3 ms·

>How is this a good thing? If I'm deaf, I know that you have no advantage over me merely because you can hear. I think that's "good". The laws are in place t

>How is this a good thing? If I'm deaf, I know that you have no advantage over me merely because you can hear. I think that's "good". The laws are in place to protect minorities.

darawk 10y ago
Yes, but deaf people are always at a disadvantage. The law cannot eliminate that. All it can do is make reasonable compromises to mitigate it. This compromise is very clearly not reasonable.
- idiot_stick 10y ago
  >Yes, but deaf people are always at a disadvantage. I agree. >The law cannot eliminate that. All it can do is make reasonable compromises to mitigate it. I also agree with this. And I believe that's what this law is doing: saying "you may be at a disadvantage in these ways, but you won't be in this way if we can help it."
- smt88 10y ago
  The law doesn't say to remove the content. It says to make it accessible.
pjkundert 10y ago
At the risk misinterpreting what may be an obvious attempt to be sarcastic... Surely you jest. As the parent noted, such reasoning is squarely on the path to insanity. What a society could possibly attempt to ensure is "equity". What you are suggesting should be sought is "equality". Since this is (trivially) impossible to attain, to attempt to do so is a fool's errand. You may be measurably more intelligent than me. Should society force some crippling drug on you, to ensure I am not relatively hindered, merely because you can think more effectively than me? Some appear to believe so...
- mercer 10y ago
  Harrison Bergeron comes to mind...
- idiot_stick 10y ago
  >Surely you jest. As the parent noted, such reasoning is squarely on the path to insanity. What's insane is people comparing the government drugging us to equalize our IQ to the enforcement of a law that requires a publicly funded institution to put closed captions on their videos if they're to be publicly available. I'll bet a reasonable solution comes from this, sets a precedent for the future, and the huffing and puffing will be for naught.

>How is this a good thing? If I'm deaf, I know that you have no advantage over me merely because you can hear. I think that's "good". The laws are in place to protect minorities.

darawk 10y ago

Yes, but deaf people are always at a disadvantage. The law cannot eliminate that. All it can do is make reasonable compromises to mitigate it. This compromise is very clearly not reasonable.

idiot_stick 10y ago
>Yes, but deaf people are always at a disadvantage. I agree. >The law cannot eliminate that. All it can do is make reasonable compromises to mitigate it. I also agree with this. And I believe that's what this law is doing: saying "you may be at a disadvantage in these ways, but you won't be in this way if we can help it."
smt88 10y ago
The law doesn't say to remove the content. It says to make it accessible.

pjkundert 10y ago

At the risk misinterpreting what may be an obvious attempt to be sarcastic... Surely you jest. As the parent noted, such reasoning is squarely on the path to insanity. What a society could possibly attempt to ensure is "equity". What you are suggesting should be sought is "equality". Since this is (trivially) impossible to attain, to attempt to do so is a fool's errand. You may be measurably more intelligent than me. Should society force some crippling drug on you, to ensure I am not relatively hindered, merely because you can think more effectively than me? Some appear to believe so...

mercer 10y ago
Harrison Bergeron comes to mind...
idiot_stick 10y ago
>Surely you jest. As the parent noted, such reasoning is squarely on the path to insanity. What's insane is people comparing the government drugging us to equalize our IQ to the enforcement of a law that requires a publicly funded institution to put closed captions on their videos if they're to be publicly available. I'll bet a reasonable solution comes from this, sets a precedent for the future, and the huffing and puffing will be for naught.