Fat people discrimination

  • Thread starter Deleted member 4366
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 4366

Guest
I keep seeing on the TV news that there are complaints about clothes shops charging extra for clothes for the larger sizes (extra large). They're claiming that it's unfair discrimination. Is it then unfair discrimination when the chip shop charged them extra for the larger portion of chips? I didn't hear any complaints about that.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,803
30,376
And more time machining the longer stitching runs too. The small price increases I heard quoted seemed entirely reasonable to me.
.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 1 person

Gubbins

Esteemed Pedelecer
I suppose a lot depends on what "fat" or "overweight" actually means!
I weigh myself regularly and don't consider myself to be overweight but I do have small spare tyre aroung my middle. I am 6ft tall and buy 34 waist jeans but need a belt cos 32 is too small and am happy with this but....
My weight is right now is 181 lbs and fluctuates between 180 and 185, but interestingly at 185 my weight tracker informs me I have crossed the line between normal and overweight, but I don't feel overweight!
When flying I only need one seat so how can I be overweight?
Does anyone reading this consider themselves to be fat?
 

Doomanic

Pedelecer
Dec 7, 2017
214
61
uk
Yep. I’m fat.

I’d be happy to pay more for well designed clothes that fit. It’s better than having to buy cheap tat that doesn’t last because all the decent brands don’t want fat people to be seen in their clothes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: euphoriabuzz
D

Deleted member 22539

Guest
I can only echo what’s been already said
What’s the problem more material more money end of
Discrimination FFS
 
  • Agree
Reactions: flecc
D

Deleted member 4366

Guest
I can only echo what’s been already said
What’s the problem more material more money end of
Discrimination FFS
That's right. A king size duvet cover costs more than a large (double) one. I never heard anybody call that discrimination.

Well, of course it is discrimination. Discrimination is natural. Why are people trying to stop it. I'd be surprised if anyone here isn't guilty of sexual discrimination. Can you imagine not being allowed to choose between a male or female person to have a romantic night out with? That's what the world's coming to. After all, it's not fair for the homos that they're born like that. Should everyone be forced to give them a fair chance? You can go on a dating site and select male or female applicants, but you're not allowed to do that for an employee. Does that make sense?

I
 
Last edited by a moderator:

spanos

Pedelecer
Feb 18, 2011
244
64
That's right. A king size duvet cover costs more than a large (double) one. I never heard anybody call that discrimination.

Well, of course it is discrimination. Discrimination is natural. Why are people trying to stop it. I'd be surprised if anyone here isn't guilty of sexual discrimination. Can you imagine not being allowed to choose between a male or female person to have a romantic night out with? That's what the world's coming to. After all, it's not fair for the homos that they're born like that. Should everyone be forced to give them a fair chance? You can go on a dating site and select male or female applicants, but you're not allowed to do that for an employee. Does that make sense?

I
I agree with the more cloth, more cost, pay more. Simple economics

However , I wholeheartedly disagree with your analogy that suggests a personal choice in which sex to date is in anyway akin to discrimination in the workplace . You confuse choice with discrimination

I choose a red car over a yellow one. That’s choice. Trousers over shorts , choice . Beer over wine , choice. I am not discriminating against yellow cars or wine.

Who gets a job should be down to who is best (sex, colour and orientation are irrelevant - silly “what about a male model” arguments are obvious exceptions that add nothing to proper debate)


In the workplace, as an employer, I choose the person best able to do the job. Skin colour etc irrelevant to that. Give it to the second best because the best was a woman. That’s discrimination and that should not be ok

To draw parrelel with choice of date, partner or wife is trite. That’s a relationship between people. It’s give and take and compromise

Job interviews are not like that. Two reasons - one were are talking about people not objects (like cars and wine) and two is fully loaded power balance to one side

Discrimination and choice are not the same thing in my book
 
D

Deleted member 4366

Guest
Choice involves discrimination. Discriminate means to evaluate choices so that you can select the appropriate one - the same as when you discriminate between all your choices of ebikes before you select the one you want.

When you say that you select the best prospective employee, what's best? is it the one with the highest capability to do the job, the highest qualifications to do the job or the one that's likely to do the job best? There's so many things to consider. Will they fit in with existing employees or will they be a disruptive influence? How much time are they likely to take off and can you tolerate it? How flexible are they likely to be with their hours when you know that you need a certain amount of flexibility. Whilst their sex doesn't necessarily affect any of these, it might indirectly.
 

tillson

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 29, 2008
5,249
3,197
I keep seeing on the TV news that there are complaints about clothes shops charging extra for clothes for the larger sizes (extra large). They're claiming that it's unfair discrimination. Is it then unfair discrimination when the chip shop charged them extra for the larger portion of chips? I didn't hear any complaints about that.
It’s a well documented fact that fat people are mean spirited, so it’s only right that they are penalised.
 

tillson

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 29, 2008
5,249
3,197
Difference between tall and short is only a few inches. The difference between fat and thin can be a few feet.
I’m not so sure. If you put a giant belt around the equator of the earth, you would only need one just over 6 foot longer if the earth put on weight and expended by 1foot in all directions. Apply that to someone’s gut ......
 

Gubbins

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sorry but don't understand. If you increased the earth diameter by 2 feet (1foot in all directions) the circumference would grow by many miles but I am sure the mathematicians will pop up and correct us..
I’m not so sure. If you put a giant belt around the equator of the earth, you would only need one just over 6 foot longer if the earth put on weight and expended by 1foot in all directions. Apply that to someone’s gut ......
 

tillson

Esteemed Pedelecer
May 29, 2008
5,249
3,197
Sorry but don't understand. If you increased the earth diameter by 2 feet (1foot in all directions) the circumference would grow by many miles but I am sure the mathematicians will pop up and correct us..
You would think so, but it doesn't.

Circumference = Pi x Diameter.

The diameter of the earth is 7917 miles or 41801760 feet

So the circumference is 3.142 x 41801760 = 131341129 feet

Enlarge the earth by 1 foot in all directions and diameter = 41801760 + 2

The enlarged earth now has a diameter of 41801762 feet.

Now multiply that by Pi to get the new circumference

3.142 x 41801762 = 131341136 feet.

Subtract one from the other to find the increase in circumference

131341136 - 131341129 = 7 feet (It's actually a bit less. I rounded the numbers)

It doesn't seem right when you initially think about it, but the maths can't lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flecc

Gubbins

Esteemed Pedelecer
You would think so, but it doesn't.

Circumference = Pi x Diameter.

The diameter of the earth is 7917 miles or 41801760 feet

So the circumference is 3.142 x 41801760 = 131341129 feet

Enlarge the earth by 1 foot in all directions and diameter = 41801760 + 2

The enlarged earth now has a diameter of 41801762 feet.

Now multiply that by Pi to get the new circumference

3.142 x 41801762 = 131341136 feet.

Subtract one from the other to find the increase in circumference

131341136 - 131341129 = 7 feet (It's actually a bit less. I rounded the numbers)

It doesn't seem right when you initially think about it, but the maths can't lie.
Ok.. but it's not a good anology is it? In your example the percentage gain is a minute fraction. You would hardly call someone fat if their waist went up from 32 to 32.001. If you apply the difference between a thin/ average person with a 30/32 inch waist and a larger person with a 44 to 50 inch waist to your earth model what would it be then?
 
  • :D
Reactions: Zlatan

Advertisers