5 ms·

>One example: people in wheelchairs used to be called "invalids" and pretty much couldn't get anywhere in public. I suppose all the photographs of President Fr

>One example: people in wheelchairs used to be called "invalids" and pretty much couldn't get anywhere in public. I suppose all the photographs of President Franklin Roosevelt traveling all across the world, entering the governor's office and ultimately the whitehouse were fakes since these all happened before the ADA. The fact one of our very active presidents was confined to a wheelchair really puts a hole in your ADA theory of invalids.

bcassedy 5y ago
Is your counterpoint really that FDR was able to go places in public? He notoriously hid his disability with a combination of canes, braces, and family members to hold him upright and even simulate walking. He also had a tremendous amount of power and money to force or provide his own special accommodations. Like having an army of secret service agents to help him deal with stairs.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  I quote you as follows: people in wheelchairs "pretty much couldn't get anywhere in public." I assert that you are quite wrong, and I provide you an example of it happening. We shouldn't discount his achievements.
  - bcassedy 5y ago
    "People pretty much couldn't go to space" "Well actually Richard Branson went to space. That puts a big hole in your people pretty much couldn't go to space argument now doesn't it!?" The example of a single person with nearly endless resources accomplishing something does nothing to refute a point about the masses. Heck, the "pretty much" qualifier is an acknowledgement that some people got around despite their condition. I assert that you are not discussing this in good faith and won't be engaging with you further.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      Wow, pretty much anything can be refuted when you operate entirely against a wondrous straw man. I didn't say a word about space. It would be pretty dumb to say people couldn't pretty much go to space. I also don't understand your fixation that just because Roosevelt was able to do something, that no one else was able to. In fact you should know employment of the disabled has actually gone DOWN since the ADA was passed, and in fact over half of the worknig age disabled worked before passsing of the ADA -- which usually involves going out at some point in public. You've made abundantly clear that your "good faith" worries about others are in fact a projection of your own problem with keeping the good faith.
      - reificator 5y ago
        > It would be pretty dumb to say people couldn't pretty much go to space. I'm not convinced you're reading the posts of the person you're arguing with, or really putting much effort at all into understanding what they're trying to say.
        quantumBerry 5y ago
        I'm not trying to convince someone who lacks the ability to be reasoned with. At first it was that the disabled pretty much couldn't go out in public. That I showed an example of that being incorrect. Then it was yeah, but that didn't apply to the common person. In fact I showed before the ADA, over half the disabled were employed (which typically, but not always, involves going in public at some point). And I pointed out after the ADA their employment (a key part of being integrated in public) went down. No one refutes that fact either, but now it's merely I haven't "convinced" you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The ADA is completely unconvincing in terms of effectiveness in actually integrating the disabled in public; and the argument the disabled were pretty much not in public before the ADA is equally un"convincing."
        reificator 5y ago
        > > I'm not convinced you're reading the posts of the person you're arguing with, or really putting much effort at all into understanding what they're trying to say. > I'm not trying to convince someone who lacks the ability to be reasoned with. > ... > No one refutes that fact either, but now it's merely I haven't "convinced" you. That you think I'm the one who was arguing with you despite me saying "the posts of the person you're arguing with" instead of "my posts" confirms what I was saying. You don't seem to care about actually understanding the other person's meaning. You're very clearly looking for a way to continue the argument and prove how smart you are, but I assure you as a (former) bystander that you're not succeeding. Read the two quotes at the top of this post, really read them, and you'll hopefully see what I mean. I tell you this because I've been there and it's not a good way to live, nor is it a good way to impress people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
salt-thrower 5y ago
Other users take note: this commenter frequently makes arguments that are so off-base, that I'm convinced they're either a bad-faith troll, or unwilling to actually think about the discussion at hand. Take that into account when reading this thread.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  By the commenter, you must be referring to yourself. Over half of the working age disabled were employed before the passing of the ADA and that number went down after the passing of the ADA. Seeing as being employed often (but not always) involves going into public, and is a key measure of integration with the public, I'd say the disabled were far from "pretty much" not going anywhere in public before passing of the ADA. In fact one could argue the ADA harmed integration in public of the disabled by the side effect that it lowered their employment.
  - salt-thrower 5y ago
    And yet instead of leading with that, you led the argument with "well the President of the country was able to get around so you're wrong." And anyway, employment rate alone is one tiny sliver of the puzzle. A thousand factors influence employment rates, and general quality of life factors such as "I can navigate public spaces without someone lifting my chair up the stairs" are not measured by employment. Further, the ADA was one example of activism making at least a slight improvement in the physical public conditions that people have to put up with. That was my point. All I'm saying is you don't have to just bow your head and accept the conditions that normative society thrusts upon you if you're atypical in some way. Activism can move the needle in a more accessible direction. Perhaps you can think of some better examples of this than the ADA.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      I have no disagreement with this well reasoned statement.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
FDR's Hidden Handicap http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/fdrs-hidden-handicap http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/fdrs-hidden-handic...
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  Thank you; this is the only contribution here that has factual basis without some absurd fallacious argument following it.

bcassedy 5y ago

Is your counterpoint really that FDR was able to go places in public? He notoriously hid his disability with a combination of canes, braces, and family members to hold him upright and even simulate walking. He also had a tremendous amount of power and money to force or provide his own special accommodations. Like having an army of secret service agents to help him deal with stairs.

quantumBerry 5y ago
I quote you as follows: people in wheelchairs "pretty much couldn't get anywhere in public." I assert that you are quite wrong, and I provide you an example of it happening. We shouldn't discount his achievements.
- bcassedy 5y ago
  "People pretty much couldn't go to space" "Well actually Richard Branson went to space. That puts a big hole in your people pretty much couldn't go to space argument now doesn't it!?" The example of a single person with nearly endless resources accomplishing something does nothing to refute a point about the masses. Heck, the "pretty much" qualifier is an acknowledgement that some people got around despite their condition. I assert that you are not discussing this in good faith and won't be engaging with you further.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    Wow, pretty much anything can be refuted when you operate entirely against a wondrous straw man. I didn't say a word about space. It would be pretty dumb to say people couldn't pretty much go to space. I also don't understand your fixation that just because Roosevelt was able to do something, that no one else was able to. In fact you should know employment of the disabled has actually gone DOWN since the ADA was passed, and in fact over half of the worknig age disabled worked before passsing of the ADA -- which usually involves going out at some point in public. You've made abundantly clear that your "good faith" worries about others are in fact a projection of your own problem with keeping the good faith.
    - reificator 5y ago
      > It would be pretty dumb to say people couldn't pretty much go to space. I'm not convinced you're reading the posts of the person you're arguing with, or really putting much effort at all into understanding what they're trying to say.
      - quantumBerry 5y ago
        I'm not trying to convince someone who lacks the ability to be reasoned with. At first it was that the disabled pretty much couldn't go out in public. That I showed an example of that being incorrect. Then it was yeah, but that didn't apply to the common person. In fact I showed before the ADA, over half the disabled were employed (which typically, but not always, involves going in public at some point). And I pointed out after the ADA their employment (a key part of being integrated in public) went down. No one refutes that fact either, but now it's merely I haven't "convinced" you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The ADA is completely unconvincing in terms of effectiveness in actually integrating the disabled in public; and the argument the disabled were pretty much not in public before the ADA is equally un"convincing."
        reificator 5y ago
        > > I'm not convinced you're reading the posts of the person you're arguing with, or really putting much effort at all into understanding what they're trying to say. > I'm not trying to convince someone who lacks the ability to be reasoned with. > ... > No one refutes that fact either, but now it's merely I haven't "convinced" you. That you think I'm the one who was arguing with you despite me saying "the posts of the person you're arguing with" instead of "my posts" confirms what I was saying. You don't seem to care about actually understanding the other person's meaning. You're very clearly looking for a way to continue the argument and prove how smart you are, but I assure you as a (former) bystander that you're not succeeding. Read the two quotes at the top of this post, really read them, and you'll hopefully see what I mean. I tell you this because I've been there and it's not a good way to live, nor is it a good way to impress people.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

salt-thrower 5y ago

Other users take note: this commenter frequently makes arguments that are so off-base, that I'm convinced they're either a bad-faith troll, or unwilling to actually think about the discussion at hand. Take that into account when reading this thread.

quantumBerry 5y ago
By the commenter, you must be referring to yourself. Over half of the working age disabled were employed before the passing of the ADA and that number went down after the passing of the ADA. Seeing as being employed often (but not always) involves going into public, and is a key measure of integration with the public, I'd say the disabled were far from "pretty much" not going anywhere in public before passing of the ADA. In fact one could argue the ADA harmed integration in public of the disabled by the side effect that it lowered their employment.
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  And yet instead of leading with that, you led the argument with "well the President of the country was able to get around so you're wrong." And anyway, employment rate alone is one tiny sliver of the puzzle. A thousand factors influence employment rates, and general quality of life factors such as "I can navigate public spaces without someone lifting my chair up the stairs" are not measured by employment. Further, the ADA was one example of activism making at least a slight improvement in the physical public conditions that people have to put up with. That was my point. All I'm saying is you don't have to just bow your head and accept the conditions that normative society thrusts upon you if you're atypical in some way. Activism can move the needle in a more accessible direction. Perhaps you can think of some better examples of this than the ADA.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    I have no disagreement with this well reasoned statement.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

FDR's Hidden Handicap http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/fdrs-hidden-handicap http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/fdrs-hidden-handic...

quantumBerry 5y ago
Thank you; this is the only contribution here that has factual basis without some absurd fallacious argument following it.