The weight of the person is indicative of the size of that person and I am sure that if the woman was 6 ft tall and 200lbs she would fit in the tester seat just fine...I am sure they don't have a scale at the ride start.
see since I have shown that it wasn't jsut "women" singled out for "exclusion" it's now a fight on discrimination based on sizes...
and no where did the park say they couldn't ride it was a warning to say they might not fit...so be aware....
but again by all means get rid of the warning let them get in the tester seat and then walk back in shame...or better yet build all the rides to accommodate bigger people and exclude the smaller people and let them get their *kitten* up over instead.
I really wish people would read the entire story before assumptions are made and then posts based on assumptions...smh.
So what you are saying in the bolded statement is that the safety of the ride is contigent on the size of the person, not the weight. Correct? If so, why not say that a person must have a 40 inch or less waist and leave it at that?
well logic would say that if a woman has a 40 inch waist and is average height she is way past the 200lb mark that would make it difficult for her to fasten the restraints and/or take over the other seat or be over the seat itself making it very unsafe all the time for that person and their fellow riders because someone too big was on the ride due to lack of restrictions on the weight as well...note the female restrictions were 200lbs or size 18 and up.
I don't understand why people can't see the logic here...glad I don't do amusement parks...
If a woman with a 40" waist is 'way past the 200lb mark', then why include 200lbs as a restriction at all? I think is the question.
seriously...because a woman who is 200lbs and average height would probably overflow into the next seat or over her seat or not be able to fasten the restraint due to boobs. which I already pointed out above.
What if I'm 250lbs with a 35" waist. Do I get to ride?
If I do, then it is the 40" waist measurement that is the restriction, not the weight, and weight should not be a considering factor.
If I do not, then it is the weight that is the restriction, not the measurement, and the measurement should not be a considering factor.
If the ride requires BOTH less than a 40" waist and 200lbs, then I can see why they would need both restrictions.
If they can cram you in the seat and close the restraint, then yes you get to ride.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.
I've wondered once or twice if you read my initial comment TBH... It was a brief and simple personal opinion that didn't even mention amusement parks. I've been happy to clarify the opinion, but feel confident that I did so some posts back.
I appreciate you have some interesting questions. But it seems you are looking for some specific answers.. So perhaps you should just cut to the chase and tell us what you really think.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.
I've wondered once or twice if you read my initial comment TBH... It was a brief and simple personal opinion that didn't even mention amusement parks. I've been happy to clarify the opinion, but feel confident that I did so some posts back.
I appreciate you have some interesting questions. But it seems you are looking for some specific answers.. So perhaps you should just cut to the chase and tell us what you really think.
Maybe I was confused because this thread is specifically about amusement parks and access for the disabled (or those who may qualify as disabled under some definitions) and I assumed that most opinions would relate in some way to the topic. I apologize for making assumptions about your post and its relation to the thread.
The only specific answers I was looking for was clarification on your position. I'd never heard someone articulate so explicitly before a theory of "deserving" versus "undeserving" disabled and was curious to know more of your thoughts on the subject.
What I really think: I don't yet understand your position well enough to have an opinion on it. That's why I was asking questions about it.1 -
Old_Cat_Lady wrote: »
Maybe in the future people will have a chip implanted (by choice), and those with medical conditions and disabilities such as obesity could get a reduced rate at park entrance. Each ride entrance would have a chip reader.How about a pro-rated price for everyone? Each person could be run through a series of screens on their way into the park, checking for height, weight, and age, as well as other medical conditions such as epilepsy, pregnancy, heart disease, orthopedic injuries, etc. Then the price could be based on the percentage of attractions that the person could potentially visit. So small children would only pay for the attractions in the kiddie land, carousel, etc. plus all the shows. Obese people wouldn't pay for roller coasters or kiddie rides. (Unless they are obese kids).
Those who get motion sickness can't really ride the roller coasters either, or any other "motion" rides, so they shouldn't have to pay for those.
Sound like a good idea?
This technology could also be used to determine how much to charge people pay buffets. I would be willing to pay extra compared to a 100 lb person. I see nothing wrong with this.
Would this chip also be able to determine lifetime healthcare costs associated with their medical conditions and disabilities so their purchases can be taxed at a higher rate to covered the increase in medical expenses?
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.
I've wondered once or twice if you read my initial comment TBH... It was a brief and simple personal opinion that didn't even mention amusement parks. I've been happy to clarify the opinion, but feel confident that I did so some posts back.
I appreciate you have some interesting questions. But it seems you are looking for some specific answers.. So perhaps you should just cut to the chase and tell us what you really think.
Just so we're on the same page, this is what I took to be your initial comment ("I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.") and I responded to a comment you made following up to that. Was there an earlier comment that I'm missing?
For the record, I think I did understand it. And although you were not explicitly referencing amusement parks, the overall conversation was prompted by amusement park policies so if you were meaning to exclude amusement parks from your comment, I think it should have been referenced.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.
I've wondered once or twice if you read my initial comment TBH... It was a brief and simple personal opinion that didn't even mention amusement parks. I've been happy to clarify the opinion, but feel confident that I did so some posts back.
I appreciate you have some interesting questions. But it seems you are looking for some specific answers.. So perhaps you should just cut to the chase and tell us what you really think.
Just so we're on the same page, this is what I took to be your initial comment ("I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.") and I responded to a comment you made following up to that. Was there an earlier comment that I'm missing?
For the record, I think I did understand it. And although you were not explicitly referencing amusement parks, the overall conversation was prompted by amusement park policies so if you were meaning to exclude amusement parks from your comment, I think it should have been referenced.
What an interesting assumption. You know, coming from someone who hasn't actually added anything to the topic yet.0 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
I can see adding the "Size 18" for women, because it's more common for men's pants to be sized by waistline x inseam than it is for women's pants. So it could be helpful to add that for women who don't know their waistline.
I do appreciate that it seems to imply that the true test is whether or not the rider can fasten the restraints, and the "40 inch waist / Size 18 / 225-lb for men / 200-lb for women" sounds like it is more of a pre-ride guideline for the rider, in case they don't want to risk waiting in a long line and then finding out that they don't fit.magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
because a man can weigh 200lbs and not pose a danger due to that...a woman on the other hand would (in most cases not all)
note it said 225lbs and 40 inch waist or 52 inch chest...which would apply to both sexes.
for woman it said 200lbs or size 18
but by all means let all these short obese woman and extra large men get up to the front of the line and get in the tester seat to only find out they don't fit and have to walk back all the while everyone knowing why...it's called the walk of shame.
and here is an exact quote from the park owner
"Cedar Fair, the parent company of Knott’s Berry Farm and 10 other amusement parks, offers very specific size requirements for “guests of larger size.” Cedar Fair warns that men over 6 foot 2 inches or 225 pounds with a 40-inch waistline or 52-inch chest “may not be accommodated on some of our rides.” The park operator says women over 200 pounds who wear a size 18 or larger could have trouble fitting on some rides."
so again it's not excluding just warning and it has specifics for men too...but again by all means be upset over it.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/themeparks/la-tr-theme-parks-big-riders-20160511-story.html
In the article it specifically says that larger guests may enter through the exit to test the seats prior to waiting in line. No walk of shame needed.
Also, it seems to me that the restriction of 40" waist and 52" chest could be universal; there is no need to include separate restrictions for women because the above restrictions are already gender neutral.
except this part
"The uncomfortable scene is a familiar one to anybody who has ever visited a theme park: The overweight rider becomes increasingly embarrassed as the ride attendant pushes and shoves with all his might on the over-the-shoulder restraint that stubbornly refuses to click closed. Everybody waiting in line knows what comes next: the walk of shame.
“The walk of shame is an embarrassing experience,” said Mike Galvan, who penned the “Big Boy’s Guide to Roller Coasters.” “I’ve been there many times. It’s disheartening.”
that and should have read or..my mistake.
ETA
and in all honesty no a 52 inch chested woman may fit just fine in the ride...can't discriminate against boobs.
and if a woman has a 40" waist chances are she is beyond the 200lbs where it is deemed not safe based on gender...
you all are hell bent on it being a gender the same issue when it can't be.
Men are naturally taller and can carry more weight without it posing a risk for the rides than women can...get over yourselves...this isn't about being a woman or a man or equality it's about safety.
Huh? I'm not hell bent on anything as this is my third post on the topic, and I haven't once said anything about gender other than I think measurements are gender neutral. I just think that measurements are a more universally applied restriction than weight. And, yeah, if a woman (or anyone) has breasts large enough that they interfere with the restraints, they shouldn't be allowed to ride.
