6 ms·

Please expand on what you find disagreeable here, else the post is just white noise and not really appropriate for HN. I do think the author's reasoning in tha

by csydas 10y ago

Please expand on what you find disagreeable here, else the post is just white noise and not really appropriate for HN. I do think the author's reasoning in that part is flawed and a bit vengeful simply because it seems to me like a misguided sense of justice and right/wrong, and that they want what they perceive as justice simply because of the circumstances of one's birth sometimes being a boon, sometimes being a burden. But this is also a post from a blog, not an article from The Economist - I think the opinion is shallow and poorly thought out, but it's just an opinion.

demosthenes111 10y ago
It's a completely ridiculous comment. This policy isn't about "fairness" but rather weight distribution and cost of fuel. Punishing tall people for being born tall and making more "on average" is absurd.
jayjay71 10y ago
"Please expand on what you find disagreeable here, else the post is just white noise and not really appropriate for HN." That comment piqued my curiosity enough for me to read the article, something which probably isn't true for over 99% of the comments I read on HN. So I strongly disagree with you that it isn't appropriate for HN. There is nothing defamatory in what he says, and whether or not it is substantive can be decided with votes like all other comments.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- manojlds 10y ago
  Actually I skipped the last few paras after getting the initial tone of the article and this comment made me go back.
clort 10y ago
Its disagreeable because "on average, <type> people earn more than <!type> people, therefore all <type> people should pay more for the same service" is not an obvious conclusion to make. In fact, it is tainting some folk with the faults that others with a similar attribute have and is in the end discriminatory and unfair because their height was not a choice they made. If the author had written that tall people should pay more because they are bigger and need a bigger space then that might have been more palatable, but in the end I'm not sure that the extra space is the significant factor, since I can sit upright easily in the vertical space allocated for everybody to walk through the plane. Do we also need to charge more for people with big hairstyles, or those who choose to wear high heels? Also, why is there a minimum cost for the average space needed, my partner (155cm) takes up less space than average!
- djsumdog 10y ago
  I like your <type> statement because it draws to the bigger problems with generalizations. It's also the weird logic flow I see more and more in western culture. "Privilege" is a word I hear thrown around a lot today. Often times when people use that word, they do not realize they are making broad assumptions about other peoples' circumstances (typically) based on an ascribed attribute. To go even further in relation to this and air travel, is obesity ascribed or achieved? If you get charged extra for being tall, that's not something really in your control. Discriminating against an ascribed trait isn't really fair and is the reason for civil rights legislation. There are cases where it's difficult to determine if something is ascribed vs achieved. This is why laws for marriage equality have taken as long as they have in much of the world. In terms of obesity, we see the trends and we see it's increasing. This is something we can measure. Homosexuality was something that could be hidden, and therefore the measurements could easily be off as people may have lied in previous decades to fit in with social norms. Ultimately, fighting obesity has a lot to do with education, and changing some of the very wrong ideas we have about what is and isn't healthy food. But that's another matter. In the article, they're mostly describing airlines that weigh people to distribute loads on planes. That seems logical. Now in regards to airlines charging them a different price due to weight and fuel consumption, that gets into a very grey area of how we deal with the reasoning behind obesity, choice, human rights and market costs.
  - gragas 10y ago
    It's not a grey area at all. Airlines should have the right to charge customers per pound of items they take with them --- be it flesh or carry-on.
    - hobofan 10y ago
      As should Uber et al.! Cars, like airplanes, use more gas if they have to transport more weight.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
taneq 10y ago
You could argue that a tall person should not be charged more than a short person for the same service, even if it costs more to provide it to them, on the basis that their height is a circumstance of their birth. You cannot make the same argument for someone who is obese, since their obesity is almost certainly a choice (or a result of lifestyle choices, depending how you look at it).
- coldtea 10y ago
  >since their obesity is almost certainly a choice Citation needed. In fact there's a HUGE industry of obese people making the choice to lose weight (diet, gyms, etc) and failing.
  - chillacy 10y ago
    I think being obese is as much a choice as being poor is a choice: you're born into it and have obese friends who feedback into an inactive lifestyle. Escaping obesity is possible with hard work, as is escaping poverty, but its also not easy. That said, counting calories isn't that hard, but it does take discipline, and that's not easy.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >That said, counting calories isn't that hard, but it does take discipline, and that's not easy. Several studies have shown that we're not good in discipline at all, unless for people that it's innate. So discipline might be a factor out of our control too (genetic), and it's just the presence of people with more innate discipline (against genetic) that makes it achievable.
      - chillacy 10y ago
