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
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »I did get a discount for staying at a motel that had two options: B&B or full-meal plan and not entering the dining hall once. (I'm strictly kosher. We brought our own non-perishable food for three days.) Thing is, it was the motel's offer, not my request. We understood the terms when we booked the room and just figured the getaway was worth it, even if it included paying for something we weren't going to use.
Oh that's interesting - I've never seen that kind of discount offered. That kind of accommodation would absolutely make me a devoted return customer.4 -
How about a pro-rated price for everyone? Each person could be run through a series of screens on their way into the park, checking for height, weight, and age, as well as other medical conditions such as epilepsy, pregnancy, heart disease, orthopedic injuries, etc. Then the price could be based on the percentage of attractions that the person could potentially visit. So small children would only pay for the attractions in the kiddie land, carousel, etc. plus all the shows. Obese people wouldn't pay for roller coasters or kiddie rides. (Unless they are obese kids).
Those who get motion sickness can't really ride the roller coasters either, or any other "motion" rides, so they shouldn't have to pay for those.
Sound like a good idea?
How about no? How about you go to a place and pay the listed admission or you go somewhere else. It's an absolutely absurd and ridiculous notion that these places should have all of these degrees of pricing to ultimately cater to the ever growing ridiculousness of the common man.
Pretty sure it was sarcasm to make a point...11 -
I just about fitted into Crushs roller coaster in disneyland . Being 6'3" i had just enough leg room .1
-
as for singling out woman I suspect it has more to do with average height of woman vs weight where as an average man who is 200lbs is not as big around as a woman who is 200lbs...
Actually, in terms of ride safety, avg height versus weight is pretty irrelevant. The size restriction read as followsguests who exceed 6'2" or those who exceed
225 pounds, have a 40" waistline or 52" chest
At this point, the restrictions make sense, though most modern day rides make weight restrictions irrelevant. A persons height can effect ride clearance (remember the decapitated kid) and make shoulder restraints unable to fit properly. Chest size also impacts shoulder restraints from fitting properly. Waistline effects seat belts, lap restraints. Plus cars have to be designed a specific way to ensure proper balance and security and not all waist sizes can be accommodated in that situation.Females who wear a size 18 or larger.
I can almost forgive this if one looks at this as the guidelines using typical clothing sizes to relate the requirements to something customers can understand. Men tend to shop by chest size, waist size and inseam. But women tend to shop by industry set sizing (2,4,6...14, 16, 18). So I can see the assumption that a certain dress size will relate to a hip/waist size that would make it impossible for a customer to fit into a seat properly. It still makes me crinkle my nose a bit and is just senseless with the original issues all ready listed
BUT...Females who exceed 200 pounds
This makes NO sense and where I see the discrimination. As a thrill rides aficionado, I have yet to come across a ride that has gendered seating. So if a man under 225lb isn't a weight issue, why on earth would only a 200lb woman all of a sudden become one? I'm currently 215lbs and have a 37" waist. So why would weighing 10lbs less then max weight be an issue? Or 25lbs less?
Reality is, it doesn't. I went to cedar point earlier this year (They have the exact same wording in their guide). I had no issues fitting into seats and harnesses and we rode every coaster they had. I was even 5lbs heavier and a size 38" waist. I have no issues with safety restrictions on rides, but find it really silly to throw any gender wording in there at all, and worse to create two different standards. Though, truthfully, I haven't been to an amusement park in the past 20 years where a single ride required me to step on a scale before boarding. I have been on certain rides where that did happen, but all those were more solitary rides in the middle of tourist trap areas.
Interestingly enough, a quick peak at the old Paramount parks (Kings Island and Kings Dominion) They use the same wording as OWA and Cedar Point, but dropped the Female part. What makes it interesting is they are now owned by the same company as Cedar Point.
But Six Flags had the best overall wording that I could findGuests with certain body proportions, or of certain heights and/or weights, may not be able to enjoy certain rides if the safety restraints will not operate as designed. Specific ride information is available at the ride and at Guest Relations.
Because reality is, most modern day rides really won't run into weight capacity issues. The safety factor is much more about size/proportions that prevent the safety equipment from operating properly.9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »How about a pro-rated price for everyone? Each person could be run through a series of screens on their way into the park, checking for height, weight, and age, as well as other medical conditions such as epilepsy, pregnancy, heart disease, orthopedic injuries, etc. Then the price could be based on the percentage of attractions that the person could potentially visit. So small children would only pay for the attractions in the kiddie land, carousel, etc. plus all the shows. Obese people wouldn't pay for roller coasters or kiddie rides. (Unless they are obese kids).
Those who get motion sickness can't really ride the roller coasters either, or any other "motion" rides, so they shouldn't have to pay for those.
Sound like a good idea?
How about no? How about you go to a place and pay the listed admission or you go somewhere else. It's an absolutely absurd and ridiculous notion that these places should have all of these degrees of pricing to ultimately cater to the ever growing ridiculousness of the common man.
Pretty sure it was sarcasm to make a point...
Yes, thanks @WinoGelato. I was channeling my inner Jonathan Swift.7 -
Iamnotasenior wrote: »Going to an amusement park is completely voluntary, so no, limiting what rides you can get on based upon your size is not discrimination. Most amusement parks limit riders based on their height as well so children or "little people" may not be allowed due to safety restrictions. We recently went to a resort with a zip line and you had to weigh at least 100 pounds because anyone lighter than that wouldn't create enough momentum to make it to the end of the zip line. I'm a non-meat eater, so should I expect a 20% discount if I go to a steak house buffet for dinner? should I get in free to a lecture done in Spanish because I only speak English? Reality is that not every human being is going to be able to partake 100% of every food/ride/amusement at every venue in the world.
I totally get your point, but you can actually get about a 20% discount at Fogo de Chao if all you want is the vegetarian salad bar
5 -
I guess I find it a little odd it's worded that way and so specific. A general weight limit would make sense, but then I've been over 200lbs most of my life and I've never had the experience of not being able to go on a ride so it seems a bit strange. Usually the issue on rides with larger people is the restraints being unable to lock into position, which isn't determined by weight necessarily. But that's why parks should always have those tester seats out at the beginning of the line, so people can find out on their own if they can go on the ride without the embarrassment and waste of time that is being turned away at the door.2
-
Is It just or or has anyone noticed that in the last few years people have been more outraged about anything and everything? It's insane. Safety restrictions have been around for ages. Different weight guidelines for men and women are based on the fact that men are generally taller. If a heavier taller woman fits securely into a ride I doubt anyone would have her step on a scale and refuse to let her in based on her weight. If anything, gendered guidelines detailing weight and specific size guidelines in inches are great for reasons other than safety. Not fitting into a ride after standing in line for an hour is pretty demoralizing. Knowing in advance that you probably won't fit would save you the trouble of going for that ride in the first place. I don't understand people sometimes.12
-
This content has been removed.
-
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »
Maybe in the future people will have a chip implanted (by choice), and those with medical conditions and disabilities such as obesity could get a reduced rate at park entrance. Each ride entrance would have a chip reader.How about a pro-rated price for everyone? Each person could be run through a series of screens on their way into the park, checking for height, weight, and age, as well as other medical conditions such as epilepsy, pregnancy, heart disease, orthopedic injuries, etc. Then the price could be based on the percentage of attractions that the person could potentially visit. So small children would only pay for the attractions in the kiddie land, carousel, etc. plus all the shows. Obese people wouldn't pay for roller coasters or kiddie rides. (Unless they are obese kids).
Those who get motion sickness can't really ride the roller coasters either, or any other "motion" rides, so they shouldn't have to pay for those.
Sound like a good idea?
This technology could also be used to determine how much to charge people pay buffets. I would be willing to pay extra compared to a 100 lb person. I see nothing wrong with this.
It's funny you should mention this. I have an interest in transhumanism (the technological modification of the human body) and when the technology gets more stable can see something like this coming into existence. Some people have already had themselves chipped.
For the time being though I might just settle for the next gen Apple watch though...2 -
As for discounts, people who can't swim should get a hotel discount because they can't use the pool, and people with allergies should get a discount at restaurants because the selection of food available to them is smaller.
For what it's worth, when I was a kid and used to go to amusement parks we usually bought this roll of tickets at the entrance that connected together like stamps. Are these gone now? Do people have to get a full pass at the entrance? I haven't been to an amusement park in 20 years.3 -
At our little boardwalk amusement park you can still get the tickets, but I don't know about any of the bigger ones around here (Great America is the closest).2
-
Wondering if my teammate can get a 20% discount considering he has an artificial leg.
Just kidding, we've tried this before...funny to watch people's reactions when they don't realize we're messing with them.2 -
A friend of mine only has 9 toes. I keep trying to get her to ask for a 10% discount when we go for pedicures. She won't do it.13
-
lalepepper wrote: »I think that size restrictions for rides are completely understandable, but I don't agree with their method.
That said, I think setting a cut off weight is silly. I'm a 6' woman. The upper end of healthy weight tops out at 183. If I were 200 lbs I would be under 20 lbs into overweight. I think having a tester seat is a better solution to fit the variety of bodies that would come and could fit safely.
Except the weight restrictions apply to the maximum weight the ride is designed to take, not whether or not the person riding is obese. A tall, muscular, fit person exceeding the weight limits would be at the same risk riding as a smaller obese person.
Then make it a hardline weight restriction for everyone, rather than singling out women based on the weight.
That's what I was getting at - as I said, I think size restrictions are completely understandable. Size includes height and weight. But saying women over 200 not allowed but allowing men over 200 is silly. If you're too big, you're too big, regardless of sex.5 -
lalepepper wrote: »lalepepper wrote: »I think that size restrictions for rides are completely understandable, but I don't agree with their method.
That said, I think setting a cut off weight is silly. I'm a 6' woman. The upper end of healthy weight tops out at 183. If I were 200 lbs I would be under 20 lbs into overweight. I think having a tester seat is a better solution to fit the variety of bodies that would come and could fit safely.
Except the weight restrictions apply to the maximum weight the ride is designed to take, not whether or not the person riding is obese. A tall, muscular, fit person exceeding the weight limits would be at the same risk riding as a smaller obese person.
Then make it a hardline weight restriction for everyone, rather than singling out women based on the weight.
That's what I was getting at - as I said, I think size restrictions are completely understandable. Size includes height and weight. But saying women over 200 not allowed but allowing men over 200 is silly. If you're too big, you're too big, regardless of sex.
Scroll back to my previous posts and you'll see I agree with you
My takeaway from your comment was that weight limits shouldn't apply. 1 -
Some rides have a weight limit for safety reasons like our zip lines, climbing tower, and water slide.lalepepper wrote: »I think that size restrictions for rides are completely understandable, but I don't agree with their method.
That said, I think setting a cut off weight is silly. I'm a 6' woman. The upper end of healthy weight tops out at 183. If I were 200 lbs I would be under 20 lbs into overweight. I think having a tester seat is a better solution to fit the variety of bodies that would come and could fit safely.
1 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »
Maybe in the future people will have a chip implanted (by choice), and those with medical conditions and disabilities such as obesity could get a reduced rate at park entrance. Each ride entrance would have a chip reader.How about a pro-rated price for everyone? Each person could be run through a series of screens on their way into the park, checking for height, weight, and age, as well as other medical conditions such as epilepsy, pregnancy, heart disease, orthopedic injuries, etc. Then the price could be based on the percentage of attractions that the person could potentially visit. So small children would only pay for the attractions in the kiddie land, carousel, etc. plus all the shows. Obese people wouldn't pay for roller coasters or kiddie rides. (Unless they are obese kids).
Those who get motion sickness can't really ride the roller coasters either, or any other "motion" rides, so they shouldn't have to pay for those.
Sound like a good idea?
This technology could also be used to determine how much to charge people pay buffets. I would be willing to pay extra compared to a 100 lb person. I see nothing wrong with this.
It's funny you should mention this. I have an interest in transhumanism (the technological modification of the human body) and when the technology gets more stable can see something like this coming into existence. Some people have already had themselves chipped.
For the time being though I might just settle for the next gen Apple watch though...
@msf74 I read this article the other day - fascinating!!!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/worlds-first-cyborg-human-evolution-science/2 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »
Maybe in the future people will have a chip implanted (by choice), and those with medical conditions and disabilities such as obesity could get a reduced rate at park entrance. Each ride entrance would have a chip reader.How about a pro-rated price for everyone? Each person could be run through a series of screens on their way into the park, checking for height, weight, and age, as well as other medical conditions such as epilepsy, pregnancy, heart disease, orthopedic injuries, etc. Then the price could be based on the percentage of attractions that the person could potentially visit. So small children would only pay for the attractions in the kiddie land, carousel, etc. plus all the shows. Obese people wouldn't pay for roller coasters or kiddie rides. (Unless they are obese kids).
Those who get motion sickness can't really ride the roller coasters either, or any other "motion" rides, so they shouldn't have to pay for those.
Sound like a good idea?
This technology could also be used to determine how much to charge people pay buffets. I would be willing to pay extra compared to a 100 lb person. I see nothing wrong with this.
It's funny you should mention this. I have an interest in transhumanism (the technological modification of the human body) and when the technology gets more stable can see something like this coming into existence. Some people have already had themselves chipped.
For the time being though I might just settle for the next gen Apple watch though...
I read this article the other day - fascinating!!!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/worlds-first-cyborg-human-evolution-science/
Thanks for posting that - I think it's fascinating too!2 -
How about a pro-rated price for everyone? Each person could be run through a series of screens on their way into the park, checking for height, weight, and age, as well as other medical conditions such as epilepsy, pregnancy, heart disease, orthopedic injuries, etc. Then the price could be based on the percentage of attractions that the person could potentially visit. So small children would only pay for the attractions in the kiddie land, carousel, etc. plus all the shows. Obese people wouldn't pay for roller coasters or kiddie rides. (Unless they are obese kids).
Those who get motion sickness can't really ride the roller coasters either, or any other "motion" rides, so they shouldn't have to pay for those.
Sound like a good idea?
I don't like that *kitten* mechanical singing bear show and would never go in. Where is my discount?8 -
-
it's a shame that the average population is overweight leaning toward obese.
as for singling out woman I suspect it has more to do with average height of woman vs weight where as an average man who is 200lbs is not as big around as a woman who is 200lbs...
This is absolutely ludicrous, there is no scientific justification for singling out women for weight based restrictions and your guess here is absolute nonsense. Rough estimates of the "average" female vs the "average" male are no basis for sound policy when there is quite a bit of overlap and variation in physical morphology, both within and between genders. If a ride can accommodate a 5'7" man weighing 200 lbs it can accommodate a woman of the same height and weight. How about a 6'2" woman vs a 6'2" man? 200 lbs would be within the normal range for both. This is why amusement parks usually have far more general regulations and leave it to the informed discretion of staff when helping attendees to the ride's seats.
The amusement park in my city has restrictions listed for individual rides, based on a sound engineering evaluation of each one. This is scientifically sound and totally reasonable, it's a policy based on facts instead of generalized bias. Frankly, I wouldn't trust the safety of the rides at any amusement park that couldn't safely accommodate a 200 lb person of any gender, on at least a fair number of its rides.4 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »
Maybe in the future people will have a chip implanted (by choice), and those with medical conditions and disabilities such as obesity could get a reduced rate at park entrance. Each ride entrance would have a chip reader.How about a pro-rated price for everyone? Each person could be run through a series of screens on their way into the park, checking for height, weight, and age, as well as other medical conditions such as epilepsy, pregnancy, heart disease, orthopedic injuries, etc. Then the price could be based on the percentage of attractions that the person could potentially visit. So small children would only pay for the attractions in the kiddie land, carousel, etc. plus all the shows. Obese people wouldn't pay for roller coasters or kiddie rides. (Unless they are obese kids).
Those who get motion sickness can't really ride the roller coasters either, or any other "motion" rides, so they shouldn't have to pay for those.
Sound like a good idea?
This technology could also be used to determine how much to charge people pay buffets. I would be willing to pay extra compared to a 100 lb person. I see nothing wrong with this.
It's funny you should mention this. I have an interest in transhumanism (the technological modification of the human body) and when the technology gets more stable can see something like this coming into existence. Some people have already had themselves chipped.
For the time being though I might just settle for the next gen Apple watch though...
@msf74 I read this article the other day - fascinating!!!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/worlds-first-cyborg-human-evolution-science/
@Alatariel75 Fascinating and terrifying in equal parts!
To take this further I'm squeamish about the the thought of willingly replacing healthy parts of the body, or all of it, but there is a compelling argument to say this will become commonplace in the future.
It will start with the best of intentions in the medical field. Blind man put down your stick for we have given you sight! Wheelchair user arise! Human beings as Gods.
This will attract the attention and investment of industry. Top basketball players, with the huge financial rewards which come with it, will have small modifications here or there to begin with. Just to give them an edge, a little more accuracy, a little more speed. Other teams get wind of this and encourage their players to do so as well leading to pressure for more and more modification and entire limbs being replaced. A literal arms race.
This drives more innovation and investment which drives down costs. Soon rudimentary modification is available to the general public. Chefs replace their fingers and enhance their tastebuds. Lawyers enhance their vocal cords and neural circuitry. Farm workers strengthen their back and legs. The need to stay competitive in the workplace will lead to the irresistible desire to modify for most people. And so it goes on.
There are huge questions for us on the horizon which need answering.
Human Lives Matter may be more prescient as a slogan than first thought.7 -
Well, they could always follow the example of the wagon trains heading west on the Oregon Trail. Anyone taking up more than 24" on a seat were not allowed to go.
Therefore, there was no West for the reary.38 -
If you pay for a cruise (my honey sells them) the rate is for two people. You don't get a discount for going by yourself. They'd rather sell it to someone else at full price than give it to you for half.
Hotels generally charge for double occupancy and don't give single people discounts. They still have to wash the bed sheets.
I don't know how theme parks decide their pricing, but there was capitalism works is companies offer something, and you pay for it if you think it's a good deal.8 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »
Some rides have a weight limit for safety reasons like our zip lines, climbing tower, and water slide.lalepepper wrote: »I think that size restrictions for rides are completely understandable, but I don't agree with their method.
That said, I think setting a cut off weight is silly. I'm a 6' woman. The upper end of healthy weight tops out at 183. If I were 200 lbs I would be under 20 lbs into overweight. I think having a tester seat is a better solution to fit the variety of bodies that would come and could fit safely.
As I clarified above, I meant having a cut off weight specifically for women. I see how my original post could be construed as dismissing weight limits all together. I completely agree that weight limits are reasonable, but having a particular one for women that is different than men does not make sense.4 -
I don't think there is a fair or right answer here, it's just the way it is. As an obese person I don't even take offence to it, it just wouldn't make sense and safety wise you can't always accommodate every body type.0
-
lalepepper wrote: »peckchris3267 wrote: »
Some rides have a weight limit for safety reasons like our zip lines, climbing tower, and water slide.lalepepper wrote: »I think that size restrictions for rides are completely understandable, but I don't agree with their method.
That said, I think setting a cut off weight is silly. I'm a 6' woman. The upper end of healthy weight tops out at 183. If I were 200 lbs I would be under 20 lbs into overweight. I think having a tester seat is a better solution to fit the variety of bodies that would come and could fit safely.
As I clarified above, I meant having a cut off weight specifically for women. I see how my original post could be construed as dismissing weight limits all together. I completely agree that weight limits are reasonable, but having a particular one for women that is different than men does not make sense.
It's just a guideline for people to judge if they should go for a certain ride or not. When you think 200 pound woman, what comes to mind? And what comes to mind when you think a 200 pound man? If a taller woman who fits securely comes in, do you think they would stand her on a scale to make sure she isn't over 200? If a shorter man who doesn't fit securely comes in, do you think they would stand him on a scale and tell him "you're under 225 pounds, go ahead". The average 200 pound woman is sized differently from the average 200 pound man. Gender differences exist in several aspects, and that's why sports are mostly by gender, not because they are singling out women. That's why there is are different calculations for men and for women to estimate TDEE. The different formulas don't exist because "women are supposed to be these dainty little creatures who eat less", it's because women do on average need fewer calories than men. Gender differences is also why what is considered a healthy body fat for men is different from what is considered healthy for women. These differences aren't really meant as a "because you're a woman and probably don't have the willpower and mental capacity to manage your body fat we will give you an easier percentage to aim for". Looking at it this way would be reading too much into simple facts, as is dissecting these guidelines... What, in your opinion, do they mean by having gender specific guidelines? What do you believe they're saying that is offensive?8 -
We were at Six Flags a few weeks ago. A lot of their motion rides had a feature which I liked: they provided seats outside of the line area for patrons to try. It's similar to the way that airlines provide fixture that show whether your bag will fit in the overhead bin.
That way there was much less ambiguity. If you don't fit in the test seat -- if you can't buckle the straps or lower the bar -- then you won't fit on the ride.5
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions