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: »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?0 -
OMG the park doesn't use Oxford commas when they spell out their "guests of larger size" policy!
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »@janejellyroll The thing I like about your answer is that clearly you've drawn a line as well.. It's just slightly over a bit from mine.
I don't think I've drawn a line -- we may have had a miscommunication.
I was pointing out that even if one argues that heroin addiction is a disability, they'd still have to connect to why they were requesting specific accomodations. Being disabled doesn't entitle one to every single accomodation made for people with disabilities, it entitles one (if one is entitled at all, this will depend on local laws and/or customs) to accomodations that are related to the specific disability.
So if I did argue that heroin addiction was a disability, it wouldn't follow that I was necessarily arguing for access to handicapped parking or reduced entry fees for amusement parks.
So it would be accurate to say you believe that society owes things to some types of disabled people (those who were disabled through no fault of their own based on your determination) and doesn't owe things to other types (those who could have prevented their disability by either taking a set of actions or not engaging in a specific type of behavior). Please correct me if I've misunderstood your argument.
In policy terms, how would this be enforced? Would you have some type of panel issuing certificates based on the history and development of a specific individual's need for reasonable accomodations?
What if the disability could have been prevented by the action of a third party, like one's parents? If the disability was "chosen" by anyone (including another party), does it relieve society of any obligations?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »@janejellyroll The thing I like about your answer is that clearly you've drawn a line as well.. It's just slightly over a bit from mine.
I don't think I've drawn a line -- we may have had a miscommunication.
I was pointing out that even if one argues that heroin addiction is a disability, they'd still have to connect to why they were requesting specific accomodations. Being disabled doesn't entitle one to every single accomodation made for people with disabilities, it entitles one (if one is entitled at all, this will depend on local laws and/or customs) to accomodations that are related to the specific disability.
So if I did argue that heroin addiction was a disability, it wouldn't follow that I was necessarily arguing for access to handicapped parking or reduced entry fees for amusement parks.
So it would be accurate to say you believe that society owes things to some types of disabled people (those who were disabled through no fault of their own based on your determination) and doesn't owe things to other types (those who could have prevented their disability by either taking a set of actions or not engaging in a specific type of behavior). Please correct me if I've misunderstood your argument.
In policy terms, how would this be enforced? Would you have some type of panel issuing certificates based on the history and development of a specific individual's need for reasonable accomodations?
What if the disability could have been prevented by the action of a third party, like one's parents? If the disability was "chosen" by anyone (including another party), does it relieve society of any obligations?
Yes, this was my earlier statement. Are you trying to let me know that this is where the miscommunication may have taken place?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.html0 -
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?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
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.1 -
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.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »@janejellyroll The thing I like about your answer is that clearly you've drawn a line as well.. It's just slightly over a bit from mine.
I don't think I've drawn a line -- we may have had a miscommunication.
I was pointing out that even if one argues that heroin addiction is a disability, they'd still have to connect to why they were requesting specific accomodations. Being disabled doesn't entitle one to every single accomodation made for people with disabilities, it entitles one (if one is entitled at all, this will depend on local laws and/or customs) to accomodations that are related to the specific disability.
So if I did argue that heroin addiction was a disability, it wouldn't follow that I was necessarily arguing for access to handicapped parking or reduced entry fees for amusement parks.
So it would be accurate to say you believe that society owes things to some types of disabled people (those who were disabled through no fault of their own based on your determination) and doesn't owe things to other types (those who could have prevented their disability by either taking a set of actions or not engaging in a specific type of behavior). Please correct me if I've misunderstood your argument.
In policy terms, how would this be enforced? Would you have some type of panel issuing certificates based on the history and development of a specific individual's need for reasonable accomodations?
What if the disability could have been prevented by the action of a third party, like one's parents? If the disability was "chosen" by anyone (including another party), does it relieve society of any obligations?
Yes, this was my earlier statement. Are you trying to let me know that this is where the miscommunication may have taken place?
Maybe you should just read back through and see how A: None of this bears any relation to my initial statement. And B: Your questions are now relevant to your own line of reasoning, so you've effectively answered your own questions.. Or perhaps questioned your own answers.. Your call.1 -
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.
i agree that it would be more specific to have the measurements as a universal guideline and that the extra sentence regarding women is superfluous, BUT it could be related to the way that gendered clothes are sized. so, a man, theoretically, may be more likely to know his chest and waist measurements because that's how he shops, whereas women's clothes are sized differently (for no good reason whatsoever) and it may be that a size 18 is a convenient way to indicate a similar restriction.2 -
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.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »@janejellyroll The thing I like about your answer is that clearly you've drawn a line as well.. It's just slightly over a bit from mine.
I don't think I've drawn a line -- we may have had a miscommunication.
I was pointing out that even if one argues that heroin addiction is a disability, they'd still have to connect to why they were requesting specific accomodations. Being disabled doesn't entitle one to every single accomodation made for people with disabilities, it entitles one (if one is entitled at all, this will depend on local laws and/or customs) to accomodations that are related to the specific disability.
So if I did argue that heroin addiction was a disability, it wouldn't follow that I was necessarily arguing for access to handicapped parking or reduced entry fees for amusement parks.
So it would be accurate to say you believe that society owes things to some types of disabled people (those who were disabled through no fault of their own based on your determination) and doesn't owe things to other types (those who could have prevented their disability by either taking a set of actions or not engaging in a specific type of behavior). Please correct me if I've misunderstood your argument.
In policy terms, how would this be enforced? Would you have some type of panel issuing certificates based on the history and development of a specific individual's need for reasonable accomodations?
What if the disability could have been prevented by the action of a third party, like one's parents? If the disability was "chosen" by anyone (including another party), does it relieve society of any obligations?
Yes, this was my earlier statement. Are you trying to let me know that this is where the miscommunication may have taken place?
Maybe you should just read back through and see how A: None of this bears any relation to my initial statement. And B: Your questions are now relevant to your own line of reasoning, so you've effectively answered your own questions.. Or perhaps questioned your own answers.. Your call.
Your initial statement was (if I understood it correctly) an opinion on a real world situation (this amusement park scenario), which is why I asked questions about how a "deserving" vs "non-deserving" policy regarding access for the disabled would be enforced in the real world.
As far as to how it would be enforced and managed, my own statements didn't answer those questions. Even if they did, I was asking for your opinion of how it would be done. At no point did I actually endorse a line or a policy that distinguished between people with disabilities based on the origin (or what people assume to be the origin) of the condition -- all I did is acknowledge that some people do see those groupings as valid.
If you don't wish to delve into those issues, that's fine. There is no obligation to do so. But I wouldn't consider my questions to be off-topic and I don't consider them to be already answered by my own statements.
If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.1 -
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?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
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.2 -
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.3 -
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...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.2 -
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?
Probably because more women have an idea of their dress size and weight as opposed to their measurements due to how clothing is sold (whereas men buy clothes using their measurements).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
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.1 -
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.
0
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