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?
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Guessing you didn't read the thread.
It's a guideline, not a restriction.
Warning individuals that fit those parameters that it would be prudent to use the test seat discreetly prior to attempting to board so that they don't have to take the walk of shame.3 -
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.
The problem isn't the weight - it's that they physically can't stuff that person into the seat/restraints.1 -
Wait a minute, was this supposed to be a serious thread? Heavy people breaking southern fried carnival rides and ruining all the fun. Oh you guys. You'd debate whether Jan had any legal or moral grounds to be jealous of Marcia because they both had long blonde hair.
hey someone got butt hurt because some of the parks put out "warnings"...3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions