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.

“Large” Restaurant Customers need special accommodation?

13468914

Replies

  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,904 Member

    kimny72 wrote: »

    It's also fairly easy to accidentally woo or hug a post while scrolling on your phone. The forums can run a little slow on my phone and in a desperate attempt to get my page to scroll I find myself wooing or hugging posts sometimes. I usually catch them, but I'm sure some people who post a lot have gotten some random woos or hugs from me.

    One or two woos should be ignored as meaningless. If you get a bunch on your post, that's a different story.

    @kimny72 point taken, thanks
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    If most people found shame an effective motivator to make positive changes, the majority of people would already be slim. Barring a small minority, people generally didn't aspire to be overweight or obese, and they're definitely not proud of their bodies the way they are. This includes most of the fat-positive bloggers, in my opinion.

    And yet, the National Center for Health Statistics estimates that, for 2015-2016 in the U.S., 71.6% of adults aged 20 and over were overweight or obese and according to a WHO study in 2014, 62% of adults in England were classified as overweight or obese.

    Clearly making people feel ashamed hasn't worked yet, and it's not going to suddenly start working. I think it might be time to try a new strategy.

    Stats taken from wikipedia
    Regarding the bold - without (hopefully) taking the discussion into prohibited territory per forum rules....what if, say...a country had an absolutely awesome, incredible first lady who developed and implemented a program to teach school children about the importance of proper nutrition in an effort to combat obesity, and everyone loved it except the next admin to take power...who cancelled it? No one here ought to miss that reference :|

    The tenuous point I'm trying to make is that we're strategy limited apparently, at the governmental level, and motivationally limited at the personal level...what's next for a strategy?

    I do agree with you by the way, strongly. I just see slippery slopes in one direction and steep cliffs in the other. Real change motivators usually need to come from within, or from a source that carries strong enough promise to gain traction.

    Politics lies downstream of culture. Attempts to move culture requires persuasion. Government historically uses force to persuade. The Right would do well to acknowledge, love, and respect the imagination of the Left. The Left would do well to acknowledge, love, and respect the pragmatism of the Right.

    There's a fundamental flaw in governance that assumes that man is good and has good intentions. Good policy presumes human error as fundamental and implements processes of positive reinforcement, ownership, and personal responsibility - all leading to collective responsibility and collective good.
    I would say today that politics is attempting to shape and drive culture. I do agree with your assertions and would love to see that in practice as well as ideal, but....

    RE: the bold - it seemed to me her plan met that requirement for good policy. Most importantly, people were listening, quite a milestone in achievement these days.


    Politics has always attempted to shape and drive culture. Historically this had led to violence, starvation, and death. Good intentions hold little value other than paving the path to hell.

    We live in a time of such unprecedented peace and prosperity it is difficult to put things into perspective - unless you continually reinforce every element of news & propaganda with a healthy dose of historical perspective.

    It must start small and bubble up. So how can one enact effective policy? Rewarding positive behavior and paragons. Offering an ideal to live by and reinforcing legislature around this ideal, both rewarding and punitive. ...but leaders must live by their truth.

    Facta non verba - Deeds not words.

    The greatest governance operates by a simplistic model which plays to respective strengths - the Left establishes the ideal and the Right executes this.



  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,893 Member
    Anyway, on topic. Let's play a game of things that could be done by our more local elected officials (but probably won't be) to make it easier for people to achieve calorie balance without trying. Proposals will reflect our own observations, for obvious reasons, and they won't be universal problems.

    When new suburban residential developments are proposed, the following questions should be asked in planning:
    1) could fit healthy adult residents of the houses typically get to a local school, supermarket and doctors' surgery within less than 20 minutes' walk?
    2) Would typical journeys to any of the above be safely walkable along routes that a sensible responsible adult would be willing to walk down with a young child on a tricycle?

    I think this is a great idea, but in the US all of this is very local. In some areas/types of developments such considerations would add to value and be automatically considered. Walkable burbs around here are often the most expensive ones. But some for whatever reason are adverse -- I know there are 'burbs in certain areas (also in this metro area) where people have opposed putting in sidewalks.

    But this kind of thing is important, as well as having walkable/recreation areas available. One thing that made it easier for me when I decided to get in shape (and probably made me more fit when fat) is that I live in a big walkable city and have always walked to the grocery store and for other errands, used public transportation + walking for commuting. I used to bike to work and while I have some roadblocks in doing that it's certainly possible from where I live, and there are recreation paths nearby to run or bike or just walk on (and sidewalks everywhere, of course, although they aren't always fit for running due to ice and snow).
  • lleeann2001
    lleeann2001 Posts: 412 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Anyway, on topic. Let's play a game of things that could be done by our more local elected officials (but probably won't be) to make it easier for people to achieve calorie balance without trying. Proposals will reflect our own observations, for obvious reasons, and they won't be universal problems.

    When new suburban residential developments are proposed, the following questions should be asked in planning:
    1) could fit healthy adult residents of the houses typically get to a local school, supermarket and doctors' surgery within less than 20 minutes' walk?
    2) Would typical journeys to any of the above be safely walkable along routes that a sensible responsible adult would be willing to walk down with a young child on a tricycle?

    If the answer to either of these is no, the residents will find it much easier to drive, and we know what a sedentary lifestyle can do for your weight, don't we? It can be fixed by making housing developers obliged to construct these amenities on the housing development they're building. It should not be acceptable for developers to build and sell a couple of thousand family houses, and then build a local school a couple of years later.

    If you haven't guessed, this happened locally. In the meantime, the streets were gridlocked elsewhere in town, because the kids had to go to school somewhere, that definitely wasn't within walking distance. At least, it wasn't walkable if their parents were to have any hope of getting to work on time!

    I often see people posting that you don't need an expensive gym membership to get fit, just a pair of trainers, which brings me to another matter.

    Going jogging is cheap yeah, but if you were a petite woman who wanted to go jogging to get fit, would you feel safe running around your local area in the evening after getting home from work? This one is only partially a planning issue. You need well-lit routes; basically the opposite of a set of deserted alleyways, but we also need to come down hard on boneheads who think it's funny to shout mocking epithets at people out jogging or cycling. If Jane Smith experiences people making intimidating comments to her from their cars, she probably won't be going jogging again.

    Safety is definitely a factor when running where I live. I’m a woman, but I don’t run my neighborhood even with my husband. We’ve been shot at twice and seen guns used several times while running here, and only last week two people were shot by someone firing through the glass door into their apartment, on the street we used to run down. As a result we get into the car and drive fifteen minutes to half an hour, to get to a park where it’s safer to run.

    @rheddmobile you must live near my wife and I. I wish I were joking. We leave the area for long walks and such. And it is absolutely unsafe for any woman to go alone.

    You've actually been shot at???? Wow!. This is horrifying. You cant even run while minding your own business without getting shot at.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    If most people found shame an effective motivator to make positive changes, the majority of people would already be slim. Barring a small minority, people generally didn't aspire to be overweight or obese, and they're definitely not proud of their bodies the way they are. This includes most of the fat-positive bloggers, in my opinion.

    And yet, the National Center for Health Statistics estimates that, for 2015-2016 in the U.S., 71.6% of adults aged 20 and over were overweight or obese and according to a WHO study in 2014, 62% of adults in England were classified as overweight or obese.

    Clearly making people feel ashamed hasn't worked yet, and it's not going to suddenly start working. I think it might be time to try a new strategy.

    Stats taken from wikipedia
    Regarding the bold - without (hopefully) taking the discussion into prohibited territory per forum rules....what if, say...a country had an absolutely awesome, incredible first lady who developed and implemented a program to teach school children about the importance of proper nutrition in an effort to combat obesity, and everyone loved it except the next admin to take power...who cancelled it? No one here ought to miss that reference :|

    The tenuous point I'm trying to make is that we're strategy limited apparently, at the governmental level, and motivationally limited at the personal level...what's next for a strategy?

    I do agree with you by the way, strongly. I just see slippery slopes in one direction and steep cliffs in the other. Real change motivators usually need to come from within, or from a source that carries strong enough promise to gain traction.

    Politics lies downstream of culture. Attempts to move culture requires persuasion. Government historically uses force to persuade. The Right would do well to acknowledge, love, and respect the imagination of the Left. The Left would do well to acknowledge, love, and respect the pragmatism of the Right.

    There's a fundamental flaw in governance that assumes that man is good and has good intentions. Good policy presumes human error as fundamental and implements processes of positive reinforcement, ownership, and personal responsibility - all leading to collective responsibility and collective good.
    I would say today that politics is attempting to shape and drive culture. I do agree with your assertions and would love to see that in practice as well as ideal, but....

    RE: the bold - it seemed to me her plan met that requirement for good policy. Most importantly, people were listening, quite a milestone in achievement these days.


    Politics has always attempted to shape and drive culture. Historically this had led to violence, starvation, and death. Good intentions hold little value other than paving the path to hell.
    You stated earlier that politics lies downstream of culture. My contention is that it used to. In the US anyway. I believe political maneuvering through the media is stoking an unhealthy sense of nationalism today. I believe a large portion of the population has, or is taking on the identity of the political players in many arenas.
    We live in a time of such unprecedented peace and prosperity it is difficult to put things into perspective - unless you continually reinforce every element of news & propaganda with a healthy dose of historical perspective.
    I would say the difficulty in attaining a healthy perspective today is largely based on the news and propaganda we see. History itself is being rewritten in some areas and attempts are being made in others(I'm sure you've seen the news on that) , so that's going to be more difficult to use as a platform for stability in many arguments.
    It must start small and bubble up. So how can one enact effective policy? Rewarding positive behavior and paragons. Offering an ideal to live by and reinforcing legislature around this ideal, both rewarding and punitive. ...but leaders must live by their truth.
    Here is where the above ties into this discussion for me. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 meets all of the requirements you stated, and was actually effective to a degree in that it had bi-partizan support, started small and progressed as more school districts threw their weight (no pun intended) behind it, and most importantly, was educating the young in the hopes they would not make the same mistakes as their parents regarding obesity. The basic simplicity of the program (educate and support efforts) came under fire for literally no logical reason, and is now cancelled with no options for a "better" replacement.
    Facta non verba - Deeds not words.
    Agreed. Today we have words denying deeds - where does that leave us regarding the hopes of putting together a better, more effective policy?
    The greatest governance operates by a simplistic model which plays to respective strengths - the Left establishes the ideal and the Right executes this.
    This is a nice ideal and I do not disagree. Yet it's nowhere to be seen today.


    Nothing unhealthy about nationalism itself. There lies an inherent evil in collectivism as this stands in defiance of human nature. If you worship the process over man, then you inevitably see man as the problem. People will sacrifice for those they love, but there must be a visible effect. Sacrifice for strangers is admirable when done voluntarily, but amounts to slavery when forced.

    "News" has always contained a healthy element of propaganda - less so with open competition, but this is all but gone. There is only one news service for all intents and purposes now, which is why so many are turning to the man on the street format where at a minimum bias is acknowldeged.

    Regardless of the program or party affiliation this was doomed to fail as this is not the role of government - at least not in a democratic republic. It requires Vision, Incentives, Resources, Action Plan, and Skills - if any single element is lacking the change will not occur. I submit that this program was engineered to fail. A good talking point to show just how evil team B is and how benevolent team A is. The size and scope of the benevolence is in direct proportion to the grab for power.
  • RivenV
    RivenV Posts: 1,667 Member
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    What I find interesting is how little we are talking about how restaurants are failing to provide comfortable seating for medically normal weight range people, and it's on purpose. There have been several articles in the past year about how restaurant owners are purposely laying out their seating to be too close together for several reasons.

    1. The more tables they fit in, the more diners they can sit at once.
    2. If tables are tight together and people aren't that comfortable, they don't linger after their meals, they pay and leave. That increases table turnover.

    This isn't "I'm heavier than the norm" or "I'm taller/shorter than the norm". Some restaurants are intentionally making people uncomfortable to increase profit.

    I was at the The Cheesecake Factory several months ago with a friend and we got a table for two with bench seating on one side and a chair on the other. I took the bench side and felt uncomfortably too close to the table next to me and hemmed in by how close the table was to the bench. If I pushed the table away from me, it would have pushed my companion into the traffic flow even more.

    Should restaurants have tables that can accommodate a much larger person? Yes, and honestly they are likely also the tables that should be able to accommodate a wheelchair (or possibly a stroller/high chair). A little larger, off to a low traffic side, easy to swap out a chair or two.

    Perhaps restaurants do that. I'd be interested in your source for the bolded, re: restaurants intentionally making people uncomfortable. That said... No one is forcing anyone to eat at those restaurants. People can vote with their dollars and take their business elsewhere--specifically to restaurants which are a pleasure to dine at. Enough people decide they won't stand for being uncomfortable and the bad-actor-restaurants will change or go out of business. Pretty simple.

    Re: whether restaurants should have tables that can accommodate a larger person, I would say that's really up to the individual restaurant. Surely it would benefit them to at least attempt to cater to their patrons, whatever size they are. Paying customers are paying customers, after all. But should they be forced via government intervention? I don't think so. I'm not sure if that's where you're going with your argument there, so I apologize if I am misinterpreting your statement.