Fat people discrimination

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.

Nothing said about the extra fabric needed to encapsulate the more rotund among us...

Will tall people be paying extra for their jeans ?

 

Sent from my T1005 using Tapatalk

And more time machining the longer stitching runs too. The small price increases I heard quoted seemed entirely reasonable to me.

.

Will tall people be paying extra for their jeans ?

 

Sent from my T1005 using Tapatalk

 

Why not? Two gallons of petrol cost more than one gallon.

.

Difference between tall and short is only a few inches. The difference between fat and thin can be a few feet.

Will tall people be paying extra for their jeans ?

 

Sent from my T1005 using Tapatalk

Will tall people be paying extra for their jeans ?

 

Sent from my T1005 using Tapatalk

You expect adults clothes to be more expensive than kids ones, so yes!

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?

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.

I can only echo what’s been already said

What’s the problem more material more money end of

Discrimination FFS

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

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

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.

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.

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 ......

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 ......

It’s a well documented fact that fat people are mean spirited, so it’s only right that they are penalised.

 

And they are anti-social, taking up one and a half bus or train seats.

.

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.

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?

Yea but if you are one of the thin people you only need half a seat so it balances out.....[emoji575][emoji575]

And they are anti-social, taking up one and a half bus or train seats.

.

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.

 

I think this is needless semantics to avoid the nub* of the matter tbh

 

You know the difference between choice and discrimination really. And the point over what defines "best" is pure distraction technique (can't fault your application though

 

Choice is choosing the high quality candidate over the useless one. Discrimination is choosing the black candidate over the white one when all else is equal (or indeed the other way round)

 

 

*my predictive text insists on this being "hub" I wonder why ?!

Agree with sentiments of thread but just food for thought...

I weigh errr 105kg Was once on a,Ryan Air flight( which I,d paid £9).The extremely petit lady behind me who weighed at most 50 kg had to pay £20 excess baggage charge because her 10kg allowed bag weighed 12kg...( Mine was 9kg)

My all up weight...114kg plus clothes...hers at most 62kg...( plus clothes)

Perhaps we should buy air tickets based on weight ???

Fat people are harder to kidnap. Anyway I'm big boned:D

I think this is needless semantics to avoid the nub* of the matter tbh

 

You know the difference between choice and discrimination really. And the point over what defines "best" is pure distraction technique (can't fault your application though

 

Choice is choosing the high quality candidate over the useless one. Discrimination is choosing the black candidate over the white one when all else is equal (or indeed the other way round)

 

 

*my predictive text insists on this being "hub" I wonder why ?!

 

Not to mention choosing the under 35 candidate for a job instead of the over 60 one with reams of experience...