The Colbert Report "being weighed for airplane tickets"

[BlueChicken]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Incorrect. Obesity in and of itself is a medical condition with a very strong genetic basis. While you are correct that it can be controlled with diet and exercise, you would be completely incorrect to state that there are no intrinsic (i.e. non-lifestyle) factors that determine an individual's particular risk.

Furthermore, people with obesity suffer from much higher rates of low back pain and arthritis, which greatly impairs their ability to exercise.

Finally, the majority of obese people are already overweight as toddlers and young children, long before it's their fault.

What I originally said was "There is no medical condition that makes one obese. There are certain genetic disorders that manifest in thyroid or digestional issues making it more difficult for a person to maintain what would be considered a 'normal weight'." This changed your response significantly. My concern is that there is no genetic factor that forces one to be obese, no state where "I have an FTO polymorphism so I MUST be overweight." While there are genetic disorders that influence ones weight, lifestyle choices can compensate this very effectively (for the FTO case http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ct/168/16/1791 serves as a useful example).

As for the issue of overweight people being unable to excercise, I do know their pain. However the defense seems to be somewhat problematic when we consider that their being overweight (which prevents them from exercising) is due to the fact that they have not exercised (at least in part). But there are always opportunities for excersie and changing eating habits, regardless of status.

Oh children. While I do accept that parents control what their children eat/do, and that there is a strong link between childhood habits and adult habits, I don't think this serves as an excuse. You can lose childhood weight, it is not a permanent condition. While it will be harder than someone who became overweight later in life (as various research suggests) it is not as if it cannot be done.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

This message coming from Aedes about selling seats - isn't this the same mind who suggested the majority go do something uncomfortable if they are morally unjust?

There's a difference between public policy and 1) running a business (which in the case of airlines is tanking), and 2) having tight physical constraints with FAA-mandated weight limits for a plane's passengers + cargo.

I mean do you consider it immoral for a plane to charge you extra if your suitcase is overweight? It's the exact same consideration.

And it's not like I don't hear your argument, I mean I feel really bad for people who suffer because of obesity and I think it's only so much self-consciously their fault. And it's certainly not the purvue of the airlines to punish them. On the other hand, there are safety issues and there are financial issues unique to those people.

I mean the airline could just as easily bar them from flying coach altogether if they cannot fit into a single coach seat. And that would force them to buy a first class seat at a higher price anyway, so it's the same in the end.

Originally Posted by BlueChicken

My concern is that there is no genetic factor that forces one to be obese, no state where "I have an FTO polymorphism so I MUST be overweight."

This is not a statement that can be made so conclusively. Many conditions are polygenic, so the absence of a single identified locus does not rule out this possibility. Obesity runs strongly in families and it often begins in late infancy. And it is clear that this is not solely due to lifestyle, since monozygotic twins raised in different households continue to share this risk.

We have to work with the genes we've got, so someone genetically predisposed to be obese has to work a lot harder to maintain weight than someone who doesn't.

there are always opportunities for excersie and changing eating habits, regardless of status...

While I do accept that parents control what their children eat/do, and that there is a strong link between childhood habits and adult habits, I don't think this serves as an excuse. You can lose childhood weight, it is not a permanent condition. While it will be harder than someone who became overweight later in life (as various research suggests) it is not as if it cannot be done.

And you make a great case for public health interventions, health education, exercise opportunities, etc. But this is not a case for how this or that business gets to justify treating them differently. It's not the airlines' job to punish people. It's their job to maintain a safe environment first, and remain fiscally solvent second. If someone needs to put their peritoneal dialysis machine on the seat next to them for their 18-hour New York - Delhi flight, then they've got to buy that next seat.

[Aphoric]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Already I have to stop you. This is only partially true. Some people eat too much and have unhealthy lifestyles, others suffer from medical conditions



So companies should be able to discriminate on race, or gender, or anything else they please? If a company has no obligation to serve everyone, this is the result - a justification for segregation based on race or any other factor.



All fine and well, but far short of justifying the dehumanization of certain individuals.



So a few extra dollars is more important than humanity. Brilliant idea



The company's financial interests are opposed to being humane, that's true, but isn't that just a moral indictment of the company in question? Doesn't seem like a justification to say 'oh, but the company shouldn't be moral'.

If the company does have a responsibility to be humane, but also should be allowed to discriminate based on weight, then the bottom line has trumped humanity. That's a shame.



And the problem here is that the bottom line is taken to be more important than humanity. If it all comes down to money, then compassion is out the window. Personally, I think compassion is more valuable than 'one dollar more'. Maybe I'm crazy.



Depends - did you cause the wreck? If so, then this is your fault. Discriminating against someone based on weight, and "discriminating" someone based on their actions are two very different situations.



Because you can choose not to eat those extra pizzas.



If she has a problem with this, she should cut her hair. But cutting some hair is vastly different than losing weight, especially when we consider the morbidly obese, people who are obese due to some medical condition over which they have little or no control.

Sheesh, Khetil, I know you are a deeper thinker than this.



Yeah, human emotion. Happiness, compassion - morality.

I know in today's world we tend to think that economics has no use for morality, and considering the way economics is usually studied, there isn't much use for morality. But this seems to be a problem. Morality should not be tossed out the window just because profit margins are at stake - if we do toss out morality in favor of profit margins, we've made morality useless, obsolete.

You are the freaking man.

I gotta dispute a couple of things though. I've done a little research, and came across a couple interesting articles about obesity, one of the most interesting ones is this.

Causes of Obesity

The article is basically about how the number of humans in America who classify as "obese" has skyrocketed since the 1980's. While you posit that we cannot put the responsibility for obese individuals on themselves due to genetic disorders, this article suggests strong evidence to the contrary. While it admits that there are some genetic traits that are inherited such as slower metabolisms, and a possible inborn drive to conserve energy (calories), the fact that the numbers have increased that much so recently disproves the idea that genetic factors have much to do with it. It's a simple scientific fact that human genes don't change that much over a mere 30 years.

I also want to play with that morality position (tho you'll probably kick my ass up and down this thread). What about those fat people? (I have to limit the scope of this discussion now to America, because I'm not cultured enough to do anything else) What about the overweight people? In the American Capitalist system, a person has to give up "X" amount of hours (human capital) to receive money to buy things (financial capital). I didn't make the system (I actually hate it), so don't blame me for that. Now, when a person pays for a plane ticket, they are paying for it with "X" amount of hours of their life. should they bring more weight than that allotted for travel, they have to buy two tickets or lose the extra weight. Should a larger individual come "equipped" with that extra weight, they get two seats for half those amount of hours they worked. Is it moral to make another man work harder (or, devote more hours of their lives) for the same privileges? Is it moral for that larger individual to take that extra seat and not pay the same as anyone else? To take it a step further, can't you say skinny people are discriminated against for not weighing as much, and therefore having to pay more for the same number of seats? I think making everyone pay the same amount of money for the same amount of seats is perfectly humane.

Now, I realize that there are indeed some people who just have it rough, and are born with legitimate medical conditions, but why couldn't airlines simply have a clause that allows for obese people with legitimate medical conditions? All it takes is a simple doctors note, and the fee could be waived. As far as the rest of it goes, wrd.