that happiness should not come at the others’ expense.
It’s probably a failure of imagination, but I’ve never really understood this part of anti-acceptance sentiment.
Any valid criticisms I’ve seen largely come down to regular old accessibility failures or capitalism making people believe airline seats should be miserably cramped.
What is the trade off, in a real, not hypothetical sense?
When I pay my healthcare premiums or my taxes, individuals who are obese are taking more of that money and raising prices overall (everything else equal, not getting into universal healthcare vs not). That is a trade off of me being okay with the notion that people should be covered, but having to pay more for those people.
So are the old, children, and anyone not within the “best for capitalism” bell curve (which I just made up, but you get the sentiment).
That’s basically a pro-capitalist argument used to justify a system which should not exist in the first place.
If we’re discussing our thoughts of what should be, then I believe healthcare should be a function of government and a human right.
I agree. But weight is a health issue. So providing them health care equally to all other citizens is very different than altering society to accommodate them unduly. If we’re using airplanes as an example, we shouldn’t put “fat rows” into airplanes any more than we should bring back ashtrays on airplanes.
Supporting something as a health issue, and catering to it, are two very different things.
It’s sad that we live in a world where the old show “scared straight” would get sued because it was hurting the kids 'fee-fees. The health care system can’t tell them they’re obese and have to do something about it because it makes them feel bad…fuck that.
I’ll bite. Airlines are a great example because there are really strong physical constraints on flight, but the basic rules apply to almost every piece of built infrastructure. What does it take to make a plane “accessible” and what standards will it be built to? Are we going to accomodate “small fats” up to 300 lbs or so, or will we continue into the 500 lb range or 700 lb? This matters because aisles, seats, and doorways will all need to built to standard.
If you’ve seen the “Big Johns” in Vegas you’ll know that the washroom alone will take up the entire width of a small passenger jet. That will allow for the oversize toilet, room to turn, the doorway and aisle. That means there will only be one unless we turn them sideways to put in two. But those toilets now remove 6-8 rows of seats. So that’s 18-24 fewer paying passengers. I could go on here but you get the idea.
Widening the aisle would require removing 1-2 seats per row. And the remaining seats become wider so there are now 3-4 people per row instead of six. So the economics really matters here.
These discussions are true for every piece of infrastructure. It’s not just a matter of making things bigger to allow people room to move and sit. Every supporting piece of infrastructure has to match. What does it do to land use if parking spaces need to be 50% wider to accomodate larger vehicle doors that swing fully open?
The built environment is a series of interdependent systems that are built to a set of standards - some tightly regulated and some informal. Changing those to accomodate a larger body size is not a simple task.
It’s probably a failure of imagination, but I’ve never really understood this part of anti-acceptance sentiment.
Any valid criticisms I’ve seen largely come down to regular old accessibility failures or capitalism making people believe airline seats should be miserably cramped.
What is the trade off, in a real, not hypothetical sense?
When I pay my healthcare premiums or my taxes, individuals who are obese are taking more of that money and raising prices overall (everything else equal, not getting into universal healthcare vs not). That is a trade off of me being okay with the notion that people should be covered, but having to pay more for those people.
Health insurance is a scam when it gets to decide what treatment you’re allowed to have.
So are the old, children, and anyone not within the “best for capitalism” bell curve (which I just made up, but you get the sentiment).
That’s basically a pro-capitalist argument used to justify a system which should not exist in the first place.
If we’re discussing our thoughts of what should be, then I believe healthcare should be a function of government and a human right.
I agree. But weight is a health issue. So providing them health care equally to all other citizens is very different than altering society to accommodate them unduly. If we’re using airplanes as an example, we shouldn’t put “fat rows” into airplanes any more than we should bring back ashtrays on airplanes.
Supporting something as a health issue, and catering to it, are two very different things.
It’s sad that we live in a world where the old show “scared straight” would get sued because it was hurting the kids 'fee-fees. The health care system can’t tell them they’re obese and have to do something about it because it makes them feel bad…fuck that.
Even with universal nationalized healthcare, in a non capitalist place, the cost is still happening
I’ll bite. Airlines are a great example because there are really strong physical constraints on flight, but the basic rules apply to almost every piece of built infrastructure. What does it take to make a plane “accessible” and what standards will it be built to? Are we going to accomodate “small fats” up to 300 lbs or so, or will we continue into the 500 lb range or 700 lb? This matters because aisles, seats, and doorways will all need to built to standard.
If you’ve seen the “Big Johns” in Vegas you’ll know that the washroom alone will take up the entire width of a small passenger jet. That will allow for the oversize toilet, room to turn, the doorway and aisle. That means there will only be one unless we turn them sideways to put in two. But those toilets now remove 6-8 rows of seats. So that’s 18-24 fewer paying passengers. I could go on here but you get the idea.
Widening the aisle would require removing 1-2 seats per row. And the remaining seats become wider so there are now 3-4 people per row instead of six. So the economics really matters here.
These discussions are true for every piece of infrastructure. It’s not just a matter of making things bigger to allow people room to move and sit. Every supporting piece of infrastructure has to match. What does it do to land use if parking spaces need to be 50% wider to accomodate larger vehicle doors that swing fully open?
The built environment is a series of interdependent systems that are built to a set of standards - some tightly regulated and some informal. Changing those to accomodate a larger body size is not a simple task.