I said Y'all meaning those arguing that measurements are gender neutral (which is you)when in fact they are not.
I mean come on...a man can weigh 200lbs and not be that big...
An average man with a 40 inch waist is pretty big...an average woman with a 40 inch waist is way bigger than big.
logic dictates that there has to be specifics for each gender due to size variations.
40 inches is the same 40 inches no matter whether you're male, female, or some kind of plant XD2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.
I've wondered once or twice if you read my initial comment TBH... It was a brief and simple personal opinion that didn't even mention amusement parks. I've been happy to clarify the opinion, but feel confident that I did so some posts back.
I appreciate you have some interesting questions. But it seems you are looking for some specific answers.. So perhaps you should just cut to the chase and tell us what you really think.
Just so we're on the same page, this is what I took to be your initial comment ("I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.") and I responded to a comment you made following up to that. Was there an earlier comment that I'm missing?
For the record, I think I did understand it. And although you were not explicitly referencing amusement parks, the overall conversation was prompted by amusement park policies so if you were meaning to exclude amusement parks from your comment, I think it should have been referenced.
What an interesting assumption. You know, coming from someone who hasn't actually added anything to the topic yet.
It's a debate area. I'm seeking to understand your position better so that I can either accept it or provide an alternative. For me to counter your opinion (or accept it) before I understand it . . . that's not how I operate. You are not obligated to provide further details, but I'm honestly confused to learn that, in the context of a thread specifically devoted to debate, you don't see the discussion of opinions as a valid contribution.2 -
if you go to an amusement park- a place with rides with weight/size restrictions since literally the day it opened-then whine that you can't go on all the rides then you look like a whiny idiot. Should people with allergies get a discount since they can't eat all the park food?2
-
clicketykeys wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
I can see adding the "Size 18" for women, because it's more common for men's pants to be sized by waistline x inseam than it is for women's pants. So it could be helpful to add that for women who don't know their waistline.
I do appreciate that it seems to imply that the true test is whether or not the rider can fasten the restraints, and the "40 inch waist / Size 18 / 225-lb for men / 200-lb for women" sounds like it is more of a pre-ride guideline for the rider, in case they don't want to risk waiting in a long line and then finding out that they don't fit.magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
because a man can weigh 200lbs and not pose a danger due to that...a woman on the other hand would (in most cases not all)
note it said 225lbs and 40 inch waist or 52 inch chest...which would apply to both sexes.
for woman it said 200lbs or size 18
but by all means let all these short obese woman and extra large men get up to the front of the line and get in the tester seat to only find out they don't fit and have to walk back all the while everyone knowing why...it's called the walk of shame.
and here is an exact quote from the park owner
"Cedar Fair, the parent company of Knott’s Berry Farm and 10 other amusement parks, offers very specific size requirements for “guests of larger size.” Cedar Fair warns that men over 6 foot 2 inches or 225 pounds with a 40-inch waistline or 52-inch chest “may not be accommodated on some of our rides.” The park operator says women over 200 pounds who wear a size 18 or larger could have trouble fitting on some rides."
so again it's not excluding just warning and it has specifics for men too...but again by all means be upset over it.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/themeparks/la-tr-theme-parks-big-riders-20160511-story.html
In the article it specifically says that larger guests may enter through the exit to test the seats prior to waiting in line. No walk of shame needed.
Also, it seems to me that the restriction of 40" waist and 52" chest could be universal; there is no need to include separate restrictions for women because the above restrictions are already gender neutral.
except this part
"The uncomfortable scene is a familiar one to anybody who has ever visited a theme park: The overweight rider becomes increasingly embarrassed as the ride attendant pushes and shoves with all his might on the over-the-shoulder restraint that stubbornly refuses to click closed. Everybody waiting in line knows what comes next: the walk of shame.
“The walk of shame is an embarrassing experience,” said Mike Galvan, who penned the “Big Boy’s Guide to Roller Coasters.” “I’ve been there many times. It’s disheartening.”
that and should have read or..my mistake.
ETA
and in all honesty no a 52 inch chested woman may fit just fine in the ride...can't discriminate against boobs.
and if a woman has a 40" waist chances are she is beyond the 200lbs where it is deemed not safe based on gender...
you all are hell bent on it being a gender the same issue when it can't be.
Men are naturally taller and can carry more weight without it posing a risk for the rides than women can...get over yourselves...this isn't about being a woman or a man or equality it's about safety.
Huh? I'm not hell bent on anything as this is my third post on the topic, and I haven't once said anything about gender other than I think measurements are gender neutral. I just think that measurements are a more universally applied restriction than weight. And, yeah, if a woman (or anyone) has breasts large enough that they interfere with the restraints, they shouldn't be allowed to ride.
I said Y'all meaning those arguing that measurements are gender neutral (which is you)when in fact they are not.
I mean come on...a man can weigh 200lbs and not be that big...
An average man with a 40 inch waist is pretty big...an average woman with a 40 inch waist is way bigger than big.
logic dictates that there has to be specifics for each gender due to size variations.
40 inches is the same 40 inches no matter whether you're male, female, or some kind of plant XD
^this0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.
I've wondered once or twice if you read my initial comment TBH... It was a brief and simple personal opinion that didn't even mention amusement parks. I've been happy to clarify the opinion, but feel confident that I did so some posts back.
I appreciate you have some interesting questions. But it seems you are looking for some specific answers.. So perhaps you should just cut to the chase and tell us what you really think.
Just so we're on the same page, this is what I took to be your initial comment ("I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.") and I responded to a comment you made following up to that. Was there an earlier comment that I'm missing?
For the record, I think I did understand it. And although you were not explicitly referencing amusement parks, the overall conversation was prompted by amusement park policies so if you were meaning to exclude amusement parks from your comment, I think it should have been referenced.
What an interesting assumption. You know, coming from someone who hasn't actually added anything to the topic yet.
It's a debate area. I'm seeking to understand your position better so that I can either accept it or provide an alternative. For me to counter your opinion (or accept it) before I understand it . . . that's not how I operate. You are not obligated to provide further details, but I'm honestly confused to learn that, in the context of a thread specifically devoted to debate, you don't see the discussion of opinions as a valid contribution.
Hmm see, that's not how a debate works. In a debate, party 1 makes a statement. Party 2 takes a position in opposition to party 1's statement. And provides a rebuttal. Now party 1 is satisfied with it's opening statement, but has graciously provided some clarification at party 2's request. But for this to be a debate, party 2 will at some point have to make it's rebuttal rather than simply asking leading questions ad nauseum.
Perhaps if I may suggest, you are seeking complexity in what was always a very simple opinion. Either way, If you disagree with my statement, I'd love to hear your rebuttal.0 -
Rides are engineered. There will be tolerances just as there are on elevators and bridges. Whenever i see an amusement park accident I wonder; was it engineered badly, built to specs, and used within safety limits? Which I imagine would be the same questions in any inquiry.
No matter what the limits are there will be some.3 -
This is very much like small aircraft. My party of 3 plus another man were bumped from our seats on a small plane because an exceptionally large man checked in before us. His weight hit the flight restrictions...eliminating four other average sized passengers. If weight were not the safety was not an issue...we would have all flown... That airline had to put us on a commercial flight with another airline at twice the price we each paid for our seats...at what point is it the right of the business owner to make money at his profession vs the right of an individual to tramp on the rights of that business and other patrons? If you want to be that large...great, its your gig but others should not have to pay a price for you decision....airplane seats or amusement park seats.3
-
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
because a man can weigh 200lbs and not pose a danger due to that...a woman on the other hand would (in most cases not all)
note it said 225lbs and 40 inch waist or 52 inch chest...which would apply to both sexes.
for woman it said 200lbs or size 18
but by all means let all these short obese woman and extra large men get up to the front of the line and get in the tester seat to only find out they don't fit and have to walk back all the while everyone knowing why...it's called the walk of shame.
and here is an exact quote from the park owner
"Cedar Fair, the parent company of Knott’s Berry Farm and 10 other amusement parks, offers very specific size requirements for “guests of larger size.” Cedar Fair warns that men over 6 foot 2 inches or 225 pounds with a 40-inch waistline or 52-inch chest “may not be accommodated on some of our rides.” The park operator says women over 200 pounds who wear a size 18 or larger could have trouble fitting on some rides."
so again it's not excluding just warning and it has specifics for men too...but again by all means be upset over it.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/themeparks/la-tr-theme-parks-big-riders-20160511-story.html
If the safety of the ride is contingent on the weight of the rider, what danger does a 200lb woman pose that a 200lb man does not? If the safety of the ride is contingent on the size of the person, how is 40 inch waist of a man differ from a 40 in waist of a woman?
are you asking for real?
because if this is a real question then I might just roflmao.
1. People are too busy looking for reasons to be mad
2. The weight of the person is indicative of the size of that person and I am sure that if the woman was 6 ft tall and 200lbs she would fit in the tester seat just fine...I am sure they don't have a scale at the ride start.
see since I have shown that it wasn't jsut "women" singled out for "exclusion" it's now a fight on discrimination based on sizes...
and no where did the park say they couldn't ride it was a warning to say they might not fit...so be aware....
but again by all means get rid of the warning let them get in the tester seat and then walk back in shame...or better yet build all the rides to accommodate bigger people and exclude the smaller people and let them get their *kitten* up over instead.
I really wish people would read the entire story before assumptions are made and then posts based on assumptions...smh.
So what you are saying in the bolded statement is that the safety of the ride is contigent on the size of the person, not the weight. Correct? If so, why not say that a person must have a 40 inch or less waist and leave it at that?
well logic would say that if a woman has a 40 inch waist and is average height she is way past the 200lb mark that would make it difficult for her to fasten the restraints and/or take over the other seat or be over the seat itself making it very unsafe all the time for that person and their fellow riders because someone too big was on the ride due to lack of restrictions on the weight as well...note the female restrictions were 200lbs or size 18 and up.
I don't understand why people can't see the logic here...glad I don't do amusement parks...
If a woman with a 40" waist is 'way past the 200lb mark', then why include 200lbs as a restriction at all? I think is the question.
seriously...because a woman who is 200lbs and average height would probably overflow into the next seat or over her seat or not be able to fasten the restraint due to boobs. which I already pointed out above.
What if I'm 250lbs with a 35" waist. Do I get to ride?
If I do, then it is the 40" waist measurement that is the restriction, not the weight, and weight should not be a considering factor.
If I do not, then it is the weight that is the restriction, not the measurement, and the measurement should not be a considering factor.
If the ride requires BOTH less than a 40" waist and 200lbs, then I can see why they would need both restrictions.
Thank you! That was the point I was trying to get across.
wow and again there is no restriction it's a warning that a person with those measurements and/or woman of that weight or clothing size may not fit into the seats or restraints of the ride...
as for your question if you fit in the seat you sure do...but if you are putting other passengers at risk should you?
but again if you want people to wait in line only to find out that they won't fit in the ride due to size by all means sue and have those warnings removed.
and with that (since I have repeated myself 6x now) I am out as no one who is disagreeing with me is really reading my responses anyway...2 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
I understand what the OP is arguing about the 200 lb limit needing to be the same for women and men. If the constraints of the ride have to do with width and not weight, then that should be how the limit is defined, for both men and women. What if a 190 lb woman is wider that the ride specs? She doesn't impose a safety hazard?
no it doesn't...
a 200lb 6 ft man is slimmer than a 200lb 5 ft3 inch woman...end of story.
and again it's not just about weight..it was based on size read the story.
That's my point. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with how wide someone is, make that be the limit for males and females. If the safety concern for the ride has to do with the weight, 200 lb woman = 200 lb man...end of storyclicketykeys wrote: »By "rider" I was referring to the one who is large enough to cause danger to others. If the danger is the same, as you said, why does it matter whether the one causing the danger is male or female?
At 200 lbs I had neither a 40-inch waistline nor a 52-inch chest and I was comfortable in size 18s. If the park had refused to let me ride while permitting my similarly-statted husband to, I would have found that unreasonable. I can't see how anyone would think that's fair.
and if you both had read the actual link you would have seen the park didn't say just woman...nor just 200lbs.
I put it in my responses as needed.
jbut here it is again bolded for those who missed it the first 10x
"guests of larger size"
" Specifically, the park stated that guests who exceeded 6 feet, 2 inches in height and weighed over 225 pounds and had a 40-inch waistline or a 52-inch chest, could face restrictions."
"The restrictions went further by singling out women who weigh 200 pounds or those who wear a size 18 or larger."
just wow folks..just wow.
It's the bolded part that we have an issue with. Why single out the women? 40 inch waistline for men=women. 225 lbs for men=women. What is the point of adding the extra restriction for women?
because a man can weigh 200lbs and not pose a danger due to that...a woman on the other hand would (in most cases not all)
note it said 225lbs and 40 inch waist or 52 inch chest...which would apply to both sexes.
for woman it said 200lbs or size 18
but by all means let all these short obese woman and extra large men get up to the front of the line and get in the tester seat to only find out they don't fit and have to walk back all the while everyone knowing why...it's called the walk of shame.
and here is an exact quote from the park owner
"Cedar Fair, the parent company of Knott’s Berry Farm and 10 other amusement parks, offers very specific size requirements for “guests of larger size.” Cedar Fair warns that men over 6 foot 2 inches or 225 pounds with a 40-inch waistline or 52-inch chest “may not be accommodated on some of our rides.” The park operator says women over 200 pounds who wear a size 18 or larger could have trouble fitting on some rides."
so again it's not excluding just warning and it has specifics for men too...but again by all means be upset over it.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/themeparks/la-tr-theme-parks-big-riders-20160511-story.html
If the safety of the ride is contingent on the weight of the rider, what danger does a 200lb woman pose that a 200lb man does not? If the safety of the ride is contingent on the size of the person, how is 40 inch waist of a man differ from a 40 in waist of a woman?
are you asking for real?
because if this is a real question then I might just roflmao.
1. People are too busy looking for reasons to be mad
2. The weight of the person is indicative of the size of that person and I am sure that if the woman was 6 ft tall and 200lbs she would fit in the tester seat just fine...I am sure they don't have a scale at the ride start.
see since I have shown that it wasn't jsut "women" singled out for "exclusion" it's now a fight on discrimination based on sizes...
and no where did the park say they couldn't ride it was a warning to say they might not fit...so be aware....
but again by all means get rid of the warning let them get in the tester seat and then walk back in shame...or better yet build all the rides to accommodate bigger people and exclude the smaller people and let them get their *kitten* up over instead.
I really wish people would read the entire story before assumptions are made and then posts based on assumptions...smh.
So what you are saying in the bolded statement is that the safety of the ride is contigent on the size of the person, not the weight. Correct? If so, why not say that a person must have a 40 inch or less waist and leave it at that?
well logic would say that if a woman has a 40 inch waist and is average height she is way past the 200lb mark that would make it difficult for her to fasten the restraints and/or take over the other seat or be over the seat itself making it very unsafe all the time for that person and their fellow riders because someone too big was on the ride due to lack of restrictions on the weight as well...note the female restrictions were 200lbs or size 18 and up.
I don't understand why people can't see the logic here...glad I don't do amusement parks...
If a woman with a 40" waist is 'way past the 200lb mark', then why include 200lbs as a restriction at all? I think is the question.
seriously...because a woman who is 200lbs and average height would probably overflow into the next seat or over her seat or not be able to fasten the restraint due to boobs. which I already pointed out above.
What if I'm 250lbs with a 35" waist. Do I get to ride?
If I do, then it is the 40" waist measurement that is the restriction, not the weight, and weight should not be a considering factor.
If I do not, then it is the weight that is the restriction, not the measurement, and the measurement should not be a considering factor.
If the ride requires BOTH less than a 40" waist and 200lbs, then I can see why they would need both restrictions.
Thank you! That was the point I was trying to get across.
wow and again there is no restriction it's a warning that a person with those measurements and/or woman of that weight or clothing size may not fit into the seats or restraints of the ride...
as for your question if you fit in the seat you sure do...but if you are putting other passengers at risk should you?
but again if you want people to wait in line only to find out that they won't fit in the ride due to size by all means sue and have those warnings removed.
and with that (since I have repeated myself 6x now) I am out as no one who is disagreeing with me is really reading my responses anyway...
You are clearly missing my point. There needs to be restrictions/warnings in order to keep rides safe. I'm not arguing that at all. What doesn't make sense is having 2 different restrictions for men and women. If the weight matters, it should be the same weight. 200lb man = 200lb female. If the size of a person matters to fit into the seat, it should be the same measurement. 40in waist of man = 40in waste of woman. Someone else said that they put the size 18 in there because it is easier for people to understand. Ok, that's great. List the pant size of the man and the pant size of the woman and leave the weight off completely.
Based on previous comments, you clearly do not comprehend that weight and waist measurements are two different things.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions