5 ms·

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 o

by 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]
    - gambiting 10y ago
      Marginally though. About 0.5l/100km more for every 100kg of weight.
      - funnyfacts365 10y ago
        That's more than 10% increase on most new cars.
  - bdhess 10y ago
    ...or cane, or wheelchair, or guide dog. Glad you have this all figured out in your libertarian utopia; in the real world there is still a debate.
    - gragas 10y ago
      This is what happens when you take "everyone is equal" to a delusional extent. Everyone should have the same rights, but not everyone is born the same. It is sad, but true. I think the only reason one could come to your conclusion is that one does not understand the difference between being a lesser human being and simply being very misfortunate. Many are misfortunate; no one is lesser. I had cancer when I was little. Should everything in the world be modified to accommodate my specific needs? Should everything in the world be modified to accommodate the "average" person's needs? Perhaps that is how things should be in government, where the sole purpose of the entity is to serve its people. But it should not be the duty of any private entity to do such a thing.

by clort 10y ago

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]
  - gambiting 10y ago
    Marginally though. About 0.5l/100km more for every 100kg of weight.
    - funnyfacts365 10y ago
      That's more than 10% increase on most new cars.
- bdhess 10y ago
  ...or cane, or wheelchair, or guide dog. Glad you have this all figured out in your libertarian utopia; in the real world there is still a debate.
  - gragas 10y ago
    This is what happens when you take "everyone is equal" to a delusional extent. Everyone should have the same rights, but not everyone is born the same. It is sad, but true. I think the only reason one could come to your conclusion is that one does not understand the difference between being a lesser human being and simply being very misfortunate. Many are misfortunate; no one is lesser. I had cancer when I was little. Should everything in the world be modified to accommodate my specific needs? Should everything in the world be modified to accommodate the "average" person's needs? Perhaps that is how things should be in government, where the sole purpose of the entity is to serve its people. But it should not be the duty of any private entity to do such a thing.