        Yea that doesn't surprise me, though studies also say that we're strongly influenced by our peers and are largely creatures of habit, so there are definitely tricks around this like hanging out with others into fitness or even lurking on a fitness subreddit.
hillz 10y ago
First, I agree with you. But to answer: One chooses to be obese more than one chooses to be tall, so arguing that tall people should have to pay more for their size while the obese shouldn't seems illogical.
- thinkloop 10y ago
  > One chooses to be obese more than one chooses to be tall I wonder - have you ever tried weed? With a few foreign molecules in your system you can go from barely liking cookies to consuming 5 boxes without being able to stop. The satiation part of the brain is very sensitive. Imagine having to constantly fight similar urges because of slight mutations in that zone. I think physical make up could be indirectly the most important factor in determining weight, especially when it comes to extremes like obesity. edit: reworked phrasing
  - taneq 10y ago
    > Imagine what it would be like fighting similar feelings every second of every day because your satiation part of the brain is a bit off. Yeah, that's how I stay not-obese.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Yes, they choose because of poor diet choices, nobody is hooking up a tube of big macs to their faces. A quarter of the entire US population didn't suddenly catch a disease and become obese. Being sedentary and taking in 2500 calories a day is definitely a choice. A very small percentage of obese people have hunger as extreme as your 5 cookie box example. All it takes is not paying attention to caloric intake over a long period like 5 years.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Smaug123 10y ago
      I'm not expressing an opinion about the causes of the current obesity problem, but your comment had the opposite effect on me than the effect you wanted. "A quarter of the entire US population didn't suddenly catch a disease and become obese." Why not? When you put it that way, it strikes me as pretty implausible that 'a quarter of the entire US population suddenly became lazy and started stuffing their faces for no good reason'. Epidemics have happened frequently before; bouts of mass overeating are historically rare.
coldtea 10y ago
>Please expand on what you find disagreeable here, else the post is just white noise and not really appropriate for HN. Maybe don't assume what's "appropriate for HN" (unless something is obviously offensive or spam, etc)? Far from white noise, the parent pointed a specifically interesting (and inane) excerpt from the post. Whether you agree or disagree, it doesn't take much imagination to see what one can find appalling in that part. First, not sure if the author is half-joking, but the notion that tall people are fair game because they "earn substantially more money on average" is especially idiotic. Something true "on average" (and from statistics the poster read for specific cultures/countries) doesn't obviously apply to all members. Besides, rich people, whether short or tall, don't pay more for anything else they buy unless they they want too -- so again this would be just an arbitrary tax on tallness. Second, the post goes on to say that "the overweight and obese? They receive no such life benefits, and it feels rather cruel, if not illegal, to ask them to pay extra for the same service". Only it's obviously not about having benefits in other fields of life (!), it's about their weight's cost to the airline (more personal weight amounts to less cargo, more fuel etc). >But this is also a post from a blog, not an article from The Economist - I think the opinion is shallow and poorly thought out, but it's just an opinion. So?
- kelnos 10y ago
  > Maybe don't assume what's "appropriate for HN" As members of the HN community, that is literally our job to do. Communities are maintained by agreeing on and enforcing norms. You may not agree with someone's assumptions about whether or not something is appropriate, but they are absolutely within their rights to make a value judgment based on that. > Far from white noise, the parent pointed a specifically interesting (and inane) excerpt from the post. Yes, but this is a discussion forum. Quoting a section of text and then "annotating" it with "Jesus..." is not discussion, and doesn't foster discussion, at least, no aside from the "yeah, no kidding" variety. Fortunately, in this case, someone has called the poster out on it, and has in the process started discussion about it, but that's in spite of the original, not because of it.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >You may not agree with someone's assumptions about whether or not something is appropriate, but they are absolutely within their rights to make a value judgment based on that. As a member of the HN community, consider where this leads: endless flamewars and meta-discussions on comments, instead of TFA. Note also that I'm not against people speaking on what's "appropriate for HN" in general, just against particular uncalled for instances. If a comment is defamatory or off-topic etc, it's a fair game. >Quoting a section of text and then "annotating" it with "Jesus..." is not discussion, and doesn't foster discussion, at least, no aside from the "yeah, no kidding" variety. Quoting and exclamations are very much part of discussion. In fact, for quoting this should go without saying. From books to scientific papers and on to legendary literary or scholarly exchanges, you'll find extended use of quotations. It is an act of curation and highlighting. Same for the annotation "Jesus", that serves to give us a clear indication of what the commenter thought of the quotation (he doesn't approve of it). You claim that "it didn't foster discussion", but you are disproven in reality. Besides the distracting meta-discussion, the comment did foster discussion of that particular quote, which you can see in the thread below, with people arguing pro and against the very ideas expressed in the quote.

by csydas 10y ago

demosthenes111 10y ago

It's a completely ridiculous comment. This policy isn't about "fairness" but rather weight distribution and cost of fuel. Punishing tall people for being born tall and making more "on average" is absurd.

jayjay71 10y ago

"Please expand on what you find disagreeable here, else the post is just white noise and not really appropriate for HN." That comment piqued my curiosity enough for me to read the article, something which probably isn't true for over 99% of the comments I read on HN. So I strongly disagree with you that it isn't appropriate for HN. There is nothing defamatory in what he says, and whether or not it is substantive can be decided with votes like all other comments.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
manojlds 10y ago
Actually I skipped the last few paras after getting the initial tone of the article and this comment made me go back.

clort 10y ago

Its disagreeable because "on average, <type> people earn more than <!type> people, therefore all <type> people should pay more for the same service" is not an obvious conclusion to make. In fact, it is tainting some folk with the faults that others with a similar attribute have and is in the end discriminatory and unfair because their height was not a choice they made. If the author had written that tall people should pay more because they are bigger and need a bigger space then that might have been more palatable, but in the end I'm not sure that the extra space is the significant factor, since I can sit upright easily in the vertical space allocated for everybody to walk through the plane. Do we also need to charge more for people with big hairstyles, or those who choose to wear high heels? Also, why is there a minimum cost for the average space needed, my partner (155cm) takes up less space than average!

djsumdog 10y ago
I like your <type> statement because it draws to the bigger problems with generalizations. It's also the weird logic flow I see more and more in western culture. "Privilege" is a word I hear thrown around a lot today. Often times when people use that word, they do not realize they are making broad assumptions about other peoples' circumstances (typically) based on an ascribed attribute. To go even further in relation to this and air travel, is obesity ascribed or achieved? If you get charged extra for being tall, that's not something really in your control. Discriminating against an ascribed trait isn't really fair and is the reason for civil rights legislation. There are cases where it's difficult to determine if something is ascribed vs achieved. This is why laws for marriage equality have taken as long as they have in much of the world. In terms of obesity, we see the trends and we see it's increasing. This is something we can measure. Homosexuality was something that could be hidden, and therefore the measurements could easily be off as people may have lied in previous decades to fit in with social norms. Ultimately, fighting obesity has a lot to do with education, and changing some of the very wrong ideas we have about what is and isn't healthy food. But that's another matter. In the article, they're mostly describing airlines that weigh people to distribute loads on planes. That seems logical. Now in regards to airlines charging them a different price due to weight and fuel consumption, that gets into a very grey area of how we deal with the reasoning behind obesity, choice, human rights and market costs.
- gragas 10y ago
  It's not a grey area at all. Airlines should have the right to charge customers per pound of items they take with them --- be it flesh or carry-on.
  - hobofan 10y ago
    As should Uber et al.! Cars, like airplanes, use more gas if they have to transport more weight.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

taneq 10y ago

You could argue that a tall person should not be charged more than a short person for the same service, even if it costs more to provide it to them, on the basis that their height is a circumstance of their birth. You cannot make the same argument for someone who is obese, since their obesity is almost certainly a choice (or a result of lifestyle choices, depending how you look at it).

coldtea 10y ago
>since their obesity is almost certainly a choice Citation needed. In fact there's a HUGE industry of obese people making the choice to lose weight (diet, gyms, etc) and failing.
- chillacy 10y ago
  I think being obese is as much a choice as being poor is a choice: you're born into it and have obese friends who feedback into an inactive lifestyle. Escaping obesity is possible with hard work, as is escaping poverty, but its also not easy. That said, counting calories isn't that hard, but it does take discipline, and that's not easy.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >That said, counting calories isn't that hard, but it does take discipline, and that's not easy. Several studies have shown that we're not good in discipline at all, unless for people that it's innate. So discipline might be a factor out of our control too (genetic), and it's just the presence of people with more innate discipline (against genetic) that makes it achievable.
    - chillacy 10y ago
      Yea that doesn't surprise me, though studies also say that we're strongly influenced by our peers and are largely creatures of habit, so there are definitely tricks around this like hanging out with others into fitness or even lurking on a fitness subreddit.

hillz 10y ago

First, I agree with you. But to answer: One chooses to be obese more than one chooses to be tall, so arguing that tall people should have to pay more for their size while the obese shouldn't seems illogical.

thinkloop 10y ago
> One chooses to be obese more than one chooses to be tall I wonder - have you ever tried weed? With a few foreign molecules in your system you can go from barely liking cookies to consuming 5 boxes without being able to stop. The satiation part of the brain is very sensitive. Imagine having to constantly fight similar urges because of slight mutations in that zone. I think physical make up could be indirectly the most important factor in determining weight, especially when it comes to extremes like obesity. edit: reworked phrasing
- taneq 10y ago
  > Imagine what it would be like fighting similar feelings every second of every day because your satiation part of the brain is a bit off. Yeah, that's how I stay not-obese.
- hueving 10y ago
  Yes, they choose because of poor diet choices, nobody is hooking up a tube of big macs to their faces. A quarter of the entire US population didn't suddenly catch a disease and become obese. Being sedentary and taking in 2500 calories a day is definitely a choice. A very small percentage of obese people have hunger as extreme as your 5 cookie box example. All it takes is not paying attention to caloric intake over a long period like 5 years.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Smaug123 10y ago
    I'm not expressing an opinion about the causes of the current obesity problem, but your comment had the opposite effect on me than the effect you wanted. "A quarter of the entire US population didn't suddenly catch a disease and become obese." Why not? When you put it that way, it strikes me as pretty implausible that 'a quarter of the entire US population suddenly became lazy and started stuffing their faces for no good reason'. Epidemics have happened frequently before; bouts of mass overeating are historically rare.

coldtea 10y ago

>Please expand on what you find disagreeable here, else the post is just white noise and not really appropriate for HN. Maybe don't assume what's "appropriate for HN" (unless something is obviously offensive or spam, etc)? Far from white noise, the parent pointed a specifically interesting (and inane) excerpt from the post. Whether you agree or disagree, it doesn't take much imagination to see what one can find appalling in that part. First, not sure if the author is half-joking, but the notion that tall people are fair game because they "earn substantially more money on average" is especially idiotic. Something true "on average" (and from statistics the poster read for specific cultures/countries) doesn't obviously apply to all members. Besides, rich people, whether short or tall, don't pay more for anything else they buy unless they they want too -- so again this would be just an arbitrary tax on tallness. Second, the post goes on to say that "the overweight and obese? They receive no such life benefits, and it feels rather cruel, if not illegal, to ask them to pay extra for the same service". Only it's obviously not about having benefits in other fields of life (!), it's about their weight's cost to the airline (more personal weight amounts to less cargo, more fuel etc). >But this is also a post from a blog, not an article from The Economist - I think the opinion is shallow and poorly thought out, but it's just an opinion. So?

kelnos 10y ago
> Maybe don't assume what's "appropriate for HN" As members of the HN community, that is literally our job to do. Communities are maintained by agreeing on and enforcing norms. You may not agree with someone's assumptions about whether or not something is appropriate, but they are absolutely within their rights to make a value judgment based on that. > Far from white noise, the parent pointed a specifically interesting (and inane) excerpt from the post. Yes, but this is a discussion forum. Quoting a section of text and then "annotating" it with "Jesus..." is not discussion, and doesn't foster discussion, at least, no aside from the "yeah, no kidding" variety. Fortunately, in this case, someone has called the poster out on it, and has in the process started discussion about it, but that's in spite of the original, not because of it.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >You may not agree with someone's assumptions about whether or not something is appropriate, but they are absolutely within their rights to make a value judgment based on that. As a member of the HN community, consider where this leads: endless flamewars and meta-discussions on comments, instead of TFA. Note also that I'm not against people speaking on what's "appropriate for HN" in general, just against particular uncalled for instances. If a comment is defamatory or off-topic etc, it's a fair game. >Quoting a section of text and then "annotating" it with "Jesus..." is not discussion, and doesn't foster discussion, at least, no aside from the "yeah, no kidding" variety. Quoting and exclamations are very much part of discussion. In fact, for quoting this should go without saying. From books to scientific papers and on to legendary literary or scholarly exchanges, you'll find extended use of quotations. It is an act of curation and highlighting. Same for the annotation "Jesus", that serves to give us a clear indication of what the commenter thought of the quotation (he doesn't approve of it). You claim that "it didn't foster discussion", but you are disproven in reality. Besides the distracting meta-discussion, the comment did foster discussion of that particular quote, which you can see in the thread below, with people arguing pro and against the very ideas expressed in the quote.