The comparable risks of being fat and climbing

Bill Kirby wrote: That's what she said!

Ah fuck you beat me to it!

Tradster wrote:I am offended by the notion that healthy folks are now subsidizing the lifestyle of unhealthy people like the morbidly obese or smokers. So, you live a healthy lifestyle and now you get the sharp stick up the ass because other folks are lazy, fat, eat total crap or suck on cancer sticks. Why should I pay more to support someone's shitty lifestyle? It is a made your bed now suffer the consequences kind of thing. Subsidizing their health costs just reinforces bad habits. Let them pay full boat for their poor habits. Kind of like the fat guy that sat next to me on a plane. First thing he does is lift the armrest so he can ooze his fat, sweaty body into my space. He didn't even ask, he just assumed I'd be alright with his grossness rubbing up against me. I slammed the armrest down and asked him how much he contributed to my airplane ticket. He said 'nothing' and I said there's your answer. Unless you paid a portion of the fare keep your fat self in your own space. He didn't like that and I didn't give a flying fuck. Pay for your own bad habits.

Like the guy in front of me at the airline check in line. 400 lbs with a 50 lb bag...Sure no problem! My 155 lb ass with a 51 lb bag...Have to pay an overweight fee! Fucking really? Really? Granted, the guy was so big he probably had to buy two tickets..but that's just speculation on my end because i'm not sure if he did or not. There is a "weight class" in there that should be paying the overweight fee and still fits in one seat, so they get away with it. Why cant we be more like other countries that weigh you and your bag together. It should be anyone over X pounds with their bag. That's just my opinion for the US. I have only experienced this in other countries and it seems to be working.

The person doesn't have to be lifted by the baggage handlers, the suitcase does.

Labor laws are in place to protect the baggage handlers from injury, so anything over 50 lbs must be team-lifted by two people not just one. That means your 51 lb. bag had to be tagged, and handled separately from the rest of the luggage, and handled by two people each time it was moved. Pain in the butt, slows things down. The fee is there to encourage everyone to stick to 50 lbs so all luggage can be handled efficiently.

If that happens again, pull 1lb. worth of stuff out of your checked bag and add it to your carry-on.

Em Cos wrote:The person doesn't have to be lifted by the baggage handlers, the suitcase does. Labor laws are in place to protect the baggage handlers from injury, so anything over 50 lbs must be team-lifted by two people not just one. That means your 51 lb. bag had to be tagged, and handled separately from the rest of the luggage, and handled by two people each time it was moved. Pain in the butt, slows things down. The fee is there to encourage everyone to stick to 50 lbs so all luggage can be handled efficiently. If that happens again, pull 1lb. worth of stuff out of your checked bag and add it to your carry-on.

I did and I understand and had previous knowledge of the labor law before writing the post. I honestly suck at context with writing and often fail to show my extreme sarcasm.

Em Cos wrote:The person doesn't have to be lifted by the baggage handlers, the suitcase does. Labor laws are in place to protect the baggage handlers from injury, so anything over 50 lbs must be team-lifted by two people not just one. That means your 51 lb. bag had to be tagged, and handled separately from the rest of the luggage, and handled by two people each time it was moved. Pain in the butt, slows things down. The fee is there to encourage everyone to stick to 50 lbs so all luggage can be handled efficiently. If that happens again, pull 1lb. worth of stuff out of your checked bag and add it to your carry-on.

Yeah, and weight greatly affects fuel consumption, whether it's an overweight bag or an overweight human.

Old lady H wrote:deep dish Twinkie surprise casserole.

Recipe for this, please.

tim wrote: Yeah, and weight greatly affects fuel consumption, whether it's an overweight bag or an overweight human.

Yes, American airlines if I remember correctly saved 350,000 USD a year from just removing sky-mall magazine from the front storage pockets or whatever they are called on the back of the seats in front of you.

This thread makes for some truly depressing reading. The capacity people have to resent people less fortunate than themselves really boggles my mind.

tim wrote: Yeah, and weight greatly affects fuel consumption, whether it's an overweight bag or an overweight human.

That is true, but the person I was replying to seemed to be wondering why there was a limit to suitcase weight independent of the total weight of person + suitcase, and there is a reason, and I thought it might be helpful to share it for those who didn't know.

Em Cos wrote: That is true, but the person I was replying to seemed to be wondering why there was a limit to suitcase weight independent of the total weight of person + suitcase, and there is a reason, and I thought it might be helpful to share it for those who didn't know.

Very skeptical of the labor law you mention. Where did you come by this information?

Google, could be wrong, but made sense to me as we have similar OSHA guidelines where I work about lifting/carrying loads.

tim wrote: Very skeptical of the labor law you mention. Where did you come by this information?

Not specifically written into the OSHA statutes, but could fall under general duty clause

osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadis…

tim wrote: Yeah, and weight greatly affects fuel consumption, whether it's an overweight bag or an overweight human.

I would rather drive 100 200lb men 100 miles in a bus and pay for the fuel, than have to lug a 200lb bag (or 100lb bag) 100 feet, 100 times a day.

Ana Tine wrote: I would rather drive 100 200lb men 100 miles in a bus and pay for the fuel, than have to lug a 200lb bag (or 100lb bag) 100 feet, 100 times a day.

Yeah, me too...? If you're trying to make a point I have no idea what it is.

tim wrote: Yeah, me too...? If you're trying to make a point I have no idea what it is.

It sounds like she would rather sit next to a fat guy on an airplane ride then pickup lots of heavy baggage.

Has anyone made a point? Either you're angry that fat people affect your life or you're telling people to fuck off.

Bill Kirby wrote: It sounds like she would rather sit next to a fat guy on an airplane ride then pickup lots of heavy baggage. Has anyone made a point? Either you're angry that fat people affect your life or you're telling people to fuck off.

If you're right you may have found a riding companion for your next trip!

Bill Kirby wrote: It sounds like she would rather sit next to a fat guy on an airplane ride then pickup lots of heavy baggage. Has anyone made a point? Either you're angry that fat people affect your life or you're telling people to fuck off.

I think the point is that fat people are turning skinny people against each other on this thread.
Does anyone actually know the OP? I bet his BMI is 50 and he's tired of all the pretty skinny people climbing. We're all playing right into his plan.
We need to build a buffet to distract the fat people from our crags, and make THEM pay for it.

#buildthebuffet

tim wrote: Yeah, me too...? If you're trying to make a point I have no idea what it is.

My point is, it is more burdensome and dangerous to physically lift overweight luggage multiple times than to use a machine to carry overweight people, thus the surcharge for overweight luggage.
Em Cos is more accurate in the reasoning though.

If everyone bases the standard on themselves without empathy for others, then I'd demand everyone who weighs over 110 lbs to pay a surcharge. Tyler's pretty proud of the fact that he weighs a scant 155 lbs but that is really heavy to me. The point is you can't base everyone on your own experience.

It's true I don't have problems sitting next to larger people on planes. I'm not skinny but I don't use my entire seat cuz I'm small. I just don't like those who judge me for my diet and exercise choices!

The main etiological difference I see between the two groups is that one group engages in risky behavior for no apparent reason, knowingly it provides no real reward in the end. IE: Smoking may make social circle gains, or relive anxiety/stress at a chemical level, but what we know now about smoking would probably be sufficient to deter the masses.

Climbers, however, engage in risk-based activities for the express purpose of return on investment. It is risky, not reckless. Of course there are a handful of folks who statistically will find injury upon seeking these endeavors, but by and large we engage in risk expressly for progress of development and reward.

tim wrote: If you're right you may have found a riding companion for your next trip!

You hurt my feelings with your witty burn.