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
-
I found the article shameful. As someone who was large the most of last half of my life so far I never took pity on myself when I had to wait because only a booth was available and I wouldn't fit. I flew in planes, and I had the fortune of never needing a second seat, but if I did I was prepared to pay for it. It is not the company's responsibility to scale everything to the largest size for a small group, but to be efficient and scale to the average to accommodate the majority. I had to sit on small chairs in Japan. They were the right size for all the other patrons.
If a restaurant or airline CHOOSES to cater to larger sizes, that's THEIR choice. The story almost seemed like a guilt trip saying it's not their fault and places should cater to them. Sorry, it was OUR fault. I didn't require bariatric surgery. I am hungry a lot because I stretched my stomach out over decades. My issue I deal with. I have learned to control myself. I have lost weight. It's not impossible. It seemed like it, but it wasn't. There may be exceptions, but if the doctor doesn't tell you it and you think you are, news for you... you AREN'T.
This is why I respect Dawn French. She owns up to being what she is. She made the choice, and she lives her life. I don't have to agree with why she chooses to be heavy, but it's her CHOICE, and that's it.12 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Here's a follow-up question for those who think uncomfortable (or impossible) seating is potentially helpful, because it will make obese people more likely to realize that they need to change their behavior in order to be healthier and more comfortable:
Let's say it works. So, we have an obese person who's seen the light, and is totally on-board with eating less, and moving more. If they're severely obese, they're going to continue to be fat for another year or two, while losing weight.
Do they need to keep feeling uncomfortable for those couple of years as reinforcement, or should we have little psychology tests or blood tests or something that will let them enter a special "way fat but saw the light" seating area where they can eat their salad in happy peace with the thin people from their Zumba class, or do they need to stay social pariahs until they actually comfortably fit the seating?
(Note to the literal: See "Swift, Jonathan: A Modest Proposal.")
Personally, I think it's not my job to effectively ostracize people for being fat, and not society's job generally. It may be a social responsibility (personally or collectively) to provide positive influences and incentives, but that's about it, IMO. There's plenty of psych research suggesting that punishment for negatives is less effective than encouragement for positives. While society takes it upon itself these days to constrain business owners - who are providing a service to the public - in various ways (like the ADA), we don't (usually) go to unreasonable extremes - like, I dunno, requiring private dining booths for people with social anxiety? If business owners choose to provide more accommodating seating, or private dining booths, or individuals create apps to make it easier to find accommodating seating or private dining booths, why should the rest of us care?
Business owners aren't ostracizing fat people. Your post implies it is a deliberate effort to keep obese people out or make them uncomfortable or encourage them to lose weight. It isn't.
Most of the posts here are simply saying it is not the business owner's responsibility to make changes to accommodate morbid obesity. Big difference.
Nobody has a problem with a business owner who does decide to make a special effort to accommodate heavy customers. That is their right, and if they think it will make their business more successful they will do it. I am just saying they don't have to. If it would be extra expense and less revenue, they won't do it and they shouldn't be criticized for not doing it.
No, to the bolded.
What I said was that some people's posts on this thread suggest that people not fitting comfortably in restaurant seats has a positive social effect, i.e., encourages obese people to lose weight to fit in. I was asking whether, in their scenario, fat people who had mentally reformed, but weren't thin yet (because it takes time to get thin), should get a hall pass to visit restaurants in comfort, during the couple of years where they're actively working to lose weight.
I read the article linked in the OP, and understood it. I in no way say in my post that the business owner needs to accommodate obese people (or should not). Unless the law changes, it's up to the business owner, as you say. I'm neutral.
I'm asking those who think it's good not to accommodate people an intentionally absurd question, because I think it is up to the business owner (at this point, anyway), and that we (the general public) don't have a legit role in manipulating fat people by promoting unaccommodating seating. And it wouldn't work, anyway, because punishment is not a very effective way to motivate people to change.12 -
rianneonamission wrote: »I'm sure it would take less than five minutes to find as many articles about how uncomfortable people who are tall get when traveling by air or train though. Complete with blaming airlines ie - "airlines are profiting from making tall people more uncomfortable by limiting the amount of legroom"
The thing is: You can do something about obesity. When it comes to height, be it short or tall, you are stuck with it for life. I cannot shrink myself. Yet in order to get adequate leg room on a plane as a tall person I have to pay extra.
To me it feels that, by blaming restaurants for not providing adequate seating for their size, obese people are not accepting of the fact that they do have a problem which needs addressing. Not to mention that the increasing accommodating of obesity will only make the problem worse. And given that it is proven that obesity is unhealthy, why would we even want to make the problem any bigger than it already is?
I don't go round complaining that tops or trousers are too short for me in most shops. Instead I find shops that do cater to me. I don't go around demanding free extra leg room on planes. I either grin and bear it on short flights, or pay extra if I can afford it. Because the problem is mine, no one else's.
I don't disagree with you. What I was responding to, however, was someone saying that there weren't articles where people talked about (or maybe the person said complained) the issues that come with people doing XYZ thing while being shorter than average.
As I mentioned earlier today, almost nothing in the article involves people actually complaining or being disgruntled about restaurants lack of accommodation. There's also no or almost no blaming of restaurants in the article (I'm not sure where people are getting this from other than just not reading the article). The majority of it is about what restaurants are doing to accommodate people and what people are doing to find restaurants that are accommodating.
An additional possibility: Reading, and reading comprehension, are related but not identical things.3 -
bigbandjohn wrote: »
This is why I respect Dawn French. She owns up to being what she is. She made the choice, and she lives her life. I don't have to agree with why she chooses to be heavy, but it's her CHOICE, and that's it.
Dawn French has lost about 8 stone as she was due an operation and it was to reduce the potential recovery time.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Here's a follow-up question for those who think uncomfortable (or impossible) seating is potentially helpful, because it will make obese people more likely to realize that they need to change their behavior in order to be healthier and more comfortable:
Let's say it works. So, we have an obese person who's seen the light, and is totally on-board with eating less, and moving more. If they're severely obese, they're going to continue to be fat for another year or two, while losing weight.
Do they need to keep feeling uncomfortable for those couple of years as reinforcement, or should we have little psychology tests or blood tests or something that will let them enter a special "way fat but saw the light" seating area where they can eat their salad in happy peace with the thin people from their Zumba class, or do they need to stay social pariahs until they actually comfortably fit the seating?
(Note to the literal: See "Swift, Jonathan: A Modest Proposal.")
Personally, I think it's not my job to effectively ostracize people for being fat, and not society's job generally. It may be a social responsibility (personally or collectively) to provide positive influences and incentives, but that's about it, IMO. There's plenty of psych research suggesting that punishment for negatives is less effective than encouragement for positives. While society takes it upon itself these days to constrain business owners - who are providing a service to the public - in various ways (like the ADA), we don't (usually) go to unreasonable extremes - like, I dunno, requiring private dining booths for people with social anxiety? If business owners choose to provide more accommodating seating, or private dining booths, or individuals create apps to make it easier to find accommodating seating or private dining booths, why should the rest of us care?
Business owners aren't ostracizing fat people. Your post implies it is a deliberate effort to keep obese people out or make them uncomfortable or encourage them to lose weight. It isn't.
Most of the posts here are simply saying it is not the business owner's responsibility to make changes to accommodate morbid obesity. Big difference.
Nobody has a problem with a business owner who does decide to make a special effort to accommodate heavy customers. That is their right, and if they think it will make their business more successful they will do it. I am just saying they don't have to. If it would be extra expense and less revenue, they won't do it and they shouldn't be criticized for not doing it.
No, to the bolded.
What I said was that some people's posts on this thread suggest that people not fitting comfortably in restaurant seats has a positive social effect, i.e., encourages obese people to lose weight to fit in. I was asking whether, in their scenario, fat people who had mentally reformed, but weren't thin yet (because it takes time to get thin), should get a hall pass to visit restaurants in comfort, during the couple of years where they're actively working to lose weight.
I read the article linked in the OP, and understood it. I in no way say in my post that the business owner needs to accommodate obese people (or should not). Unless the law changes, it's up to the business owner, as you say. I'm neutral.
I'm asking those who think it's good not to accommodate people an intentionally absurd question, because I think it is up to the business owner (at this point, anyway), and that we (the general public) don't have a legit role in manipulating fat people by promoting unaccommodating seating. And it wouldn't work, anyway, because punishment is not a very effective way to motivate people to change.
We interpreted the posts in this thread very differently. I did not think any of those posts meant that because it might encourage them to lose weight, restaurants should choose tight seating. I don't even think they meant that it is good if there is small seating (for whatever reason it was chosen) because it might make people lose weight.
My interpretation of these posts you mention was more along the lines of "It's not the restaurant owner's responsibility to choose extra large seats. It's unfortunate for these customers that they aren't comfortable, but business owner's have to worry about their business first. But...maybe a silver lining for these customers, at least for some of them, is that tight fitting uncomfortable seating might give them that little extra nudge to either lose weight or stick with the weight loss program they are on"
I see it more as looking on the bright side and trying to find something good in the situation. After all, several people in this post did express that, at least for them, it was some motivation. I did not view them as celebrating tight seating for the perceived social good it might do. I viewed it as just trying to make the best of a suboptimal situation.6 -
rianneonamission wrote: »I'm sure it would take less than five minutes to find as many articles about how uncomfortable people who are tall get when traveling by air or train though. Complete with blaming airlines ie - "airlines are profiting from making tall people more uncomfortable by limiting the amount of legroom"
The thing is: You can do something about obesity. When it comes to height, be it short or tall, you are stuck with it for life. I cannot shrink myself. Yet in order to get adequate leg room on a plane as a tall person I have to pay extra.
To me it feels that, by blaming restaurants for not providing adequate seating for their size, obese people are not accepting of the fact that they do have a problem which needs addressing. Not to mention that the increasing accommodating of obesity will only make the problem worse. And given that it is proven that obesity is unhealthy, why would we even want to make the problem any bigger than it already is?
I don't go round complaining that tops or trousers are too short for me in most shops. Instead I find shops that do cater to me. I don't go around demanding free extra leg room on planes. I either grin and bear it on short flights, or pay extra if I can afford it. Because the problem is mine, no one else's.
I don't disagree with you. What I was responding to, however, was someone saying that there weren't articles where people talked about (or maybe the person said complained) the issues that come with people doing XYZ thing while being shorter than average.
As I mentioned earlier today, almost nothing in the article involves people actually complaining or being disgruntled about restaurants lack of accommodation. There's also no or almost no blaming of restaurants in the article (I'm not sure where people are getting this from other than just not reading the article). The majority of it is about what restaurants are doing to accommodate people and what people are doing to find restaurants that are accommodating.
An additional possibility: Reading, and reading comprehension, are related but not identical things.
Yeah I'm going with a mix of that and numerous people having not read the article but posting "about it" nonetheless.1 -
I don't understand the posts saying restaurants should focus on their business instead of making their customers comfortable. Their business is making people feel comfortable. They rely on repeat customers and word of mouth.11
-
I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
7 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?8 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
Given how many alcoholics there are and how easy it is to feed that addiction in restaurants and bars, I'm pretty sure restaurants are already accommodating them. They don't need to go the extra mile that you're musing about. Not accommodating them would be doing something like severely restricting the amount of alcohol one could buy.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point
No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions. 6 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
Given how many alcoholics there are and how easy it is to feed that addiction in restaurants and bars, I'm pretty sure restaurants are already accommodating them. They don't need to go the extra mile that you're musing about. Not accommodating them would be doing something like severely restricting the amount of alcohol one could buy.
There already is a restriction with bars when it comes to serving alcohol, and any responsible bar will limit the amount of alcohol they are serving their patrons. Overserving is an issue with a lot of bars and those bars and bartenders who encourage it are completely irresponsible. If a person is overserved and they then get into an accident, the bar owner and the person that served them last can be held responsible. Back in the day when I was still bartending, I cut a patron off, they went to the bar next door, got even more wasted, and then crashed their car into the underside of a bridge killing them and two others. The bar owner lost everything in the resulting lawsuit. Equating larger chairs with accommodating alcoholics is absurd and although I understand it was given as an extreme example, its not even a fair comparison. I don't see how a business adding larger chairs is encouraging anything other than comfort. The whole point of running a business is to make money, and ensuring that the guests are comfortable is just another step towards making that business successful.8 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...
