This discussion is not what I expected to find after reading the title. I guess the topic of fat people was a little too politically hot for APC.

it’s literally the OPPOSITE of ad hominem. He’s not attacking the person, he’s attacking the position. (Ukraine nonsense)

He's attacking the person based on his opinion on a completely unrelated subject. He did not attack his opinion regarding overweight people at all. I didn't read much but it doesn't even appear to be that absurd of an opinion and is backed up with knowledge and experience. Just some people don't like it.

It's literally the same concept of coming on here and saying "Aren't you the same person who says he likes the Chevy Volt?!" It has nothing to do with the subject at hand, it changes the subject entirely (red herring) and attacks the person.

Ehh? Which stuff has been debunked specifically? It’s pretty childish to not only not provide any context for your complaints, but furthermore bleed it into another thread. Get control my friend, this is just the internet. I formally apologize to everyone on his behalf. He is clearly upset.

To Mr narita, please have proper manners and keep threads where they belong. Apc would be chaos if we let the children run rampant no?

Of course! About what?

All "news" programs lie. In all mediums, constantly, unreservedly, and without shame. Truth telling isn't it's purpose.

Your real question should be "did fox meet the legal threshold for damages in a defamation case?" It's a very difficult legal threshold to meet. Alan Dershowitz says no; I've read a few of his books and I respect his opinion.


-------------------------

Not a huge Chomsky fan, but "Manufacturing Consent - The Political Economy of the Mass Media" is a good read if you're interested in modern day Mass Propaganda.

Propaganda isn't what you think it is, you're not equipped to resist it (I'm not either, the only way to win is not to play). It's an ocean we all swim in without even realizing it's there.

You just get a red vest that says, "Service Person" instead of service dog and they'll be all set.

The dominos are beginning to fall. “What do you mean I can’t have a full row for free due to my size? That’s discriminatory!!”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/05/11/b...ion/index.html

Science: "obese people cost more". More health care cost, more fuel used to fly them around, even if they fit in 1 seat.
Not a fan of the pro-fat movement. Most discrimination is traditionally towards things people can't change. The whole gender thing has moved that goalpost a bit, but a man wearing a skirt while flying does not cost the airline extra. If my grandparents and my parents all died of cancer not due to lifestyle choices I should still get health insurance. If I smoke, my life insurance premium goes up. That is fair IMO. Being fat is a choice.

unfortunately once again the camels nose has been let in the tent on this identity politic and its going to be exploited to the fullest. I can see the social media shaming coming to the first airline that’s accused and the PR nightmare that follows.

Airlines can figure out how many seats per flight would be affected by fat people spilling over into the next seat, hold those seats, and then spread that cost out among the rest of the passengers through higher ticket prices. If the blocked seats are not being used by a fat person, release them to revenue standby or non-rev pax. If a pilot is assigned a deadhead next to someone taking up half of their seat, just get off, call scheduling, and tell them to try again. I agree that people should pay for the space that they occupy and that others shouldn’t be inconvenienced because someone else spills over into theirs, but that isn’t PC.