Supersize Me!!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Only in Canada, eh?
A slight thread drift.
In Montreal a convicted criminal is being let out of jail 6 months earlier than his sentence because he is too fat. He apparently wasn't as fat when he got in. He is around 400 lbs now.
How do you obese-apologists react to that?
In Montreal a convicted criminal is being let out of jail 6 months earlier than his sentence because he is too fat. He apparently wasn't as fat when he got in. He is around 400 lbs now.
How do you obese-apologists react to that?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rainboe
[QUOTE]The easiest solution is that those who don't fit in a human seat pay for their own second seat rather than 'bum' off the rest of the human population, if you pardon the expression.[/QUOTE?
In which case, you will agree with me that it is quite unacceptable that children, who have their own seat and baggage allowance, freeload by receiving reduced fares?
Dushan
If he has a sharp lawyer, he'll probably be able to sue for a handsome fee, given that he had to eat prison food and they (no doubt) have a duty of care to give him a healthy diet 
Clareprop
Very funny, I fit easily into a standard seat
Jetset Lady
Try looking at it this way then, if you don't get your full seat, the airline has just ripped you off, hasn't it?
This new ruling means no slim people are going to get ripped off.
As other posters have said, Southwest has a well thought out policy on this, but the other airlines do not.
The court, in its wisdom, has decideded it is fair that the extra sized people do not pay extra.
All I am saying is it's not the worst outcome in the bigger scheme of things.
[QUOTE]The easiest solution is that those who don't fit in a human seat pay for their own second seat rather than 'bum' off the rest of the human population, if you pardon the expression.[/QUOTE?
In which case, you will agree with me that it is quite unacceptable that children, who have their own seat and baggage allowance, freeload by receiving reduced fares?
Dushan
How do you obese-apologists react to that?
Clareprop
Very funny, I fit easily into a standard seat
Jetset Lady
So I've paid for my seat in full, yet I then have to pay an extra charge to ensure that I get all of that seat, the same one that I've already paid for, to myself. How exactly is that a benefit?
This new ruling means no slim people are going to get ripped off.
As other posters have said, Southwest has a well thought out policy on this, but the other airlines do not.
The court, in its wisdom, has decideded it is fair that the extra sized people do not pay extra.
All I am saying is it's not the worst outcome in the bigger scheme of things.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rainboe
Blustering again are we?
Generalisation and particularisation are always difficult to debate effectively, why not have a go, rather than just puff away?
You could try the argument that children use less fuel due to lower weight or you could argue that families deserve a little help with their costs or even that my argument is false, because some locos charge a uniform rate for all.
But to make a generalisation "The easiest solution is that those who don't fit in a human seat pay for their own second seat rather than 'bum' off the rest of the human population" and then to be apprently incapable of defending it against a dodgy attempt at particularisation, is weak stuff.
Blustering again are we?
Generalisation and particularisation are always difficult to debate effectively, why not have a go, rather than just puff away?
You could try the argument that children use less fuel due to lower weight or you could argue that families deserve a little help with their costs or even that my argument is false, because some locos charge a uniform rate for all.
But to make a generalisation "The easiest solution is that those who don't fit in a human seat pay for their own second seat rather than 'bum' off the rest of the human population" and then to be apprently incapable of defending it against a dodgy attempt at particularisation, is weak stuff.
OOOh where to start//?
Because child is a child naturally, wheras a fattie is a fattie because he/she eats too many pies..?
or
A Child has one or two full paying fare adults accompanying or if travelling alone pays extra?
or
A child weighs less than an adult, especial a fattie..?
I'm now opening a personal book on whether F3G says again "this is my last word on the subject..."
Because child is a child naturally, wheras a fattie is a fattie because he/she eats too many pies..?
or
A Child has one or two full paying fare adults accompanying or if travelling alone pays extra?
or
A child weighs less than an adult, especial a fattie..?
I'm now opening a personal book on whether F3G says again "this is my last word on the subject..."
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Final 3 Greens
Try looking at it this way then, if you don't get your full seat, the airline has just ripped you off, hasn't it?
This new ruling means no slim people are going to get ripped off.
This new ruling means no slim people are going to get ripped off.
As you say, it's not a huge thing in the great scheme of things, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent. As previously said, why should tall people not get concessions, especially considering they can't help their height? Come to that, as someone who's 5'2" and small framed, maybe I should push for a discount on my fares as it costs the airline less money to transport me. If they are going to have this sort of ruling for one group of people, then it will open the doors for everyone else who isn't your average height/weight/size. Who knows where it will end.
Jsl
Guest
Posts: n/a
JSL
I quite understand your point of view and it's valid.
The heart of the argument is about generalisation and particularisation, which means how society chooses to create special cases to deal 'fairly' with certain situations.
We could probably have a 1,000 post debate about the definition of the word 'society, but if we accept that society delegates these decisions to politicians and other lawmakers, then this court in Canada represents 'society', even though many may not agree with the ruling.
This court appears to be treating obesity in the same way as being disabled and many on this board do not like that - fair enough.
But there are other examples of special cases who receive better fares or other benefits
- children
- disabled
- students
Then, what about
- pregnant women
- tall people
Some people's special cases are other people's freeloaders.
But surely, that's exactly what it does mean as I'm now having to pay extra, which is in itself, ripping me off.
The heart of the argument is about generalisation and particularisation, which means how society chooses to create special cases to deal 'fairly' with certain situations.
We could probably have a 1,000 post debate about the definition of the word 'society, but if we accept that society delegates these decisions to politicians and other lawmakers, then this court in Canada represents 'society', even though many may not agree with the ruling.
This court appears to be treating obesity in the same way as being disabled and many on this board do not like that - fair enough.
But there are other examples of special cases who receive better fares or other benefits
- children
- disabled
- students
Then, what about
- pregnant women
- tall people
Some people's special cases are other people's freeloaders.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Final 3 Greens
All I am saying is it's not the worst outcome in the bigger scheme of things.
Children, disabled, tall = no problem. They have no control over how they are.
Students, pregnant, fat - life choice = no deal...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Big' or 'Small' discrimination isn't the issue. I'm "Big" at 6ft4 and 15.5 stone, but due to the fact that I have a 34" waist I still fit into a single Human seat.
Need more than one seat = Pay for more than one seat. Simple as.
Of course, I could argue for a partial refund seeing as I don't get the use of a headrest? (The seat finishes at shoulder height for me).
Need more than one seat = Pay for more than one seat. Simple as.
Of course, I could argue for a partial refund seeing as I don't get the use of a headrest? (The seat finishes at shoulder height for me).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dushan
What about
Disabled - paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk
Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder
It's this generalisation/particularisation thing again, isn't it? Makes it tough to have a black and white rule that everyone accepts.
At least it's clear that children and tall people have no choice in the matter
What about
Disabled - paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk
Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder
It's this generalisation/particularisation thing again, isn't it? Makes it tough to have a black and white rule that everyone accepts.
At least it's clear that children and tall people have no choice in the matter
Guest
Posts: n/a
Final 3 Greens,
I think it's called Occam's Razor...
Trying to find the most convoluted way to explain something rather than to accept the most common occurrence. Something along the lines of 1st year med students being told "When you hear hoofs, it's most likely a horse, not a zebra."
"paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk", should be in jail, not travelling.
"Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder", should be on medvac flight not commercial.
I think it's called Occam's Razor...
Trying to find the most convoluted way to explain something rather than to accept the most common occurrence. Something along the lines of 1st year med students being told "When you hear hoofs, it's most likely a horse, not a zebra."
"paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk", should be in jail, not travelling.
"Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder", should be on medvac flight not commercial.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dushan
You obviously do not understand the use of Occam's razor.
Occam's razor says, amongst other things, that a simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture all the essential and relevant parts, so the argument again comes down to generalisation and paticularisation. e.g. the med school example would make sense in a country with few zebras, but would be simplistic in places with prevalent populations of horses and zebras.
I could equally (and incorrectly) argue that the Canadian court had applied Occam's razor by deciding that the easiest option was to give all obese people two seats, thus going for the simplest solution.
Generalisation obviously falls fall of Occam's razor in this instance (whether one objtects to the giving of free seats or the principle that all obese people should pay.)
Particularisation meets the rigour of Occam's razor, but is difficult in reality, as it is difficult to gain consenus on what comprises a special case.
"paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk", should be in jail, not travelling. he has served his sentence and discharged his debt to society - why should he not be travelling???
"Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder", should be on medvac flight not commercial. So are you saying that people, obese through genetics should not be allowed a normal life?
You obviously do not understand the use of Occam's razor.
Occam's razor says, amongst other things, that a simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture all the essential and relevant parts, so the argument again comes down to generalisation and paticularisation. e.g. the med school example would make sense in a country with few zebras, but would be simplistic in places with prevalent populations of horses and zebras.
I could equally (and incorrectly) argue that the Canadian court had applied Occam's razor by deciding that the easiest option was to give all obese people two seats, thus going for the simplest solution.
Generalisation obviously falls fall of Occam's razor in this instance (whether one objtects to the giving of free seats or the principle that all obese people should pay.)
Particularisation meets the rigour of Occam's razor, but is difficult in reality, as it is difficult to gain consenus on what comprises a special case.
"paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk", should be in jail, not travelling. he has served his sentence and discharged his debt to society - why should he not be travelling???
"Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder", should be on medvac flight not commercial. So are you saying that people, obese through genetics should not be allowed a normal life?
Guest
Posts: n/a
"paraplegic due to crashing their motorbike whilst drunk", should be in jail, not travelling. he has served his sentence and discharged his debt to society - why should he not be travelling???
"Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder", should be on medvac flight not commercial. So are you saying that people, obese through genetics should not be allowed a normal life?
"Obese - through genetic disorder or mental disorder", should be on medvac flight not commercial. So are you saying that people, obese through genetics should not be allowed a normal life?
Guest
Posts: n/a
As, for Mr. Ockham, from Wiki. Looks like I am onto something
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". An alternative version "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity". [1]
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such, it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such, it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boy oh boy
You really don't understand it, do you?
Give the last line another read, here it is from your post, for your convenience
This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such, it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).
You really don't understand it, do you?
Give the last line another read, here it is from your post, for your convenience
This is, however, incorrect. Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good explanation as such, it only demands that the explanation be free of elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Occam's razor, Zebras, Trevor Howard & Stomach bands - you lot are nothing if nor eclectic in your posting habits! Every time I get back from a trip something weird has happened in here - have you somehow got access to my roster?
Guest
Posts: n/a
e.g. How he got to be so fat...
It's still incorrect application of Occam's razor, but if it makes you happy.....