I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.
The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.5 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
Well, alcoholics tend to drink home drunk from the bars, and that's really dangerous for everyone else. Being obese doesn't put everyone else in harm's way.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...
I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.
The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.
I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.
Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...
I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.
The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.
I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.
Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.
I agree with you...it was the app I was referencing as a good effort. And yes, a restaurant is a business first and foremost. Those who want to keep the customer base will choose to accommodate.
A bit of a side note...I always squirm a bit whenever talk arises that carries any hint of over stepping personal boundaries. This isn't directed at you, just generally, but I'm fairly certain that people who are obese know it. I'd much rather err on the side of treating others with dignity.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...
I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.
The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.
I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.
Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.
I agree with you...it was the app I was referencing as a good effort. And yes, a restaurant is a business first and foremost. Those who want to keep the customer base will choose to accommodate.
A bit of a side note...I always squirm a bit whenever talk arises that carries any hint of over stepping personal boundaries. This isn't directed at you, just generally, but I'm fairly certain that people who are obese know it. I'd much rather err on the side of treating others with dignity.
Yes, I have the same policy. When it comes to the weight of other people, I'm not saying anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion or input.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...
I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.
The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.
I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.
Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.
I agree with you...it was the app I was referencing as a good effort. And yes, a restaurant is a business first and foremost. Those who want to keep the customer base will choose to accommodate.
A bit of a side note...I always squirm a bit whenever talk arises that carries any hint of over stepping personal boundaries. This isn't directed at you, just generally, but I'm fairly certain that people who are obese know it. I'd much rather err on the side of treating others with dignity.
Yes, I have the same policy. When it comes to the weight of other people, I'm not saying anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion or input.
🙂👍 I have made exceptions in the case of a couple of loved ones though, but that's a whole different topic.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...
I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.
The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.
I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.
Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.
I agree with you...it was the app I was referencing as a good effort. And yes, a restaurant is a business first and foremost. Those who want to keep the customer base will choose to accommodate.
A bit of a side note...I always squirm a bit whenever talk arises that carries any hint of over stepping personal boundaries. This isn't directed at you, just generally, but I'm fairly certain that people who are obese know it. I'd much rather err on the side of treating others with dignity.
Yes, I have the same policy. When it comes to the weight of other people, I'm not saying anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion or input.
🙂👍 I have made exceptions in the case of a couple of loved ones though, but that's a whole different topic.
Yeah, I think it can be appropriate when it's a family member or someone very close and the conversation was coming from a place of true concern. I've never been in that boat, fortunately, but if I did have a family member who was significantly over- or underweight, I would probably also talk to them.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...
I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.
The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.
I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.
Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.
I agree with you...it was the app I was referencing as a good effort. And yes, a restaurant is a business first and foremost. Those who want to keep the customer base will choose to accommodate.
A bit of a side note...I always squirm a bit whenever talk arises that carries any hint of over stepping personal boundaries. This isn't directed at you, just generally, but I'm fairly certain that people who are obese know it. I'd much rather err on the side of treating others with dignity.
Yes, I have the same policy. When it comes to the weight of other people, I'm not saying anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion or input.
🙂👍 I have made exceptions in the case of a couple of loved ones though, but that's a whole different topic.
Yeah, I think it can be appropriate when it's a family member or someone very close and the conversation was coming from a place of true concern. I've never been in that boat, fortunately, but if I did have a family member who was significantly over- or underweight, I would probably also talk to them.
It was so worth it in one case, she (SiL) is now down about 30lbs...about 120 to go. My dad...well, he didn't listen. Trying was the right thing to do though.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.12 -
funjen1972 wrote: »Just throwing this out for considerstion, not my opinion...
I identify as a tall slender female (ha!). Should restaurants have seating which prevents my knees from hitting the underside of a table? Should bar stools always have padding since I don't have much of my own? Should the distance between chairs be closer so I can be a comfortable distance to the others in my party?
I identify as a lefted handed person (ha!). Should we switch the orientation of place settings, water glass and silverware? Should the TP be on the other side of the stall? Should door handles be changed to the other side?
What about if I identify as a great tipper, a horrible tipper, a fast eater, a slow eater, a yeller, a rude patron, a very short person, a drunk, allergic to 10000 things, a (insert anything here)... Should I be accommodated?
Just some thoughts to ponder...
I'm going to go out on a wild limb and say as a tall slender female, the world in general is probably designed to cater to you more than an obese person.
For a weight loss site, there's an interesting amount of casual anti-fat bias on here sometimes.
You're surprised that a site full of people actively maintaining or in the process of achieving a healthy weight demonstrate an anti-fat bias? You're talking about a group that knows through personal experience there is almost no reason for anyone to be obese. There is no shortage of people here who have overcome all of the oft-quoted reasons that people just can't seem to lose weight: PCOS, diabetes, thyroid conditions, menopause, advanced age, physical disability, medication side-effects etc. etc. When you realize that the main thing that makes a person obese in most cases is their own personal choice, whether conscious or subconscious, to allow it to happen, it's kind of hard not to have an anti-fat bias.
Of course that doesn't mean you can abandon compassion or that you have the right to be openly mean to overweight or obese people but everyone that sticks around here knows or will learn that almost no one has good cause to be that way. The exceptions that exist, those with good medical reason, certainly do not comprise roughly half of the North American population.
7 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?1 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
The reason why bartenders cut people off is because of the potential a drunk person has to injure *others*. It isn't to attempt to shame someone into sobriety.
These people aren't becoming fat because restaurant seats are too comfortable. They're already obese due to the amount of food they're eating relative to their activity level. If this is the job of restaurants to address, why focus on the chairs instead of the food?
It's like blaming the barstool for the existence of alcoholics. I don't see one good reason to think that keeping restaurant seating at the exact same place it is today will do anything to reduce obesity in this country.
When you talk about laws that require bartenders to avoid over-serving or restrictions on selling certain over-the-counter drugs, you're addressing laws that have been passed due to the perception of a public need. This article was about restaurants voluntarily choosing whether or not to add seats that are more comfortable for obese people. Are you saying you think the law should restrict seating that is more comfortable? I'm not 100% sure what you're even advocating for or how the bar and drug store relate to what you think restaurants should be doing here.
Obesity is a public health problem. I believe that on a personal level, which is why I manage my own weight. However, we still don't have a great sense of what public policies will actually encourage weight loss on a meaningful level. We don't know if more comfortable seating will make people give up and decide to be overweight, so this just seems like a scattershot approach. The only thing we know for sure is that it will create short term discomfort and potential embarrassment for people who are just . . . people.
You're arguing from an obligation for public health and using the example of legal consequences in other areas. Do you think restaurants should be banned from making these type of changes?
If restaurants do have the primary obligation to serve public health, why stop with just the chairs? Why not focus on what we know is the primary *cause* of obesity, people eating more calories than they can use? Would you suggest that restaurants have an obligation not to serve certain portions to people who are overweight? What about people who are normal weight but are ordering more than they "should" for a single meal? Where is the line that a restaurant has responsibility for the choices that people are making?9 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
My health is none of your concern. Why are you fixated on us fatties? Is it because our "shortcomings" are visible? Why aren't you worried about the health of night shift workers or extreme sport lovers? Do you also propose all establishments close their doors by 10 so we're not enabling the harmful behavior of poor sleep? Cancer treatment is very expensive, why aren't you proposing we close beaches and tanning salons? Better yet, why not work on a cure for obesity that doesn't have a high chance of relapse, maybe you'll succeed where many have failed (hint: wanting fat people to sit in uncomfortable chairs is not it).19 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...
I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.
The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.
I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.
Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.
I agree with you...it was the app I was referencing as a good effort. And yes, a restaurant is a business first and foremost. Those who want to keep the customer base will choose to accommodate.
A bit of a side note...I always squirm a bit whenever talk arises that carries any hint of over stepping personal boundaries. This isn't directed at you, just generally, but I'm fairly certain that people who are obese know it. I'd much rather err on the side of treating others with dignity.
Yes, I have the same policy. When it comes to the weight of other people, I'm not saying anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion or input.
🙂👍 I have made exceptions in the case of a couple of loved ones though, but that's a whole different topic.
Yeah, I think it can be appropriate when it's a family member or someone very close and the conversation was coming from a place of true concern. I've never been in that boat, fortunately, but if I did have a family member who was significantly over- or underweight, I would probably also talk to them.
It was so worth it in one case, she (SiL) is now down about 30lbs...about 120 to go. My dad...well, he didn't listen. Trying was the right thing to do though.
In situations like this, I've personally found the best way to 'help' is to lead by example, and stfu.
The overweight people in my life know they're overweight, just like I did when I was.
The intent of my genuine concern for them aside, I know how easily that can be misinterpreted as being judgey, demeaning, or worse - seen as being self-congratulatory. The ol, "Hey, look at me! If I can do it, you can, too!" really isn't as inspirational as one might think. LOL. It can definitely backfire.
I've found that people will generally only chose to do something about their obesity when they're entirely ready to. What triggers them into finally making a change is highly individual and usually has nothing to do with 'talks' from concerned friends or family. It's most likely that - medical emergencies aside - they were simply ready to finally start doing something about a health issue they've been aware of for a long time.
The obese people in my life have watched me lose weight. They've also watched me keep it off. We've talked about it in casual conversation, but only when they bought it up. I gave them as much (or, more importantly - as little) information as their level of interest warranted at the time. Planted a seed, if you will, and then let it go.
When and if they're ready to make a change and want to talk to someone who's been there, they know where to find me. In the interim, it's important to me that they haven't felt judged.10 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.6 -
If you want to make the analogy, what you should attack are all you can eat places and not allowing people to order beyond a certain amount of food (like maybe banning soda above a certain size, I understand that effort worked out really well).
Good luck with that effort.
With respect to encouraging restaurants to make seating LESS comfortable for fat people (which seems to be what you are getting at), there's no evidence that making fat people feel more uncomfortable and embarrassed about their appearances on a regular basis would cause fat loss. It's not actually difficult to decide it's too humiliating to eat in restaurants and stuff your face at home (including with delivery).
But in any case, the analogy breaks down because the dram shop laws are very closely related to the immediate harm of drunk driving. There is nothing that prevents people from buying as much alcohol as they like at a store and drinking it while sitting on their own couch. That has a health effect, as does over eating, to the extent we share health costs (and in fact a bunch of other costs that overeating doesn't have), and is not addressed by dram shop laws, of course.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
One could even argue that larger restaurant portions - and they are larger than they once were, and I think the foods more caloric on average now - is one (among very many) factors that contribute(d) to the prevalence of obesity.
Before anyone starts thinking I'm making an "evil restaurantz made me fat!" pitch, I'm not.
People (statistically speaking) like large portions, it seems like a good value, and feels more indulgent to the consumer, so offering large portions is a business decision that's responsive to peoples' tastes (population-wide averages/trends, not individual preference). Same with more fried fat/carb foods that are high in calories: People order them, restaurants offer more. There's no conspiracy. The restaurant industry responds to customer behavior (injecting cost-minimizing measures where it doesn't excessively drag down their customer numbers).
There's no conspiracy. IMO, all of this is driven primarily by collective consumer preference, with individual choices at the root, and those are an individual responsibility. If we used our money to "vote" that we wanted different fare, we'd get it.
I agree that it's not restaurants' job to shape our individual behavior. IMO it can be a little bit something "society" should sometimes try to shape (through laws/regulations among other measures), where individual behavior creates social costs (like the alcohol example); and in general, intelligent positive influences (and maybe a few "make bad stuff expensive" ones, like tobacco taxes) are likely to be more effective at a societal level than fostering unaccommodating strategies.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions