17 ms·

The idea that because someone is inconvenienced they are somehow not "participating in society" is absurd. It was an unfortunate situation, it is bad the person

by TKinNC 9y ago

The idea that because someone is inconvenienced they are somehow not "participating in society" is absurd. It was an unfortunate situation, it is bad the person felt embarrassed for a disability, but the solution is not to force regulation and maintenance costs on everyone - that is a road to bankruptcy.

s73ver_ 9y ago
"The idea that because someone is inconvenienced they are somehow not "participating in society" is absurd." We're not talking inconvenience. We're talking not able to get around at all. That's not an inconvenience. That's not being able to participate in society at all. "but the solution is not to force regulation and maintenance costs on everyone - that is a road to bankruptcy." I completely disagree. If it wasn't for those regulations, no one would do it, and these people would not be able to participate. You may wish to look into why these regulations were enacted in the first place, and it wasn't because of lobbyists looking to make a buck.
- TKinNC 9y ago
  I dont know what article you are reading, but the one referenced revolved around a single instance of temporary (albeit dangerous) inconvenience. If she was denied the use of a wheelchair altogether, I might see your point. But as others have stated, 100% access is not realistic given the current technology for disabled people. Maybe instead of regulation and lawsuits, people that are so worked up over this issue should actually try to invent better tech, instead of expecting the govt to solve all our problems and compensate them whenever we dont meet 100% perfection.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    And maybe people like you can accept that there are more people than yourselves in the world, and those people have a right to be in society too. And no, it is entirely realistic to have 100% access in a city. There is zero reason whatsoever that the sidewalk in the story wasn't usable, other than a complete lack of empathy.

by TKinNC 9y ago

s73ver_ 9y ago

"The idea that because someone is inconvenienced they are somehow not "participating in society" is absurd." We're not talking inconvenience. We're talking not able to get around at all. That's not an inconvenience. That's not being able to participate in society at all. "but the solution is not to force regulation and maintenance costs on everyone - that is a road to bankruptcy." I completely disagree. If it wasn't for those regulations, no one would do it, and these people would not be able to participate. You may wish to look into why these regulations were enacted in the first place, and it wasn't because of lobbyists looking to make a buck.

TKinNC 9y ago
I dont know what article you are reading, but the one referenced revolved around a single instance of temporary (albeit dangerous) inconvenience. If she was denied the use of a wheelchair altogether, I might see your point. But as others have stated, 100% access is not realistic given the current technology for disabled people. Maybe instead of regulation and lawsuits, people that are so worked up over this issue should actually try to invent better tech, instead of expecting the govt to solve all our problems and compensate them whenever we dont meet 100% perfection.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  And maybe people like you can accept that there are more people than yourselves in the world, and those people have a right to be in society too. And no, it is entirely realistic to have 100% access in a city. There is zero reason whatsoever that the sidewalk in the story wasn't usable, other than a complete lack of empathy.