3 ms·

Isn't this like demolishing a building because it's impractical to add a wheelchair ramp to the entrance?

dclowd9901 10y ago
More like closing a building until it chooses to spend the money to make it accessible.
33W 10y ago
Perhaps more like demolishing a building because every door has steps, and it is impractical to add 20,000 ramps. I'm not sure what the answer is - just finding a closer analogy.
thefifthsetpin 10y ago
Yes. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. Demolishing the building would be an expensive undertaking, and it might cripple a useful organization that needed the building to operate. That's not to say it's the wrong move, though. It's precisely that unpleasantness which creates the aversion to ignoring the ADA in the first place. Lots of people building buildings might have other uses for the space occupied by the wheelchair ramp in mind.
SilasX 10y ago
The best analogy would be, a grocery store tries to give away unsold (safe) meat at the end of the day, and is blocked by a law that says, if you give away meat, you have to give an equal quantity of tofu. [1] So, it ends the giveaway. Then, volunteers steal the meat (with the store's tacit permission) and give it away for free, and this is ruled as legal. Then we get lectured that this is a good result "because you guys need to learn the importance of accommodating vegetarians". You object and say, "But ... this is the same as what the store was doing before, it's just that the meat is harder to find but every bit as useless to vegetarians" and you only get blank stares and lectures about "It's just that some of us care about those who can't eat meat, and aren't mindlessly obsessed with profits and cost-saving. The grocery store already makes a ton of profit anyway". [1] Let's assume there's also a law, that the store complies with, that says "any store selling meat must also have tofu available for sale".
- s0rce 10y ago
  I'm not sure this is the best analogy. They aren't giving away some unsold that they no longer need, they are distributing copies. I think a more apt comparison would be a if I library was lending books then they were told they couldn't lend the books without having audio books to accompany all the paper books. Without adequate funding to do this they left all the books unguarded and waited for someone to come and photocopy all the books and distribute them without audio books.

More like closing a building until it chooses to spend the money to make it accessible.

33W 10y ago

Perhaps more like demolishing a building because every door has steps, and it is impractical to add 20,000 ramps. I'm not sure what the answer is - just finding a closer analogy.

thefifthsetpin 10y ago

Yes. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, either. Demolishing the building would be an expensive undertaking, and it might cripple a useful organization that needed the building to operate. That's not to say it's the wrong move, though. It's precisely that unpleasantness which creates the aversion to ignoring the ADA in the first place. Lots of people building buildings might have other uses for the space occupied by the wheelchair ramp in mind.

SilasX 10y ago

The best analogy would be, a grocery store tries to give away unsold (safe) meat at the end of the day, and is blocked by a law that says, if you give away meat, you have to give an equal quantity of tofu. [1] So, it ends the giveaway. Then, volunteers steal the meat (with the store's tacit permission) and give it away for free, and this is ruled as legal. Then we get lectured that this is a good result "because you guys need to learn the importance of accommodating vegetarians". You object and say, "But ... this is the same as what the store was doing before, it's just that the meat is harder to find but every bit as useless to vegetarians" and you only get blank stares and lectures about "It's just that some of us care about those who can't eat meat, and aren't mindlessly obsessed with profits and cost-saving. The grocery store already makes a ton of profit anyway". [1] Let's assume there's also a law, that the store complies with, that says "any store selling meat must also have tofu available for sale".

s0rce 10y ago
I'm not sure this is the best analogy. They aren't giving away some unsold that they no longer need, they are distributing copies. I think a more apt comparison would be a if I library was lending books then they were told they couldn't lend the books without having audio books to accompany all the paper books. Without adequate funding to do this they left all the books unguarded and waited for someone to come and photocopy all the books and distribute them without audio books.