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?
Replies
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »It's interesting to me that this type of experience used to be seen as a source of personal shame, and now it's a reason for offense at others, because they have not accommodated the size of the person.
It's interesting to me, too. I feel that our current culture is a culture of victimization. Nobody takes personal responsibility, and everybody want to be a victim. Why? Because taking responsibility takes effort. It can be hard. Being a victim is easy. People feel sorry for you. You get status points. In the identity politics hierarchy, you are more important.
The TL/DR version: People need to step up and take more personal responsibility...for their health, for their finances, for their life choices in general. Don't claim to be a victim. Don't expect others to take on the burden of accommodating you if are unwilling to make the effort to make good choices.
The long version:
Sorry, I'm replying to many different posts in this one, so most of the below is not specifically related to the quoted post above.
It's not just weight I'm talking about. The Jussie Smollet thing is a recent example. He faked a hate crime because he thought the attention would get him more popularity and money. Victimhood pays. There are countless recent examples of people publicizing the fact that they were a crime victim (alleged...not proven...and often later shown to be hoaxes) and then making MILLIONS in gofundme donations. College students demand safe spaces and block speakers they disagree with because opinions that differ from their own make them feel "threatened". Colleges accommodate this suppression of free speech. People in our country illegally break our laws and are thrown in jail, then claim they are victimized if someone tries to deport them. People claim to be victimized by a red hat and feel entitled to assault the wearer or vandalize their property. Then they feel self-righteous about it. If arrested they feel they have been victimized twice! First by the existence of the hat, then by the arrest! There is no end to the craziness.
Victimhood has in effect become a protected class. I view this push by some to get obesity designated as a disability as more of the same. Why stop at obesity? Why shouldn't procrastinators be a protected class? You put off paying your bills until you get a late fee? That's unfair...shaming you by charging you more isn't an incentive to change, it just makes you feel bad and lowers your bank balance. Why shouldn't lazy people be protected? Didn't study for that test? Why should you get a worse grade and worse job prospects than someone who studies? After all, changing habits is very hard...you shouldn't suffer because you are struggling with it. Have trouble living within your middle class means? Why should you have to forego the latest designer fashions because you don't make as much as someone else. Credit card companies should be sympathetic and not make you pay that bill!
Nobody thinks restaurant owners should TRY to shame morbidly obese people. Please stop saying that. Not having extra large seats is not an attempt to shame anyone. People don't pick restaurant seating in order to make morbidly obese people uncomfortable. They pick based on space constraints, aesthetic considerations, and cost. However, the idea that owners should proactively try to accommodate a very small portion of the population is ridiculous. If you have a small restaurant, and can seat 60 patrons with a standard size seat, but only 50 or 55 with larger or differently designed seats, to choose the larger seats will mean reduced profits. Most business owners design for maximum profit. If a business owner notices that a large percentage of customers are having difficulty fitting in their seats, they will design for that. If, however, they are at maximum capacity most of the time and people need reservations or long waits to get in, why should they forego profit? They shouldn't.
Also...I have seen several comments in this thread which express the opinion that the government needs to fix the obesity problem. NO! NO! A thousand times NO! The government is not here to take care of every need you have and decision you make from the cradle to the grave. If you make bad decisions, it is your right to do so. Don't blame it on the government though. Parents...don't expect the government through schools to teach your children basic life skills. That is your job. Don't try to tell kids who eat properly most of the time that they can't have a cookie in school because some kids are obese. It is just insane and leads to a worsening of the problem.
As to the idea someone expressed that the left should establish the ideal and the right should execute it...what fantasy world are you living in? So you would enslave the right and make them carry out ideas they don't support? I am not sure what country you are in, but the US has a constitution. There is nothing in there about letting just one subset of the population with a specific ideology made all the decisions and then forcing the others to work to make it happen. Right and left have different agendas. Both should fight for what they believe in. Compete in the marketplace of ideas. To expect others to just let YOU pick the agenda is just immature and unrealistic. The idea that if people disagree with you, they are bad people or just don't understand something is the height of arrogance.
Take responsibility for what you say: if you think restaurants not accommodating obese people should be done with the idea it will encourage those people to lose weight, that's shaming. Don't play the victim and complain the label is shaming. It is the actual word do describe trying to get someone to change that way.11 -
lleeann2001 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »HeliumIsNoble 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.
Yes, plus there have been multiple murders at gunpoint close by. It makes wanting to go for a Sunday stroll a bit of a decision at times lol.4 -
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 referenceHeliumIsNoble 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
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.
Actually we had a president go much further the Ms Obama did (IMO) to encourage heath and fitness in the US over 50 years ago. Through several administrations, both political parties things really haven't gotten any better IMO (actually probably worse).
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/physical-fitness
4 -
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.
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....
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 referenceHeliumIsNoble 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
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Agreed. Today we have words denying deeds - where does that leave us regarding the hopes of putting together a better, more effective policy?Facta non verba - Deeds not words.
This is a nice ideal and I do not disagree. Yet it's nowhere to be seen today.The greatest governance operates by a simplistic model which plays to respective strengths - the Left establishes the ideal and the Right executes this.
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.
And yet it was not only not failing, it was becoming wildly successful.
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2014/05/20/fact-sheet-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-school-meals-implementation
Whether or not it's gov't role to do this is a moot point when you consider the vast amount of federal money being shoveled to the school system anyway, along with the standards on how to use it.
It was a good effort that benefited children. And, regarding your first paragraph, when man destroys the process that is actually benefiting man, you only do so when you can replace it with something better. Right?
Teach children the value of good nutrition and give schools the means to pass it on to the children so they begin to reverse the obesity epidemic we face now. That's some hard core political maneuvering right there
6 -
I would just like to say finally. That I have never said we should deliberatley make obese people feel uncomfortable so that they will change their behaviour. I do not condone being abusive to anyone for any reason. I also said that I agree we should attempt to accommodate obese people in public places where possible but that they should not automatically expect to be accommodated.
If most of us in here did not feel being obese was a bad thing and that makes our lives more difficult than necessary we would not be trying to lose weight.
So ergo our lives being made uncomfortable (in whatever way) by the present norm HAS incentivised us to lose weight. So if the norm were to change then why bother to change yourself.
Discomfort being visited from outside to our bodies has been the precursor to change in humans for millennia. Hunger? we learned to hunt/gather/farm. Cold? We learned to make furs/clothing/fire. Wet? we learned to build shelters. Fear? We learned to live in groups for protection. We used our brains to banish those outside discomforts.
Now the discomfort is not from outside but is from within our own bodies so what should we change?
This has been a fascinating debate, there have been some very thoughtful and insightful posts and it has challenged my thinking in some ways. So it has been a pleasure to debate a very touchy topic in such a civilised way.
My opinion is just that, an opinion and I thank people for accepting it as such with respect even when disagreeing vehemently with me.
I don't think I can add anything further so I bid you all a fond goodnight
14 -
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.
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.
I'm late to yoga, but don't want to drop silent for several hours. Here is one article I found about it, it's not the only one I've read about it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-latest-trend-i-loathe-in-restaurants-no-space-between-tables/2017/06/12/f1c181d2-47d6-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.90d877f4e2ef
As far as your second question on "forcing via government intervention". I don't know all the ADA requirements for restaurants, but if a restaurant needs to have tables that are able to take a wheelchair, that same table could also accommodate a larger guest simply by having some sturdy arm-less chairs for it. Those would also be good for other people with mobility issues who might need assistance getting into a chair due to a disability.5 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »...It's not just weight I'm talking about. The Jussie Smollet thing is a recent example. He faked a hate crime because he thought the attention would get him more popularity and money. Victimhood pays. There are countless recent examples of people publicizing the fact that they were a crime victim (alleged...not proven...and often later shown to be hoaxes) and then making MILLIONS in gofundme donations. College students demand safe spaces and block speakers they disagree with because opinions that differ from their own make them feel "threatened". Colleges accommodate this suppression of free speech. People in our country illegally break our laws and are thrown in jail, then claim they are victimized if someone tries to deport them. People claim to be victimized by a red hat and feel entitled to assault the wearer or vandalize their property. Then they feel self-righteous about it. If arrested they feel they have been victimized twice! First by the existence of the hat, then by the arrest! There is no end to the craziness.
Victimhood has in effect become a protected class. I view this push by some to get obesity designated as a disability as more of the same. Why stop at obesity? Why shouldn't procrastinators be a protected class? You put off paying your bills until you get a late fee? That's unfair...shaming you by charging you more isn't an incentive to change, it just makes you feel bad and lowers your bank balance. Why shouldn't lazy people be protected? Didn't study for that test? Why should you get a worse grade and worse job prospects than someone who studies? After all, changing habits is very hard...you shouldn't suffer because you are struggling with it. Have trouble living within your middle class means? Why should you have to forego the latest designer fashions because you don't make as much as someone else. Credit card companies should be sympathetic and not make you pay that bill!
...
Also...I have seen several comments in this thread which express the opinion that the government needs to fix the obesity problem. NO! NO! A thousand times NO! The government is not here to take care of every need you have and decision you make from the cradle to the grave. If you make bad decisions, it is your right to do so. Don't blame it on the government though. Parents...don't expect the government through schools to teach your children basic life skills. That is your job. Don't try to tell kids who eat properly most of the time that they can't have a cookie in school because some kids are obese. It is just insane and leads to a worsening of the problem.
As to the idea someone expressed that the left should establish the ideal and the right should execute it...what fantasy world are you living in? So you would enslave the right and make them carry out ideas they don't support? I am not sure what country you are in, but the US has a constitution. There is nothing in there about letting just one subset of the population with a specific ideology made all the decisions and then forcing the others to work to make it happen. Right and left have different agendas. Both should fight for what they believe in. Compete in the marketplace of ideas. To expect others to just let YOU pick the agenda is just immature and unrealistic. The idea that if people disagree with you, they are bad people or just don't understand something is the height of arrogance.
How in the world is any of this related to losing or gaining weight or the article? Seriously, four paragraphs complaining about politics, the potential for people to be victims and what victimhood means, issues related to discrimination (but not about weight), various ideological stances, socioeconomic class, and immigration. Within that there's a single sentence about weight.
I think it's pretty clear, and I did write an extensive post explaining it. It's about not putting the burden on others. It's about taking personal responsibility. Either take steps to improve your situation, or if you don't then just accept that your current condition will occasionally cause you inconvenience of some type. Don't expect the rest of the world to take actions to make your situation easier for you. YOU need to take those actions. Don't be a victim.16 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »It's interesting to me that this type of experience used to be seen as a source of personal shame, and now it's a reason for offense at others, because they have not accommodated the size of the person.
It's interesting to me, too. I feel that our current culture is a culture of victimization. Nobody takes personal responsibility, and everybody want to be a victim. Why? Because taking responsibility takes effort. It can be hard. Being a victim is easy. People feel sorry for you. You get status points. In the identity politics hierarchy, you are more important.
The TL/DR version: People need to step up and take more personal responsibility...for their health, for their finances, for their life choices in general. Don't claim to be a victim. Don't expect others to take on the burden of accommodating you if are unwilling to make the effort to make good choices.
The long version:
Sorry, I'm replying to many different posts in this one, so most of the below is not specifically related to the quoted post above.
It's not just weight I'm talking about. The Jussie Smollet thing is a recent example. He faked a hate crime because he thought the attention would get him more popularity and money. Victimhood pays. There are countless recent examples of people publicizing the fact that they were a crime victim (alleged...not proven...and often later shown to be hoaxes) and then making MILLIONS in gofundme donations. College students demand safe spaces and block speakers they disagree with because opinions that differ from their own make them feel "threatened". Colleges accommodate this suppression of free speech. People in our country illegally break our laws and are thrown in jail, then claim they are victimized if someone tries to deport them. People claim to be victimized by a red hat and feel entitled to assault the wearer or vandalize their property. Then they feel self-righteous about it. If arrested they feel they have been victimized twice! First by the existence of the hat, then by the arrest! There is no end to the craziness.
Victimhood has in effect become a protected class. I view this push by some to get obesity designated as a disability as more of the same. Why stop at obesity? Why shouldn't procrastinators be a protected class? You put off paying your bills until you get a late fee? That's unfair...shaming you by charging you more isn't an incentive to change, it just makes you feel bad and lowers your bank balance. Why shouldn't lazy people be protected? Didn't study for that test? Why should you get a worse grade and worse job prospects than someone who studies? After all, changing habits is very hard...you shouldn't suffer because you are struggling with it. Have trouble living within your middle class means? Why should you have to forego the latest designer fashions because you don't make as much as someone else. Credit card companies should be sympathetic and not make you pay that bill!
Nobody thinks restaurant owners should TRY to shame morbidly obese people. Please stop saying that. Not having extra large seats is not an attempt to shame anyone. People don't pick restaurant seating in order to make morbidly obese people uncomfortable. They pick based on space constraints, aesthetic considerations, and cost. However, the idea that owners should proactively try to accommodate a very small portion of the population is ridiculous. If you have a small restaurant, and can seat 60 patrons with a standard size seat, but only 50 or 55 with larger or differently designed seats, to choose the larger seats will mean reduced profits. Most business owners design for maximum profit. If a business owner notices that a large percentage of customers are having difficulty fitting in their seats, they will design for that. If, however, they are at maximum capacity most of the time and people need reservations or long waits to get in, why should they forego profit? They shouldn't.
Also...I have seen several comments in this thread which express the opinion that the government needs to fix the obesity problem. NO! NO! A thousand times NO! The government is not here to take care of every need you have and decision you make from the cradle to the grave. If you make bad decisions, it is your right to do so. Don't blame it on the government though. Parents...don't expect the government through schools to teach your children basic life skills. That is your job. Don't try to tell kids who eat properly most of the time that they can't have a cookie in school because some kids are obese. It is just insane and leads to a worsening of the problem.
As to the idea someone expressed that the left should establish the ideal and the right should execute it...what fantasy world are you living in? So you would enslave the right and make them carry out ideas they don't support? I am not sure what country you are in, but the US has a constitution. There is nothing in there about letting just one subset of the population with a specific ideology made all the decisions and then forcing the others to work to make it happen. Right and left have different agendas. Both should fight for what they believe in. Compete in the marketplace of ideas. To expect others to just let YOU pick the agenda is just immature and unrealistic. The idea that if people disagree with you, they are bad people or just don't understand something is the height of arrogance.
Take responsibility for what you say: if you think restaurants not accommodating obese people should be done with the idea it will encourage those people to lose weight, that's shaming. Don't play the victim and complain the label is shaming. It is the actual word do describe trying to get someone to change that way.
I think you need to reread my original post. Nowhere did I say restaurants choosing standard seats is done to encourage the obese to lose weight. In fact, I CLEARLY stated the opposite. I said that is NOT why they do it. I wrote:
"Nobody thinks restaurant owners should TRY to shame morbidly obese people. Please stop saying that. Not having extra large seats is not an attempt to shame anyone. People don't pick restaurant seating in order to make morbidly obese people uncomfortable. They pick based on space constraints, aesthetic considerations, and cost."
This was all in my original post. I'm not sure how you could possible read that and somehow get the exact opposite meaning out of it.6 -
Okay, so your victim mentality and take responsibility has no relation? I'm not seeing the sequitur if you want to hold both the position that taking responsibility is related to this conversation, and that there's nothing telling people to change about not accommodating people at restaurants.MoiAussi93 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »It's interesting to me that this type of experience used to be seen as a source of personal shame, and now it's a reason for offense at others, because they have not accommodated the size of the person.
It's interesting to me, too. I feel that our current culture is a culture of victimization. Nobody takes personal responsibility, and everybody want to be a victim. Why? Because taking responsibility takes effort. It can be hard. Being a victim is easy. People feel sorry for you. You get status points. In the identity politics hierarchy, you are more important.
The TL/DR version: People need to step up and take more personal responsibility...for their health, for their finances, for their life choices in general. Don't claim to be a victim. Don't expect others to take on the burden of accommodating you if are unwilling to make the effort to make good choices.
The long version:
Sorry, I'm replying to many different posts in this one, so most of the below is not specifically related to the quoted post above.
It's not just weight I'm talking about. The Jussie Smollet thing is a recent example. He faked a hate crime because he thought the attention would get him more popularity and money. Victimhood pays. There are countless recent examples of people publicizing the fact that they were a crime victim (alleged...not proven...and often later shown to be hoaxes) and then making MILLIONS in gofundme donations. College students demand safe spaces and block speakers they disagree with because opinions that differ from their own make them feel "threatened". Colleges accommodate this suppression of free speech. People in our country illegally break our laws and are thrown in jail, then claim they are victimized if someone tries to deport them. People claim to be victimized by a red hat and feel entitled to assault the wearer or vandalize their property. Then they feel self-righteous about it. If arrested they feel they have been victimized twice! First by the existence of the hat, then by the arrest! There is no end to the craziness.
Victimhood has in effect become a protected class. I view this push by some to get obesity designated as a disability as more of the same. Why stop at obesity? Why shouldn't procrastinators be a protected class? You put off paying your bills until you get a late fee? That's unfair...shaming you by charging you more isn't an incentive to change, it just makes you feel bad and lowers your bank balance. Why shouldn't lazy people be protected? Didn't study for that test? Why should you get a worse grade and worse job prospects than someone who studies? After all, changing habits is very hard...you shouldn't suffer because you are struggling with it. Have trouble living within your middle class means? Why should you have to forego the latest designer fashions because you don't make as much as someone else. Credit card companies should be sympathetic and not make you pay that bill!
Nobody thinks restaurant owners should TRY to shame morbidly obese people. Please stop saying that. Not having extra large seats is not an attempt to shame anyone. People don't pick restaurant seating in order to make morbidly obese people uncomfortable. They pick based on space constraints, aesthetic considerations, and cost. However, the idea that owners should proactively try to accommodate a very small portion of the population is ridiculous. If you have a small restaurant, and can seat 60 patrons with a standard size seat, but only 50 or 55 with larger or differently designed seats, to choose the larger seats will mean reduced profits. Most business owners design for maximum profit. If a business owner notices that a large percentage of customers are having difficulty fitting in their seats, they will design for that. If, however, they are at maximum capacity most of the time and people need reservations or long waits to get in, why should they forego profit? They shouldn't.
Also...I have seen several comments in this thread which express the opinion that the government needs to fix the obesity problem. NO! NO! A thousand times NO! The government is not here to take care of every need you have and decision you make from the cradle to the grave. If you make bad decisions, it is your right to do so. Don't blame it on the government though. Parents...don't expect the government through schools to teach your children basic life skills. That is your job. Don't try to tell kids who eat properly most of the time that they can't have a cookie in school because some kids are obese. It is just insane and leads to a worsening of the problem.
As to the idea someone expressed that the left should establish the ideal and the right should execute it...what fantasy world are you living in? So you would enslave the right and make them carry out ideas they don't support? I am not sure what country you are in, but the US has a constitution. There is nothing in there about letting just one subset of the population with a specific ideology made all the decisions and then forcing the others to work to make it happen. Right and left have different agendas. Both should fight for what they believe in. Compete in the marketplace of ideas. To expect others to just let YOU pick the agenda is just immature and unrealistic. The idea that if people disagree with you, they are bad people or just don't understand something is the height of arrogance.
Take responsibility for what you say: if you think restaurants not accommodating obese people should be done with the idea it will encourage those people to lose weight, that's shaming. Don't play the victim and complain the label is shaming. It is the actual word do describe trying to get someone to change that way.
I think you need to reread my original post. Nowhere did I say restaurants choosing standard seats is done to encourage the obese to lose weight. In fact, I CLEARLY stated the opposite. I said that is NOT why they do it. I wrote:
"Nobody thinks restaurant owners should TRY to shame morbidly obese people. Please stop saying that. Not having extra large seats is not an attempt to shame anyone. People don't pick restaurant seating in order to make morbidly obese people uncomfortable. They pick based on space constraints, aesthetic considerations, and cost."
This was all in my original post. I'm not sure how you could possible read that and somehow get the exact opposite meaning out of it.
Like look, just because you say "I'm not shaming" doesn't mean you aren't shaming someone. That's not how it works.13 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Okay, so your victim mentality and take responsibility has no relation? I'm not seeing the sequitur if you want to hold both the position that taking responsibility is related to this conversation, and that there's nothing telling people to change about not accommodating people at restaurants.MoiAussi93 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »It's interesting to me that this type of experience used to be seen as a source of personal shame, and now it's a reason for offense at others, because they have not accommodated the size of the person.
It's interesting to me, too. I feel that our current culture is a culture of victimization. Nobody takes personal responsibility, and everybody want to be a victim. Why? Because taking responsibility takes effort. It can be hard. Being a victim is easy. People feel sorry for you. You get status points. In the identity politics hierarchy, you are more important.
The TL/DR version: People need to step up and take more personal responsibility...for their health, for their finances, for their life choices in general. Don't claim to be a victim. Don't expect others to take on the burden of accommodating you if are unwilling to make the effort to make good choices.
The long version:
Sorry, I'm replying to many different posts in this one, so most of the below is not specifically related to the quoted post above.
It's not just weight I'm talking about. The Jussie Smollet thing is a recent example. He faked a hate crime because he thought the attention would get him more popularity and money. Victimhood pays. There are countless recent examples of people publicizing the fact that they were a crime victim (alleged...not proven...and often later shown to be hoaxes) and then making MILLIONS in gofundme donations. College students demand safe spaces and block speakers they disagree with because opinions that differ from their own make them feel "threatened". Colleges accommodate this suppression of free speech. People in our country illegally break our laws and are thrown in jail, then claim they are victimized if someone tries to deport them. People claim to be victimized by a red hat and feel entitled to assault the wearer or vandalize their property. Then they feel self-righteous about it. If arrested they feel they have been victimized twice! First by the existence of the hat, then by the arrest! There is no end to the craziness.
Victimhood has in effect become a protected class. I view this push by some to get obesity designated as a disability as more of the same. Why stop at obesity? Why shouldn't procrastinators be a protected class? You put off paying your bills until you get a late fee? That's unfair...shaming you by charging you more isn't an incentive to change, it just makes you feel bad and lowers your bank balance. Why shouldn't lazy people be protected? Didn't study for that test? Why should you get a worse grade and worse job prospects than someone who studies? After all, changing habits is very hard...you shouldn't suffer because you are struggling with it. Have trouble living within your middle class means? Why should you have to forego the latest designer fashions because you don't make as much as someone else. Credit card companies should be sympathetic and not make you pay that bill!
Nobody thinks restaurant owners should TRY to shame morbidly obese people. Please stop saying that. Not having extra large seats is not an attempt to shame anyone. People don't pick restaurant seating in order to make morbidly obese people uncomfortable. They pick based on space constraints, aesthetic considerations, and cost. However, the idea that owners should proactively try to accommodate a very small portion of the population is ridiculous. If you have a small restaurant, and can seat 60 patrons with a standard size seat, but only 50 or 55 with larger or differently designed seats, to choose the larger seats will mean reduced profits. Most business owners design for maximum profit. If a business owner notices that a large percentage of customers are having difficulty fitting in their seats, they will design for that. If, however, they are at maximum capacity most of the time and people need reservations or long waits to get in, why should they forego profit? They shouldn't.
Also...I have seen several comments in this thread which express the opinion that the government needs to fix the obesity problem. NO! NO! A thousand times NO! The government is not here to take care of every need you have and decision you make from the cradle to the grave. If you make bad decisions, it is your right to do so. Don't blame it on the government though. Parents...don't expect the government through schools to teach your children basic life skills. That is your job. Don't try to tell kids who eat properly most of the time that they can't have a cookie in school because some kids are obese. It is just insane and leads to a worsening of the problem.
As to the idea someone expressed that the left should establish the ideal and the right should execute it...what fantasy world are you living in? So you would enslave the right and make them carry out ideas they don't support? I am not sure what country you are in, but the US has a constitution. There is nothing in there about letting just one subset of the population with a specific ideology made all the decisions and then forcing the others to work to make it happen. Right and left have different agendas. Both should fight for what they believe in. Compete in the marketplace of ideas. To expect others to just let YOU pick the agenda is just immature and unrealistic. The idea that if people disagree with you, they are bad people or just don't understand something is the height of arrogance.
Take responsibility for what you say: if you think restaurants not accommodating obese people should be done with the idea it will encourage those people to lose weight, that's shaming. Don't play the victim and complain the label is shaming. It is the actual word do describe trying to get someone to change that way.
I think you need to reread my original post. Nowhere did I say restaurants choosing standard seats is done to encourage the obese to lose weight. In fact, I CLEARLY stated the opposite. I said that is NOT why they do it. I wrote:
"Nobody thinks restaurant owners should TRY to shame morbidly obese people. Please stop saying that. Not having extra large seats is not an attempt to shame anyone. People don't pick restaurant seating in order to make morbidly obese people uncomfortable. They pick based on space constraints, aesthetic considerations, and cost."
This was all in my original post. I'm not sure how you could possible read that and somehow get the exact opposite meaning out of it.
Taking responsibility and having a victim mentality are opposites. That is the relationship.
I don't see what you are having trouble understanding. This really isn't that complicated.
Take responsibility for your own weight. Either fix it or accept it will limit you is some way. Don't expect others to change to accommodate your weight. It's not their responsibility...it's yours.
15 -
OP here - it’s been interesting reading everyone’s comments.
Can I throw out one more question?
If the woman in the story is going to all the trouble to create an app to find rstiarants with seating large enough for her, is she also accepting/acknowledging/resigning herself that (at only 30) she will always be obese?
8 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@lemurcat12 Regarding woos, I see someone's just woo'd me for my opinion on today's events in UK politics, so...
I got a couple too. I'm collecting them lol.
Is it too much to ask that the "wooer" voice their opinion as well? You know, debate forum and all...
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.Maybe a restaurateur or waiter/tress could enlighten me. Is there much call for most restaurants to provide better seating for the obese in terms of increasing footfall? I'm just thinking about how lots of women demanded larger dummies in clothes shops but it's made no difference to sales of larger sizes when it's been implemented. Or how shops don't usually stock clothing above a certain size, or indeed below or for particularly short or tall people but certain lobbies suggest that they should be able to walk into any clothes shop and find clothes literally for ALL sizes (ie just the morbidly obese). Again, this would be a loss to the retailer as it's, at the moment, a minority market. I'm clueless as to the proportion of Americans that are so fat as to require this level of accommodation.
I'd be interested to know the answer to this as well, because I think some posters are lumping overweight, obese, and morbidly obese people all into the same demographic for this discussion. And I'm not sure the problem being discussed is a problem for all three categories of people. If you consider all three categories, then we may very well be talking about a majority of consumers. If we are just considering morbidly obese people, I'm not sure that's a substantial enough demographic to be worth restaurants re-imagining their public space for. This is just me guessing though!
In practice, I think it's even more complicated than that. I say that from the perspective of someone who was fairly fit while obese (just into class 1 obese, not morbidly obese).
Elsewhere on MFP, at greater length, I told about going to a restaurant with 14 people from a mixed-media arts workshop. This is an activity that tends toward participants who are sedentary, not active, generally middle aged or older (not always), and frequently overweight to obese, sometime quite obese. The restaurant gave us a high-top with tall chairs. Everyone got into the chairs and ate, but a significant fraction of the group were very uncomfortable (numbness because they couldn't get feet onto the foot-rest/cross-rails and that sort of thing), and a few needed others' help to get onto the chair. Only I and a couple of others hopped right up without hesitation or difficulty.
So, what's my point? At the time that happened, I was already thin. But I would've had no more problems with the scenario when I'd been obese, I'm quite sure. Why? Greater fitness. More maneuverable, stronger, more flexible, better circulation, etc. (There would've been some point of obesity, beyond the weight I ever reached, even with fitness, where those chairs would've been a problem for me, too.)
There are all kinds and degrees of incapability. I have friends who are short so can't do most booths (table too far away), tall friends who don't fit short tables or chairs (legs in the aisle), unfit people of various sizes without the capability to get a leg over a standard picnic table bench, people with poor circulation who shy away from barstools or high-tops, etc.
These things all interplay with one another. At some point, obesity may be the predominant factor, but a bunch of other things . . . and that's without getting into too many issues that are nearly 100% unrelated to obesity, but can co-occur or stand alone, like injury-related mobility issues.
What's my point? Good question. I think it's that restaurants could consider a whole range of comfort and accommodation issues, and some of the accommodative seating could accommodate different "minority" (for lack of a better term) needs (some easy-to access larger seats along a wider aisle could acccommodate people who are obese or unfit or using wheelchairs, for example). It's not just "do this for obese people". I'm not arguing that restaurants always need to do so, but it's a reasonable business consideration, and probably applies differently to different types of establishments, looking at it only from the pespective of the establishment's business model and best interests.5 -
OP here - it’s been interesting reading everyone’s comments.
Can I throw out one more question?
If the woman in the story is going to all the trouble to create an app to find rstiarants with seating large enough for her, is she also accepting/acknowledging/resigning herself that (at only 30) she will always be obese?
That doesn't automatically follow. A person can be in the process of losing weight and still appreciate being able to sit comfortably. She could also know others who can use the app. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing, obese or slender, situation.9 -
rheddmobile wrote: »HeliumIsNoble 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.lleeann2001 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »HeliumIsNoble 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.
Yep, afraid so. I’m in Memphis, BTW, and not a particularly bad neighborhood, just a declining one. Lots of zip codes here are much worse. I’m more than usually aware of the crime level here at the moment since I happened to hear the shots fired which hit the two people the other night. Which would make the fourth time I’ve been a “witness,” on some level, to a shooting, including a gas station robbery when I literally watched a guy get shot. My mom and I were discussing this just yesterday trying to count the number of people we have a connection to who have been murdered, since her house cleaner called to say she could not come in since her son was shot and killed outside a bar. It definitely has an impact on the way I live my life, knowing that these things happen regularly here. For example, the park where I run has signs instructing people not to run without a buddy for safety reasons, and the local runner’s club rates trails by safety. It has to have some impact on the fitness levels of the population, when the first thing said to me whenever I say I’m a runner is, wow, you run alone here?
@Phirrgus Where are you, if you don’t mind me asking?2 -
OP here - it’s been interesting reading everyone’s comments.
Can I throw out one more question?
If the woman in the story is going to all the trouble to create an app to find rstiarants with seating large enough for her, is she also accepting/acknowledging/resigning herself that (at only 30) she will always be obese?
It could be, and it could be not. It's her own choice to make. Being passionate about something and wanting to help people may happen regardless of a person's condition.
I'm no longer morbidly obese, but I seriously considered at some point starting a local initiative similar to health at every size but without the dogma. I decided against it because it's such a commitment, but I don't think losing even more weight would make me stop caring about the mental toll being obese takes on some people when I'm a living proof that being a happy fat person is not a pipe dream. I think I will always be obese at heart regardless of my weight and will always care about that group.6 -
OP here - it’s been interesting reading everyone’s comments.
Can I throw out one more question?
If the woman in the story is going to all the trouble to create an app to find rstiarants with seating large enough for her, is she also accepting/acknowledging/resigning herself that (at only 30) she will always be obese?
In addition to possible reasons others have mentioned:
There are fairly numerous obese people, a situation likely to persist for quite some time into the future.
Creating widely-used apps, even for a niche audience, has a potential to provide financial profit (often through advertising). This is an interest group with several categories of marketers who might like to reach them, including the accommodating restaurants.
She may've recognized a need, and is creating the app for profit, alongside "nobler" motivations. Profit accrues to thin people, as well as obese ones.4 -
OP here - it’s been interesting reading everyone’s comments.
Can I throw out one more question?
If the woman in the story is going to all the trouble to create an app to find rstiarants with seating large enough for her, is she also accepting/acknowledging/resigning herself that (at only 30) she will always be obese?
I think that's something that you'd have to ask her to get an accurate answer for. That said, I personally think you can create an app or solution for a problem that you hope you won't face in the future and as well as for a problem that you know that you personally won't always face but know others will continue to face.0 -
OP here - it’s been interesting reading everyone’s comments.
Can I throw out one more question?
If the woman in the story is going to all the trouble to create an app to find rstiarants with seating large enough for her, is she also accepting/acknowledging/resigning herself that (at only 30) she will always be obese?
"all the trouble" of creating an app? what makes you think that's so difficult for her?2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »HeliumIsNoble 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.lleeann2001 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »HeliumIsNoble 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.
Yep, afraid so. I’m in Memphis, BTW, and not a particularly bad neighborhood, just a declining one. Lots of zip codes here are much worse. I’m more than usually aware of the crime level here at the moment since I happened to hear the shots fired which hit the two people the other night. Which would make the fourth time I’ve been a “witness,” on some level, to a shooting, including a gas station robbery when I literally watched a guy get shot. My mom and I were discussing this just yesterday trying to count the number of people we have a connection to who have been murdered, since her house cleaner called to say she could not come in since her son was shot and killed outside a bar. It definitely has an impact on the way I live my life, knowing that these things happen regularly here. For example, the park where I run has signs instructing people not to run without a buddy for safety reasons, and the local runner’s club rates trails by safety. It has to have some impact on the fitness levels of the population, when the first thing said to me whenever I say I’m a runner is, wow, you run alone here?
@Phirrgus Where are you, if you don’t mind me asking?
@rheddmobile We're just south of Boston. When you spoke initially about the risks in your area it just sounded so much like home...Dear Lord that is sad 😂
We keep hoping though. It's a good neighborhood,, our neighbors are fantastic and we may actually be seeing a decline in crime over the past year or so. We love to walk, but she won't go alone which I'm good with as I don't even like her being out front alone. Not long ago 4 guys in a car attacked a couple of teenagers out front. They were grabbing the girl...no way to know if it was a robbery or kidnapping attempt, or both. I got to her first and they panicked and fled thank God. My best half is a real braveheart type 💪lol, but I refuse to take chances. So we drive to Cape Cod or New Hampshire lol.3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »
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 referenceHeliumIsNoble 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
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.
Actually we had a president go much further the Ms Obama did (IMO) to encourage heath and fitness in the US over 50 years ago. Through several administrations, both political parties things really haven't gotten any better IMO (actually probably worse).
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/physical-fitness
@Theoldguy1 Apologies I completely missed your post yesterday. I completely agree and personally don't have an issue with that type of initiative. My take is that if it's benefiting the people, who cares what the motive is behind it. Something like Mr. Kennedy's would probably be quite welcome these days, but, regarding your last sentence...let's just say I agree.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions