3 ms·

It doesn't ignore those things, it just recognizes that they are small secondary effects. We would never consider building ramps everywhere for strollers or su

It doesn't ignore those things, it just recognizes that they are small secondary effects. We would never consider building ramps everywhere for strollers or suitcases because the benefits are just obviously not worth the cost. Walkers are fine to consider, but in my non-representative experience, folks who use walkers who can't handle a curb rarely use a walker outside; they use the walker indoors and a wheelchair outside. Yes the world is a disorganized, bumpy, and unwelcoming place for folks using wheelchairs (or scooters), but the question is how to ameliorate that problem economically. "Not huge in the grand scheme of things" does not help us decide which strategy is better, and is an attitude that fails to address the huge invisible drag induced by thousands of individually modest requirements. Going up multiple stairs is a completely different problem. It's naively quite plausible that it's maximally efficient to modify wheelchairs so they go over curbs while still putting ramps and elevators in public buildings wherever there are multiple stairs.

CydeWeys 9y ago
One day you will be old and less physically capable than you are now, and maybe then you will change your tune. It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. Also, I'm a physically able-bodied person who exercises most days. Even I have almost been injured from tripping and falling over uneven surfaces in sidewalks while walking or running. I don't understand why you think it's so unreasonable to demand that sidewalks be built and kept in good working condition. It costs a totally insignificant fraction of overall tax revenue, way less than we spend on roads and mass transit, for instance.
- philh 9y ago
  > It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. This is Bulverism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    You're committing the logical fallacy of referencing a logical fallacy without actually refuting the content of what's been said. I suppose that'd make it ad hominem? Non sequitur? Red herring? Etc.? Please engage with what I've actually said. Do you really not see the problem with a fully able-bodied person saying that we shouldn't bother making any concessions to less able-bodied people by asserting that "it's obviously not worth the cost", without providing any evidence of such? To me, it is obviously worth the cost to build proper sidewalks, as everyone uses and benefits from them.
    - philh 9y ago
      I wasn't taking a stance on the question of sidewalks, and I wasn't attempting to engage with most of your comment. I was pointing out that you were committing Bulverism. Bulverism is bad independent of anything else in your comment. We have a question: "is it cost-effective to build better sidewalks?" You think the answer is obviously yes. Jess does not think the answer is obviously yes. The thing to do here is to try to work out why the two of you disagree. The thing not to do is to accuse Jess of being unable to put himself in others' shoes. That's Bulverism, and it's shit. You can't just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is fundamentally deficient. Apart from being factually inaccurate, and unconvincing to anyone who isn't already convinced, it's a massive failure of empathy.
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        I'm not interested in having a meta-conversation about logical fallacies that may or may not be in use in the actual conversation at hand. It's just a big derailment.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    I'm not seeing a shred of fallacy in their argument. They said that one day, the other person will likely be in that same position that they dismiss now. And, given everything we know about aging, that's not far off.
    - philh 9y ago
      > One day you will be old and less physically capable than you are now, Likely factually true. > and maybe then you will change your tune. It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. Not a statement of fact. The subtext is: "If you understood what these people are going through, you would agree with me".
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        No, it's a persuasive statement. It's how people talk. We are not cold, unfeeling automatons. We are people. And, quite frankly, yes, if you had empathy, you'd be all for making sure that these people could get around and participate in society.
        philh 9y ago
        "It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said. Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.) Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less. Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        ""It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said." Completely wrong. As I said, we are not robots. We do not operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. "Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.)" In what way? "Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less." Do what less? Speak in things that aren't programming statements? "Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)" I very much do believe they lack empathy. And quite frankly, I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  Ignoring a cost-benefit analysis and attacking the motivations of people who don't agree with you is a good way to ensure no constructive discussion takes place.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Reducing the ability of people to participate in society at all to a cost-benefit analysis is even less constructive, and does nothing more than to dehumanize the less able bodied.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    You didn't perform a cost-benefit analysis though. You simply asserted that it is "obviously so" that spending money on infrastructure isn't worthwhile. Here's some counter-evidence: It doesn't cost anything more to include proper curb cuts and such when the sidewalk is first built. The stadium infrastructure in the linked article post-dates ADA legislation requiring such, and yet was simply not built properly.
    - philh 9y ago
      > You simply asserted that it is "obviously so" that spending money on infrastructure isn't worthwhile. This is just false. The only use of "obvious" was in the line > We would never consider building ramps everywhere for strollers or suitcases because the benefits are just obviously not worth the cost. Which is not even close to how you describe it.
s73ver_ 9y ago
No. The entire situation is whether these people should be able to participate in society or not.
sampo 9y ago
> Yes the world is a disorganized, bumpy, and unwelcoming place for folks using wheelchairs (or scooters) America is disorganized, bumpy, and unwelcoming. Western Europe is much better in this matter. You should visit.
- alistairSH 9y ago
  In regards to sidewalks, is that true? Serious question. I've been to several European countries, but never gave a second though to sidewalks, which leads me to believe they weren't noticeably better or worse. With all the older city centers, I would imagine there are some pretty bumpy and uneven road and sidewalk surfaces?
  - sampo 9y ago
    We can use Google Maps and Streetview to look around in cities in Europe and America (except Germany, Germany doesn't like Google's Streetview). This is a random street in a random French town (Lille): https://goo.gl/maps/9g8xSwnobKv https://goo.gl/maps/9g8xSwnobKv This is a random street in a random American town (Pittsburgh): https://goo.gl/maps/LSNJdN3L2Cr https://goo.gl/maps/LSNJdN3L2Cr I just picked randomly from Google Maps, of course we would need a larger sample. Or a bit less random comparison of some small towns: Princeton, New Jersey: https://goo.gl/maps/mek7u1zJFmC2 https://goo.gl/maps/mek7u1zJFmC2 Lund, Sweden: https://goo.gl/maps/dKe8k9EDuUT2 https://goo.gl/maps/dKe8k9EDuUT2
    - bb611 9y ago
      I think you're glossing over a ton of complexity with your "less random" comparison, because Lund is 2x the population density of Princeton. Given that sidewalks are highly linked to population density, they're probably not a good comparison. Princeton is also a special case because it's a community that has a lot of fights about trees. Cutting down trees is heavily regulated there, you literally have to apply for a permit to cut down a tree (though I believe there are exemptions for emergencies), and the township and community are committed to the aesthetic of shaded roadways throughout. That almost universally (basically everywhere but right downtown, and even a fair amount there) means planting trees between the sidewalk and the curb, which in turn leads to increased damage to sidewalks from tree roots, so maintaining sidewalks becomes more expensive. It also means that sometimes you have to decide between having a flat sidewalk and doing enough damage that winter might kill a tree that's been growing for 30+ years. Those are things that are important to a lot of people living in town. I've lived next door to Princeton off and on for 20 of the last 30 years, hence the unnecessary knowledge of their social emphasis on trees. I think it's nice. I haven't seen any complaints about disabled access at the township level, and nothing came up in a quick google search.

CydeWeys 9y ago

One day you will be old and less physically capable than you are now, and maybe then you will change your tune. It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. Also, I'm a physically able-bodied person who exercises most days. Even I have almost been injured from tripping and falling over uneven surfaces in sidewalks while walking or running. I don't understand why you think it's so unreasonable to demand that sidewalks be built and kept in good working condition. It costs a totally insignificant fraction of overall tax revenue, way less than we spend on roads and mass transit, for instance.

philh 9y ago
> It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. This is Bulverism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  You're committing the logical fallacy of referencing a logical fallacy without actually refuting the content of what's been said. I suppose that'd make it ad hominem? Non sequitur? Red herring? Etc.? Please engage with what I've actually said. Do you really not see the problem with a fully able-bodied person saying that we shouldn't bother making any concessions to less able-bodied people by asserting that "it's obviously not worth the cost", without providing any evidence of such? To me, it is obviously worth the cost to build proper sidewalks, as everyone uses and benefits from them.
  - philh 9y ago
    I wasn't taking a stance on the question of sidewalks, and I wasn't attempting to engage with most of your comment. I was pointing out that you were committing Bulverism. Bulverism is bad independent of anything else in your comment. We have a question: "is it cost-effective to build better sidewalks?" You think the answer is obviously yes. Jess does not think the answer is obviously yes. The thing to do here is to try to work out why the two of you disagree. The thing not to do is to accuse Jess of being unable to put himself in others' shoes. That's Bulverism, and it's shit. You can't just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is fundamentally deficient. Apart from being factually inaccurate, and unconvincing to anyone who isn't already convinced, it's a massive failure of empathy.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      I'm not interested in having a meta-conversation about logical fallacies that may or may not be in use in the actual conversation at hand. It's just a big derailment.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I'm not seeing a shred of fallacy in their argument. They said that one day, the other person will likely be in that same position that they dismiss now. And, given everything we know about aging, that's not far off.
  - philh 9y ago
    > One day you will be old and less physically capable than you are now, Likely factually true. > and maybe then you will change your tune. It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. Not a statement of fact. The subtext is: "If you understood what these people are going through, you would agree with me".
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      No, it's a persuasive statement. It's how people talk. We are not cold, unfeeling automatons. We are people. And, quite frankly, yes, if you had empathy, you'd be all for making sure that these people could get around and participate in society.
      - philh 9y ago
        "It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said. Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.) Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less. Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        ""It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said." Completely wrong. As I said, we are not robots. We do not operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. "Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.)" In what way? "Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less." Do what less? Speak in things that aren't programming statements? "Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)" I very much do believe they lack empathy. And quite frankly, I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem.
jessriedel 9y ago
Ignoring a cost-benefit analysis and attacking the motivations of people who don't agree with you is a good way to ensure no constructive discussion takes place.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Reducing the ability of people to participate in society at all to a cost-benefit analysis is even less constructive, and does nothing more than to dehumanize the less able bodied.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  You didn't perform a cost-benefit analysis though. You simply asserted that it is "obviously so" that spending money on infrastructure isn't worthwhile. Here's some counter-evidence: It doesn't cost anything more to include proper curb cuts and such when the sidewalk is first built. The stadium infrastructure in the linked article post-dates ADA legislation requiring such, and yet was simply not built properly.
  - philh 9y ago
    > You simply asserted that it is "obviously so" that spending money on infrastructure isn't worthwhile. This is just false. The only use of "obvious" was in the line > We would never consider building ramps everywhere for strollers or suitcases because the benefits are just obviously not worth the cost. Which is not even close to how you describe it.

s73ver_ 9y ago

No. The entire situation is whether these people should be able to participate in society or not.

sampo 9y ago

> Yes the world is a disorganized, bumpy, and unwelcoming place for folks using wheelchairs (or scooters) America is disorganized, bumpy, and unwelcoming. Western Europe is much better in this matter. You should visit.

alistairSH 9y ago
In regards to sidewalks, is that true? Serious question. I've been to several European countries, but never gave a second though to sidewalks, which leads me to believe they weren't noticeably better or worse. With all the older city centers, I would imagine there are some pretty bumpy and uneven road and sidewalk surfaces?
- sampo 9y ago
  We can use Google Maps and Streetview to look around in cities in Europe and America (except Germany, Germany doesn't like Google's Streetview). This is a random street in a random French town (Lille): https://goo.gl/maps/9g8xSwnobKv https://goo.gl/maps/9g8xSwnobKv This is a random street in a random American town (Pittsburgh): https://goo.gl/maps/LSNJdN3L2Cr https://goo.gl/maps/LSNJdN3L2Cr I just picked randomly from Google Maps, of course we would need a larger sample. Or a bit less random comparison of some small towns: Princeton, New Jersey: https://goo.gl/maps/mek7u1zJFmC2 https://goo.gl/maps/mek7u1zJFmC2 Lund, Sweden: https://goo.gl/maps/dKe8k9EDuUT2 https://goo.gl/maps/dKe8k9EDuUT2
  - bb611 9y ago
    I think you're glossing over a ton of complexity with your "less random" comparison, because Lund is 2x the population density of Princeton. Given that sidewalks are highly linked to population density, they're probably not a good comparison. Princeton is also a special case because it's a community that has a lot of fights about trees. Cutting down trees is heavily regulated there, you literally have to apply for a permit to cut down a tree (though I believe there are exemptions for emergencies), and the township and community are committed to the aesthetic of shaded roadways throughout. That almost universally (basically everywhere but right downtown, and even a fair amount there) means planting trees between the sidewalk and the curb, which in turn leads to increased damage to sidewalks from tree roots, so maintaining sidewalks becomes more expensive. It also means that sometimes you have to decide between having a flat sidewalk and doing enough damage that winter might kill a tree that's been growing for 30+ years. Those are things that are important to a lot of people living in town. I've lived next door to Princeton off and on for 20 of the last 30 years, hence the unnecessary knowledge of their social emphasis on trees. I think it's nice. I haven't seen any complaints about disabled access at the township level, and nothing came up in a quick google search.