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
-
magster4isu wrote: »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.
Why is that even an issue? The instruction provided several choices of general guidelines for people to make a decision before they wait in line, so those who aren't sure of their size can go by weight (as a proxy for size) and those who aren't sure of their weight can go by size. Weight and size guideline for who may not fit were provided for both sexes, again, going by average size people tend to be at a certain weight. People just like being outraged.5 -
magster4isu wrote: »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.
and you are clearly missing the point.
but I am not going to explain it again as you are choosing to make it a gender issue when it's not. Two different warnings are needed because men and women are different...we are not the same.
I get that weight and waist measurements are two different things...what you aren't getting is that a waist measurement can and typically does indicate a weight range...smh.
3 -
I think waist measurements is not common for women size. I know my height and weight plus my clothessize but if they put waist size only I would'not know. I think the instructions are just a guideline so that you can easily figure out if you can fit or might have an issue to fit. its not that there is a scale waiting so that a tall 200 pounds lady can still take the ride while a short 200 pound lady might not fit.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?
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
We have season passes to Cedar Point in Ohio, and every major ride has the ride's actual seat mounted to the side of the entrance, so people can get in the seats and test the belts and harnesses before they get in line. This prevents a lot of issues.3 -
Bry_Lander 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
We have season passes to Cedar Point in Ohio, and every major ride has the ride's actual seat mounted to the side of the entrance, so people can get in the seats and test the belts and harnesses before they get in line. This prevents a lot of issues.
yup some do that, some allow those people to go through the exit to try it...but not all do it.
there are articles out there for it hence the "warnings" with newer parks.0 -
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.
How can I take a position in opposition and rebut before I fully understand your position?
That may be how you debate, but I like to ensure I understand what someone is saying before I decide if I agree or disagree.
In any event, thanks for clarifying what you expected from our exchange.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »How can I take a position in opposition and rebut before I fully understand your position?
That may be how you debate, but I like to ensure I understand what someone is saying before I decide if I agree or disagree.
In any event, thanks for clarifying what you expected from our exchange.
Yes, that may be how I debate. Because.. That's a debate. Just questioning someone does not a debate make. In any event, sorry for confusing you. Glad we had this chat.
1 -
Eyeswithoutaface wrote: ».janejellyroll wrote: »How can I take a position in opposition and rebut before I fully understand your position?
That may be how you debate, but I like to ensure I understand what someone is saying before I decide if I agree or disagree.
In any event, thanks for clarifying what you expected from our exchange.
Yes, that may be how I debate. Because.. That's a debate. Just questioning someone does not a debate make. In any event, sorry for confusing you. Glad we had this chat.
You expect a rebuttal from a person who does not understand your position?
Not sure if you saw my position lol.. It wasn't complicated.
And let's be honest. Very few people want to or know how to debate in these forums. The majority of people are more than happy to pick away at someone's statement without ever actually making a case to the contrary. On any other part of the net, we'd just call it trolling and be done with it lol. 2 -
I agree with the Park's warning they have posted.
//
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »How can I take a position in opposition and rebut before I fully understand your position?
That may be how you debate, but I like to ensure I understand what someone is saying before I decide if I agree or disagree.
In any event, thanks for clarifying what you expected from our exchange.
Yes, that may be how I debate. Because.. That's a debate. Just questioning someone does not a debate make. In any event, sorry for confusing you. Glad we had this chat.
Debates get really confusing when people begin objecting to positions they don't fully understand. Where I come from, arguing against a point someone hasn't made is considered poor form.
Just because this is a debate area doesn't mean that every interaction has to include opposition or a counter-argument. People also discuss ideas and end up sometimes agreeing. That's not trolling.2 -
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.
Exactly. This is kind of a stupid argument and it seems like everyone is getting way too hung up on numbers. It's not like they are going to have a scale at each ride. These are basic guidelines, however everyone knows that not every body type is the same. I would imagine they will do whatever they can to accommodate their guests within reasonable safety standards.3 -
@janejellyroll lol sure, whatever you have to tell yourself. 2
-
@janejellyroll lol sure, whatever you have to tell yourself.
I'm telling myself the truth. Not sure why you would want to dismiss that or why you're assuming bad faith here. If it's an attempt to make yourself feel better about this exchange, then I can only hope it has the desired effect. If something else is going on, then I hope that works out for you as well.2 -
magster4isu wrote: »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.
If the average height of a man and a woman was the same then I would agree with you, however that isn't the case. These are basic guidelines and the weights they chose I am sure are based on statistical analysis of the average height of each sex. A 5'2" 205lb man may not safely fit on the ride despite the fact that his weight is under the threshold. On the flip side a 6'2" 205lb woman may safely fit. This is why they are guidelines and not rules that are set in stone.0 -
Ok, another line of thinking... who wants to go on an amusement ride that might be dangerous if a rider is over 200 Lbs?!? If the engineering can be thrown off by that, it doesn't seem safe for anyone. If the engineering is not good enough to accommodate massive differences in riders weight, wind, weather, etc, there is no way I would ever get on that death trap.4
-
WatchitBeginAgain wrote: »Ok, another line of thinking... who wants to go on an amusement ride that might be dangerous if a rider is over 200 Lbs?!? If the engineering can be thrown off by that, it doesn't seem safe for anyone. If the engineering is not good enough to accommodate massive differences in riders weight, wind, weather, etc, there is no way I would ever get on that death trap.
Elevators, airplanes and many other things have weight restrictions based on maximum load weight, weight distribution and other factors. I fail to see how safety restrictions make something a 'death trap'.2 -
WatchitBeginAgain wrote: »Ok, another line of thinking... who wants to go on an amusement ride that might be dangerous if a rider is over 200 Lbs?!? If the engineering can be thrown off by that, it doesn't seem safe for anyone. If the engineering is not good enough to accommodate massive differences in riders weight, wind, weather, etc, there is no way I would ever get on that death trap.
Working around certain presumed parameters and not accounting for "massive differences" in weight doesn't mean that the design and testing is somehow flawed.1 -
WatchitBeginAgain wrote: »Ok, another line of thinking... who wants to go on an amusement ride that might be dangerous if a rider is over 200 Lbs?!? If the engineering can be thrown off by that, it doesn't seem safe for anyone. If the engineering is not good enough to accommodate massive differences in riders weight, wind, weather, etc, there is no way I would ever get on that death trap.
Elevators, airplanes and many other things have weight restrictions based on maximum load weight, weight distribution and other factors. I fail to see how safety restrictions make something a 'death trap'.
Right - if the weight restriction is listed as 200lbs, the actual threshold is probably much higher, but they are being conservative and allowing for the fact that heavier people are going to likely be riding anyways unless there is a scale present.1 -
What if the woman is an 18 at Old Navy but a 16 at Lane Bryant? Clothing sizes vary greatly from one store to another.
But seriously, weight shouldn't play a role so much as size and shape. Obviously if your belly or bust are going to prevent the seat restraint from locking into place to protect you when the roller coaster turns upside down, you should not ride...similarly, if you are so tall that you will be decapitated, riding would be a very bad idea. I know some theme parks have test seats so visitors can check and see whether the ride can safely accommodate their height and girth. But since people do carry their weight differently, setting a limit of X pounds only makes sense if exceeding that number compromises the safety of the ride and rider due to the load-bearing capacity of the ride. And gender should make no difference at all.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions