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.
Air Plane seats
Options
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Per IATA here are the profit speculations from 2016 gained per passenger:
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-12-08-01.aspx
On average, airlines will retain $7.54 for every passenger carried.
I used to think this when I was 60 lbs heavier. I don't anymore.
From your article the airline industry has a 4.1% net profit margin and people are bitching about cost. Apple makes over 22% and people pee themselves standing in line waiting for a new iPhone with some unneeded gimmick. Airline service/space could be pretty good it they could price to get 22% margins.
Note that profits are at a relatively high point due to decreased fuel cost. In the last decade increased operating costs have lowered profits to under 1 USD per passenger carried.
Good point. They aren't rolling in $. Assume in the leaner years would have lost money without the baggage fees.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »There should be more space to cut back on "flying rage" (treat customers like cattle and some of them are going to be at least grumpy with the flight crew, which in turn will take that out on all the passengers), circulatory health risks, some minimum level of personal space (that's creepy close to be to a stranger), and safety in event of the need to evacuate quickly. If an airplane cabin were a room in a building, it would be in violation of fire codes for capacity and acccessible exits in just about any jurisdiction.
Again, people are voting with their wallets. They want cheap flights. The issues you mention can be fixed with a first or business class ticket for those willing to pay the price. If not, Greyhound offers more room in their seats.
A heavily consolidated market in which the few competitors can get away with not telling you the true price of their product before you purchase it and actually aren't selling you anything -- that ticket you buy doesn't actually give you the right to fly or a seat on the flight -- is clearly a broken market. Don't blame the consumers when a broken market doesn't work.7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »There should be more space to cut back on "flying rage" (treat customers like cattle and some of them are going to be at least grumpy with the flight crew, which in turn will take that out on all the passengers), circulatory health risks, some minimum level of personal space (that's creepy close to be to a stranger), and safety in event of the need to evacuate quickly. If an airplane cabin were a room in a building, it would be in violation of fire codes for capacity and acccessible exits in just about any jurisdiction.
Start an airline and offer increased space.
Let us know how your business model works out.
The existing airlines have oligopsony control over gate slots. It's a broken market.
9 -
Airlines have squished a lot more people into less space. That's worth considering before getting all judgey about the person next to you spilling over.Airbus is promoting three seat sizes, which break down as follows:
Premium Economy: 20-inch seat cushion
Comfort Economy: 18-inch seat cushion
Budget Economy: 16.7″ (!!!!) seat cushion
The Airplane Seat: Narrow, Cramped — and About to Get Worse5 -
To be blunt I think our society should work to discourage obesity, not accommodate it. Being morbidly obese is an unnecessary burden on public health and as such should be discouraged. I am not saying that individuals should be ridiculed but as whole our society should act in a way as to discourage and make uncomfortable that which it does not want. I think the last thing we should do is pretend it is okay and start making special accommodations for it.
That said airlines are businesses and if they want to cater to overweight people by having a special row for them that is more expensive with larger seats then that is their prerogative. I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.43 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »To be blunt I think our society should work to discourage obesity, not accommodate it. Being morbidly obese is an unnecessary burden on public health and as such should be discouraged. I am not saying that individuals should be ridiculed but as whole our society should act in a way as to discourage and make uncomfortable that which it does not want. I think the last thing we should do is pretend it is okay and start making special accommodations for it.
That said airlines are businesses and if they want to cater to overweight people by having a special row for them that is more expensive with larger seats then that is their prerogative. I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Completely agree. That is the issues I have with the "plus sized movement" and :vanity sizing.12 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »There should be more space to cut back on "flying rage" (treat customers like cattle and some of them are going to be at least grumpy with the flight crew, which in turn will take that out on all the passengers), circulatory health risks, some minimum level of personal space (that's creepy close to be to a stranger), and safety in event of the need to evacuate quickly. If an airplane cabin were a room in a building, it would be in violation of fire codes for capacity and acccessible exits in just about any jurisdiction.
Again, people are voting with their wallets. They want cheap flights. The issues you mention can be fixed with a first or business class ticket for those willing to pay the price. If not, Greyhound offers more room in their seats.
A heavily consolidated market in which the few competitors can get away with not telling you the true price of their product before you purchase it and actually aren't selling you anything -- that ticket you buy doesn't actually give you the right to fly or a seat on the flight -- is clearly a broken market. Don't blame the consumers when a broken market doesn't work.
Do you know the % of people denied the right to fly due to bumping? You pretty much have the opportunity to fly on your flight if you have a ticket for the flight (assuming no mechanical/weather issues).
Excerpt:
"If you look back, you’ll see the U.S. airline industry has reduced the denied boarding rate almost in half in the last 15 years,” says Engel. “In 1999, 0.2 percent of passengers were denied boarding. Last year, it was under 0.1 percent. And only 1/10th of those were 'involuntarily denied boarding,' where passengers did not choose to take a different flight” in exchange for a voucher or incentive."
Source:
https://www.marketplace.org/2015/04/27/business/ive-always-wondered/why-world-do-airlines-overbook-tickets
Would you prefer a model where there we not changes/refunds once you bought the ticket?
Also read up on revenue management. It's practiced in many industries and why the ticket prices change. When you buy the ticket you have the freedom of choice to accept or reject the price offered at the time.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.8 -
This content has been removed.
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
EDIT: I do understand that the analogy between obesity and smoking is flawed in the sense that one can inhale someone elses smoke and suffer health risks while one cannot suffer health risks from being nearby someone who is obese. I don't feel that is the only reason to discourage smoking though.19 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
What about driving? That's 30,000 deaths per year from car accidents. And a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Children who grow up near freeways get asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Never mind the wars we fight to maintain a cheap supply, and the environmental damage. Should society make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers?11 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
What about driving? That's 30,000 deaths per year from car accidents. And a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Children who grow up near freeways get asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Never mind the wars we fight to maintain a cheap supply, and the environmental damage. Should society make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers?
Driving provides a benefit to society in that it allows people to get to work faster and start productivity sooner. It is also the primary means by which goods and services are transported. It has a cost but it also has a benefit. What is the benefit of obesity or smoking? If I snapped my fingers and suddenly no one could drive society as we know it would grind to an utter halt. If I snapped my fingers and suddenly no one smoked or was obese what would be the fallout for that? I mean can you even think of a negative effect from that?
I think public transit provides an alternative to driving that decreases the chance of accident and the amount of pollution. As a society we subsidize public transportation as a way of encouraging it over driving which we do not subsidize.14 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
What about driving? That's 30,000 deaths per year from car accidents. And a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Children who grow up near freeways get asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Never mind the wars we fight to maintain a cheap supply, and the environmental damage. Should society make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers?
Driving provides a benefit to society in that it allows people to get to work faster and start productivity sooner. It is also the primary means by which goods and services are transported. It has a cost but it also has a benefit. What is the benefit of obesity or smoking? .
People can transport things without driving.
I suspect the real reason you want to make an exception for driving is that you enjoy the benefit yourself and haven't been personally affected by the cost.
I feel like you've moving the goal posts though. First it was we should discourage things that work against society's best interest, I pointed out that driving does that by killing 30,000 members of society every year, and you're telling me that acceptable because it gets people to work faster. Maybe people shouldn't live so far from work.
I guess the benefit to obesity is that the alternative is government control over how much everyone gets to eat.17 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
What about driving? That's 30,000 deaths per year from car accidents. And a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Children who grow up near freeways get asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Never mind the wars we fight to maintain a cheap supply, and the environmental damage. Should society make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers?
Driving provides a benefit to society in that it allows people to get to work faster and start productivity sooner. It is also the primary means by which goods and services are transported. It has a cost but it also has a benefit. What is the benefit of obesity or smoking? .
People can transport things without driving.
I suspect the real reason you want to make an exception for driving is that you enjoy the benefit yourself and haven't been personally affected by the cost. I feel like you've moving the goal posts though. First it was we should discourage things that work against society's best interest, I pointed out that driving does that by killing 30,000 members of society every year, and you're telling me that acceptable because it gets people to work faster. Maybe people shouldn't live so far from work.
I guess the benefit to obesity is that the alternative is government control over how much everyone gets to eat.
I actually use public transit to get to work but even if I drove so what? Does that somehow negate the concept that driving is useful? I think that if you claim for the purpose of this discussion that you cannot see the benefit to society driving provides that you are being rather disingenuous.
Again. Snap my fingers, no one can drive. What are the repercussions? Are you seriously claiming that there wouldn't be any? Conversely what would the repercussions be if I snapped my fingers and no one smoked or was obese?
Do you really want to hang your hat on this particular analogy, that somehow the use to society for driving is equivalent to the use to society for obesity?18 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »There should be more space to cut back on "flying rage" (treat customers like cattle and some of them are going to be at least grumpy with the flight crew, which in turn will take that out on all the passengers), circulatory health risks, some minimum level of personal space (that's creepy close to be to a stranger), and safety in event of the need to evacuate quickly. If an airplane cabin were a room in a building, it would be in violation of fire codes for capacity and acccessible exits in just about any jurisdiction.
Start an airline and offer increased space.
Let us know how your business model works out.
The existing airlines have oligopsony control over gate slots. It's a broken market.
True - increase of government regulations have ensured financial failure for smaller competing airlines.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
What about driving? That's 30,000 deaths per year from car accidents. And a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Children who grow up near freeways get asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Never mind the wars we fight to maintain a cheap supply, and the environmental damage. Should society make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers?
Driving provides a benefit to society in that it allows people to get to work faster and start productivity sooner. It is also the primary means by which goods and services are transported. It has a cost but it also has a benefit. What is the benefit of obesity or smoking? .
People can transport things without driving.
I suspect the real reason you want to make an exception for driving is that you enjoy the benefit yourself and haven't been personally affected by the cost. I feel like you've moving the goal posts though. First it was we should discourage things that work against society's best interest, I pointed out that driving does that by killing 30,000 members of society every year, and you're telling me that acceptable because it gets people to work faster. Maybe people shouldn't live so far from work.
I guess the benefit to obesity is that the alternative is government control over how much everyone gets to eat.
I actually use public transit to get to work but even if I drove so what? Does that somehow negate the concept that driving is useful? I think that if you claim for the purpose of this discussion that you cannot see the benefit to society driving provides that you are being rather disingenuous.
Again. Snap my fingers, no one can drive. What are the repercussions? Are you seriously claiming that there wouldn't be any? Conversely what would the repercussions be if I snapped my fingers and no one smoked or was obese?
Do you really want to hang your hat on this particular analogy, that somehow the use to society for driving is equivalent to the use to society for obesity?
My point is that "society" doesn't have a specific list of interests, because it's made up of many people who have conflicting interests. The facts that you can make an argument that killing 30,000 people a year is in society's interest, and that you say this is necessary for transit while you take the bus, prove my point. (This goes back to the assertion that it's counter to "society's interests" to let fat people want larger seats on planes.)9 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
What about driving? That's 30,000 deaths per year from car accidents. And a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Children who grow up near freeways get asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Never mind the wars we fight to maintain a cheap supply, and the environmental damage. Should society make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers?
Driving provides a benefit to society in that it allows people to get to work faster and start productivity sooner. It is also the primary means by which goods and services are transported. It has a cost but it also has a benefit. What is the benefit of obesity or smoking? .
People can transport things without driving.
I suspect the real reason you want to make an exception for driving is that you enjoy the benefit yourself and haven't been personally affected by the cost. I feel like you've moving the goal posts though. First it was we should discourage things that work against society's best interest, I pointed out that driving does that by killing 30,000 members of society every year, and you're telling me that acceptable because it gets people to work faster. Maybe people shouldn't live so far from work.
I guess the benefit to obesity is that the alternative is government control over how much everyone gets to eat.
I actually use public transit to get to work but even if I drove so what? Does that somehow negate the concept that driving is useful? I think that if you claim for the purpose of this discussion that you cannot see the benefit to society driving provides that you are being rather disingenuous.
Again. Snap my fingers, no one can drive. What are the repercussions? Are you seriously claiming that there wouldn't be any? Conversely what would the repercussions be if I snapped my fingers and no one smoked or was obese?
Do you really want to hang your hat on this particular analogy, that somehow the use to society for driving is equivalent to the use to society for obesity?
My point is that "society" doesn't have a specific list of interests, because it's made up of many people who have conflicting interests. The facts that you can make an argument that killing 30,000 people a year is in society's interest, and that you say this is necessary for transit while you take the bus, prove my point. (This goes back to the assertion that it's counter to "society's interests" to let fat people want larger seats on planes.)
I honestly don't get your point. Perhaps other people do I don't know. Frankly I think it is blatantly obvious that driving provides a societal benefit while smoking and obesity do not. To see this just takes a few moments of honest reflection as to what would happen to our society if we removed driving versus if we removed smoking or obesity. I think I will just repeat that one more time here and then leave it at that.
I agree with a lot of what you say on here NorthCascades but the point you are trying to make here is going over my head.13 -
I'm waiting for airlines to simply put us in pods ala The Fifth Element.
10 -
I wonder what the future will bring.
this picture makes me so uncomfortable already. i'm taking a cross atlantic flight tomorrow overnight and i always dread the seats. i'm not skinny but i don't spill over the sides of my seat. my problem is being tallish with long legs and a relatively short torso, and knees that dig into the seat in front of me. i've had bruises from someone slamming their seat into reclining position. i fully believe that they should be able to recline their seat, but my knees don't agree. my point is that it's a known inconvenience though. i bought the ticket fully aware of what awaits me on the plane. i could pay more for more leg room but fiscally it doesn't make sense for me, so i choose to endure the discomfort. airplane seats are very small and obese people aren't the only people who suffer from that - options exist for additional space at additional cost. it's not discriminating against obese people any more than it is against tall people for that price structure to exist.14 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
What about driving? That's 30,000 deaths per year from car accidents. And a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Children who grow up near freeways get asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Never mind the wars we fight to maintain a cheap supply, and the environmental damage. Should society make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers?
Driving provides a benefit to society in that it allows people to get to work faster and start productivity sooner. It is also the primary means by which goods and services are transported. It has a cost but it also has a benefit. What is the benefit of obesity or smoking? .
People can transport things without driving.
I suspect the real reason you want to make an exception for driving is that you enjoy the benefit yourself and haven't been personally affected by the cost. I feel like you've moving the goal posts though. First it was we should discourage things that work against society's best interest, I pointed out that driving does that by killing 30,000 members of society every year, and you're telling me that acceptable because it gets people to work faster. Maybe people shouldn't live so far from work.
I guess the benefit to obesity is that the alternative is government control over how much everyone gets to eat.
I actually use public transit to get to work but even if I drove so what? Does that somehow negate the concept that driving is useful? I think that if you claim for the purpose of this discussion that you cannot see the benefit to society driving provides that you are being rather disingenuous.
Again. Snap my fingers, no one can drive. What are the repercussions? Are you seriously claiming that there wouldn't be any? Conversely what would the repercussions be if I snapped my fingers and no one smoked or was obese?
Do you really want to hang your hat on this particular analogy, that somehow the use to society for driving is equivalent to the use to society for obesity?
My point is that "society" doesn't have a specific list of interests, because it's made up of many people who have conflicting interests. The facts that you can make an argument that killing 30,000 people a year is in society's interest, and that you say this is necessary for transit while you take the bus, prove my point. (This goes back to the assertion that it's counter to "society's interests" to let fat people want larger seats on planes.)
I honestly don't get your point. Perhaps other people do I don't know. Frankly I think it is blatantly obvious that driving provides a societal benefit while smoking and obesity do not. To see this just takes a few moments of honest reflection as to what would happen to our society if we removed driving versus if we removed smoking or obesity. I think I will just repeat that one more time here and then leave it at that.
I agree with a lot of what you say on here NorthCascades but the point you are trying to make here is going over my head.
I guess I'll try one more time before I give up. My point seems pretty simple to me and I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong trying to communicate it.
You and I are both smart folks. We just played Devil's Advocate (on a tangent) about cars. You made an argument that they're good for society's interests. I made an argument they're bad for society's interests. We're both right. Because it's a gray area. There isn't one right answer, we just saw how two opposite answers are both right, but also both incomplete.
Coming back full circle, my argument (which probably isn't important enough to meeting half a dozen posts) is that you can't just say social pressure for bigger airline seats goes against society's interests. Because, again, it's not black and white. Society is made up of all the people and they have conflicting interests.7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
What about driving? That's 30,000 deaths per year from car accidents. And a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Children who grow up near freeways get asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Never mind the wars we fight to maintain a cheap supply, and the environmental damage. Should society make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers?
Driving provides a benefit to society in that it allows people to get to work faster and start productivity sooner. It is also the primary means by which goods and services are transported. It has a cost but it also has a benefit. What is the benefit of obesity or smoking? .
People can transport things without driving.
I suspect the real reason you want to make an exception for driving is that you enjoy the benefit yourself and haven't been personally affected by the cost. I feel like you've moving the goal posts though. First it was we should discourage things that work against society's best interest, I pointed out that driving does that by killing 30,000 members of society every year, and you're telling me that acceptable because it gets people to work faster. Maybe people shouldn't live so far from work.
I guess the benefit to obesity is that the alternative is government control over how much everyone gets to eat.
I actually use public transit to get to work but even if I drove so what? Does that somehow negate the concept that driving is useful? I think that if you claim for the purpose of this discussion that you cannot see the benefit to society driving provides that you are being rather disingenuous.
Again. Snap my fingers, no one can drive. What are the repercussions? Are you seriously claiming that there wouldn't be any? Conversely what would the repercussions be if I snapped my fingers and no one smoked or was obese?
Do you really want to hang your hat on this particular analogy, that somehow the use to society for driving is equivalent to the use to society for obesity?
My point is that "society" doesn't have a specific list of interests, because it's made up of many people who have conflicting interests. The facts that you can make an argument that killing 30,000 people a year is in society's interest, and that you say this is necessary for transit while you take the bus, prove my point. (This goes back to the assertion that it's counter to "society's interests" to let fat people want larger seats on planes.)
I honestly don't get your point. Perhaps other people do I don't know. Frankly I think it is blatantly obvious that driving provides a societal benefit while smoking and obesity do not. To see this just takes a few moments of honest reflection as to what would happen to our society if we removed driving versus if we removed smoking or obesity. I think I will just repeat that one more time here and then leave it at that.
I agree with a lot of what you say on here NorthCascades but the point you are trying to make here is going over my head.
I guess I'll try one more time before I give up. My point seems pretty simple to me and I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong trying to communicate it.
You and I are both smart folks. We just played Devil's Advocate (on a tangent) about cars. You made an argument that they're good for society's interests. I made an argument they're bad for society's interests. We're both right. Because it's a gray area. There isn't one right answer, we just saw how two opposite answers are both right, but also both incomplete.
Coming back full circle, my argument (which probably isn't important enough to meeting half a dozen posts) is that you can't just say social pressure for bigger airline seats goes against society's interests. Because, again, it's not black and white. Society is made up of all the people and they have conflicting interests.
Alright I get you now I think. I still disagree in the sense that it seems like you are saying that if a person wants a certain thing who is society to tell them they are wrong. That all society is is a collection of individuals so society isn't some collective that can pass judgement on an individuals decisions. Everyone has their opinions on what they want to do and we should all just respect that.
I kind of fundamentally disagree with that. I agree with you in as much that I don't think society should outright declare certain behaviors or actions carried out by an adult who is causing no harm to anyone but themselves to be illegal. I do, however, think that society as a collective has every right to encourage or discourage certain behaviours. I think society has every right to make judgement calls about what is "good" and what is "bad" and to encourage or discourage those things through use of things like subsidies or sin-taxes.
If society thinks that individuals driving cars is detrimental then they can encourage multiple occupancy through the introduction of HoV lanes that advantage people in multiple occupancy vehicles and disadvantage those who are single occupancy. They can tax the community and apply those tax dollars to subsidies for public transit that will increase the number of lines and options, decrease commute times and decrease fare costs. Those subsidies will help those who use public transit but in general harm those who do not who are now paying for a service they do not use. Those aren't just theoretical, we do do that in Seattle and I support those things because I do think it is in our best interest to encourage people to rely on public transit or at least commute in high occupancy vehicles.
We do those things as a society. That isn't bad, that is how we as a group help guide the future of our communities. I see no reason why we wouldn't try to subsidize healthy behaviors (say a subsidy for people who have an annual physical as a form of preventative care) while deinsentivizing unhealthy behaviors (insurance rates go up for those who are not vaccinated).
I wouldn't support spending money on wider seats for obese people on transit anymore than I would support having money be spent to build a specialized walled off area on every bus that unvaccinated people can sit in. It is spending money and being inefficient to accommodate a behavior that frankly we should be actively discouraging. Why would we effectively subsidize something we don't want people to do? I don't think anyone wants people to be obese right?
6 -
@NorthCascades
Just because I am curious about your opinion on this how would you feel if instead of a commercial airline it was a city bus paid for by taxes?
How would you feel about the number of total seats being reduced on buses (effectively increasing the cost per individual) in order to put in physically larger seats to accommodate people who are morbidly obese?
Is your reason for thinking an airline should accommodate obese individuals more to do with them being a commercial entity or do you think such accommodation should occur everywhere even in situations where it is funded by tax dollars?3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
What about driving? That's 30,000 deaths per year from car accidents. And a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Children who grow up near freeways get asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Never mind the wars we fight to maintain a cheap supply, and the environmental damage. Should society make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers?
Driving provides a benefit to society in that it allows people to get to work faster and start productivity sooner. It is also the primary means by which goods and services are transported. It has a cost but it also has a benefit. What is the benefit of obesity or smoking? .
People can transport things without driving.
I suspect the real reason you want to make an exception for driving is that you enjoy the benefit yourself and haven't been personally affected by the cost. I feel like you've moving the goal posts though. First it was we should discourage things that work against society's best interest, I pointed out that driving does that by killing 30,000 members of society every year, and you're telling me that acceptable because it gets people to work faster. Maybe people shouldn't live so far from work.
I guess the benefit to obesity is that the alternative is government control over how much everyone gets to eat.
I actually use public transit to get to work but even if I drove so what? Does that somehow negate the concept that driving is useful? I think that if you claim for the purpose of this discussion that you cannot see the benefit to society driving provides that you are being rather disingenuous.
Again. Snap my fingers, no one can drive. What are the repercussions? Are you seriously claiming that there wouldn't be any? Conversely what would the repercussions be if I snapped my fingers and no one smoked or was obese?
Do you really want to hang your hat on this particular analogy, that somehow the use to society for driving is equivalent to the use to society for obesity?
My point is that "society" doesn't have a specific list of interests, because it's made up of many people who have conflicting interests. The facts that you can make an argument that killing 30,000 people a year is in society's interest, and that you say this is necessary for transit while you take the bus, prove my point. (This goes back to the assertion that it's counter to "society's interests" to let fat people want larger seats on planes.)
I honestly don't get your point. Perhaps other people do I don't know. Frankly I think it is blatantly obvious that driving provides a societal benefit while smoking and obesity do not. To see this just takes a few moments of honest reflection as to what would happen to our society if we removed driving versus if we removed smoking or obesity. I think I will just repeat that one more time here and then leave it at that.
I agree with a lot of what you say on here NorthCascades but the point you are trying to make here is going over my head.
I guess I'll try one more time before I give up. My point seems pretty simple to me and I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong trying to communicate it.
You and I are both smart folks. We just played Devil's Advocate (on a tangent) about cars. You made an argument that they're good for society's interests. I made an argument they're bad for society's interests. We're both right. Because it's a gray area. There isn't one right answer, we just saw how two opposite answers are both right, but also both incomplete.
Coming back full circle, my argument (which probably isn't important enough to meeting half a dozen posts) is that you can't just say social pressure for bigger airline seats goes against society's interests. Because, again, it's not black and white. Society is made up of all the people and they have conflicting interests.
Alright I get you now I think. I still disagree in the sense that it seems like you are saying that if a person wants a certain thing who is society to tell them they are wrong. That all society is is a collection of individuals so society isn't some collective that can pass judgement on an individuals decisions. Everyone has their opinions on what they want to do and we should all just respect that.
I kind of fundamentally disagree with that. I agree with you in as much that I don't think society should outright declare certain behaviors or actions carried out by an adult who is causing no harm to anyone but themselves to be illegal. I do, however, think that society as a collective has every right to encourage or discourage certain behaviours. I think society has every right to make judgement calls about what is "good" and what is "bad" and to encourage or discourage those things through use of things like subsidies or sin-taxes.
If society thinks that individuals driving cars is detrimental then they can encourage multiple occupancy through the introduction of HoV lanes that advantage people in multiple occupancy vehicles and disadvantage those who are single occupancy. They can tax the community and apply those tax dollars to subsidies for public transit that will increase the number of lines and options, decrease commute times and decrease fare costs. Those subsidies will help those who use public transit but in general harm those who do not who are now paying for a service they do not use. Those aren't just theoretical, we do do that in Seattle and I support those things because I do think it is in our best interest to encourage people to rely on public transit or at least commute in high occupancy vehicles.
We do those things as a society. That isn't bad, that is how we as a group help guide the future of our communities. I see no reason why we wouldn't try to subsidize healthy behaviors (say a subsidy for people who have an annual physical as a form of preventative care) while deinsentivizing unhealthy behaviors (insurance rates go up for those who are not vaccinated).
I wouldn't support spending money on wider seats for obese people on transit anymore than I would support having money be spent to build a specialized walled off area on every bus that unvaccinated people can sit in. It is spending money and being inefficient to accommodate a behavior that frankly we should be actively discouraging. Why would we effectively subsidize something we don't want people to do? I don't think anyone wants people to be obese right?
That's not what I believe at all, and if that's what my argument sounds like I'm either on shaky footing or doing a terrible job of explaining myself. If a person thinks violence is a good way to solve problems, I'm all for society putting that person away where they can't cause harm.
My argument isn't about feelings, it's about interests.
You have an interest in paying as little as possible for a seat, which means you have an interest in seats being small. Obese people have an interest in being accommodated. It's in many peoples' long term interest to lose weight but that's not true of everyone, even of all obese people. (Some should keep the weight on while they're in chemo, others for various other reasons.). Also, dieting is a multi billion industry, the people it employs are part of society too. Speaking of industry, mobility is in everybody's interest, somebody born in New York can go innovate in Silicone Valley. Etc. So you can't just say social pressure for bigger airline seats undermines society's interests, it will undermine some and serve others; whether it's a good or bad thing on balance has to consider all of that and more. It's not as simple as we'd like it to be.5 -
I don't know why anyone flies unless they have some Godforsaken reason to have to go overseas. And for most people that never happens. I've never heard anyone say a good word about the flying experience, the costs associated with it or anything else having to do with flying. Continental U.S. and Europe have rail. Screw flying. You can be fat on a train and it's okay. Go Amtrak for God's sake.
I love flying, I travel every opportunity I get. I honestly have a harder time understanding people who seem to think airline travel is so terrible.
Also, Amtrak? Yeah, maybe if you love in the north east. When I lived in New York I took the train to Baltimore, DC, and Philly a lot, it was quicker than flying once you factor in time at the airport. But now I live in dallas, and literally nowhere is faster by train, including factoring time at the airport.
My opinion, people make flying worse on themselves by telling themselves how bad it’ll be. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.16 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I just don't think society should pressure them to do that as it is really against societies best interests to do so.
Remember society isn't a single cohesive thing with distinct interests. It's made up of all the people, and all their competing interests. Short term ones like having accommodations available that can accommodate people, and long term ones like improving health and longevity.
I don't think the obesity issue is going away any time soon. It will probably get worse not better. I don't think expecting obese people to just suck it up serves society's best interests at all. Making things that happen occasionally more inconvenient for the obese won't solve the problem and isn't enough incentive to compete against daily life.
I get what you are saying but in some ways I disagree. I think society DOES have a duty to provide some push-back against things that do not benefit the society as a whole not on an individual level. I think if something is known to cause health risks that society itself ends up footing the bill for either through lost revenue/productivity or through direct medical expenses I think society should discourage that condition by making it not easy to be that way. Smoking is a good example of this. Society at some point came to the conclusion that smoking is not necessary and it causes health risks. We didn't just make it illegal to smoke because I agree people should still be able to choose to do so but what we did was change rules of our society to make it really inconvenient to be a smoker. Being obese is not necessary and it causes health risks. I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat it the way we treat smoking and allow those inconveniences to persist as a way of discouraging that condition.
Having special seating for the morbidly obese is like having smoking sections. It is a tacit approval from society for that behavior that honestly it would be in societies best interest to actively discourage.
What about driving? That's 30,000 deaths per year from car accidents. And a contributor to the obesity epidemic. Children who grow up near freeways get asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Never mind the wars we fight to maintain a cheap supply, and the environmental damage. Should society make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers?
Driving provides a benefit to society in that it allows people to get to work faster and start productivity sooner. It is also the primary means by which goods and services are transported. It has a cost but it also has a benefit. What is the benefit of obesity or smoking? .
People can transport things without driving.
I suspect the real reason you want to make an exception for driving is that you enjoy the benefit yourself and haven't been personally affected by the cost. I feel like you've moving the goal posts though. First it was we should discourage things that work against society's best interest, I pointed out that driving does that by killing 30,000 members of society every year, and you're telling me that acceptable because it gets people to work faster. Maybe people shouldn't live so far from work.
I guess the benefit to obesity is that the alternative is government control over how much everyone gets to eat.
I actually use public transit to get to work but even if I drove so what? Does that somehow negate the concept that driving is useful? I think that if you claim for the purpose of this discussion that you cannot see the benefit to society driving provides that you are being rather disingenuous.
Again. Snap my fingers, no one can drive. What are the repercussions? Are you seriously claiming that there wouldn't be any? Conversely what would the repercussions be if I snapped my fingers and no one smoked or was obese?
Do you really want to hang your hat on this particular analogy, that somehow the use to society for driving is equivalent to the use to society for obesity?
My point is that "society" doesn't have a specific list of interests, because it's made up of many people who have conflicting interests. The facts that you can make an argument that killing 30,000 people a year is in society's interest, and that you say this is necessary for transit while you take the bus, prove my point. (This goes back to the assertion that it's counter to "society's interests" to let fat people want larger seats on planes.)
I honestly don't get your point. Perhaps other people do I don't know. Frankly I think it is blatantly obvious that driving provides a societal benefit while smoking and obesity do not. To see this just takes a few moments of honest reflection as to what would happen to our society if we removed driving versus if we removed smoking or obesity. I think I will just repeat that one more time here and then leave it at that.
I agree with a lot of what you say on here NorthCascades but the point you are trying to make here is going over my head.
I guess I'll try one more time before I give up. My point seems pretty simple to me and I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong trying to communicate it.
You and I are both smart folks. We just played Devil's Advocate (on a tangent) about cars. You made an argument that they're good for society's interests. I made an argument they're bad for society's interests. We're both right. Because it's a gray area. There isn't one right answer, we just saw how two opposite answers are both right, but also both incomplete.
Coming back full circle, my argument (which probably isn't important enough to meeting half a dozen posts) is that you can't just say social pressure for bigger airline seats goes against society's interests. Because, again, it's not black and white. Society is made up of all the people and they have conflicting interests.
Alright I get you now I think. I still disagree in the sense that it seems like you are saying that if a person wants a certain thing who is society to tell them they are wrong. That all society is is a collection of individuals so society isn't some collective that can pass judgement on an individuals decisions. Everyone has their opinions on what they want to do and we should all just respect that.
I kind of fundamentally disagree with that. I agree with you in as much that I don't think society should outright declare certain behaviors or actions carried out by an adult who is causing no harm to anyone but themselves to be illegal. I do, however, think that society as a collective has every right to encourage or discourage certain behaviours. I think society has every right to make judgement calls about what is "good" and what is "bad" and to encourage or discourage those things through use of things like subsidies or sin-taxes.
If society thinks that individuals driving cars is detrimental then they can encourage multiple occupancy through the introduction of HoV lanes that advantage people in multiple occupancy vehicles and disadvantage those who are single occupancy. They can tax the community and apply those tax dollars to subsidies for public transit that will increase the number of lines and options, decrease commute times and decrease fare costs. Those subsidies will help those who use public transit but in general harm those who do not who are now paying for a service they do not use. Those aren't just theoretical, we do do that in Seattle and I support those things because I do think it is in our best interest to encourage people to rely on public transit or at least commute in high occupancy vehicles.
We do those things as a society. That isn't bad, that is how we as a group help guide the future of our communities. I see no reason why we wouldn't try to subsidize healthy behaviors (say a subsidy for people who have an annual physical as a form of preventative care) while deinsentivizing unhealthy behaviors (insurance rates go up for those who are not vaccinated).
I wouldn't support spending money on wider seats for obese people on transit anymore than I would support having money be spent to build a specialized walled off area on every bus that unvaccinated people can sit in. It is spending money and being inefficient to accommodate a behavior that frankly we should be actively discouraging. Why would we effectively subsidize something we don't want people to do? I don't think anyone wants people to be obese right?
That's not what I believe at all, and if that's what my argument sounds like I'm either on shaky footing or doing a terrible job of explaining myself. If a person thinks violence is a good way to solve problems, I'm all for society putting that person away where they can't cause harm.
My argument isn't about feelings, it's about interests.
You have an interest in paying as little as possible for a seat, which means you have an interest in seats being small. Obese people have an interest in being accommodated. It's in many peoples' long term interest to lose weight but that's not true of everyone, even of all obese people. (Some should keep the weight on while they're in chemo, others for various other reasons.). Also, dieting is a multi billion industry, the people it employs are part of society too. Speaking of industry, mobility is in everybody's interest, somebody born in New York can go innovate in Silicone Valley. Etc. So you can't just say social pressure for bigger airline seats undermines society's interests, it will undermine some and serve others; whether it's a good or bad thing on balance has to consider all of that and more. It's not as simple as we'd like it to be.
Well alright put like that I don't disagree. I mean honestly I doubt we really disagree on much, maybe a few things. We are just being nitpicky...not that I mind, I clearly like discussion. How people interact with one another has a lot to do with what enviornment they are in and we are currently on an anonymous internet forum so yeah, to be expected we nitpick the hell out of eachother. If we were on a hike together I doubt we'd be arguing about airline seat sizes
3 -
Well I'm glad we got to the same page. I don't think it's a great point, I just couldn't figure out what I was saying wrong to express it.1
-
I don't know why anyone flies unless they have some Godforsaken reason to have to go overseas. And for most people that never happens. I've never heard anyone say a good word about the flying experience, the costs associated with it or anything else having to do with flying. Continental U.S. and Europe have rail. Screw flying. You can be fat on a train and it's okay. Go Amtrak for God's sake.
I love flying, I travel every opportunity I get. I honestly have a harder time understanding people who seem to think airline travel is so terrible.
Also, Amtrak? Yeah, maybe if you love in the north east. When I lived in New York I took the train to Baltimore, DC, and Philly a lot, it was quicker than flying once you factor in time at the airport. But now I live in dallas, and literally nowhere is faster by train, including factoring time at the airport.
My opinion, people make flying worse on themselves by telling themselves how bad it’ll be. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
I don't care for flying much, but it beats Amtrak.
It also beats having to spend the time to drive from Chicago to Portland (where I am going tomorrow morning, for example).2 -
I only travel by jet ski. If it doesn't have an inlet, a canal or a fjord it isn't worth going to that is what I say.16
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I only travel by jet ski. If it doesn't have an inlet, a canal or a fjord it isn't worth going to that is what I say.
This is an entirely reasonable rule4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions