3 ms·

> Please explain how it's fair that organizations who are releasing educational materials for free should be forced to pay extra money (which they possibly can'

> Please explain how it's fair that organizations who are releasing educational materials for free should be forced to pay extra money (which they possibly can't afford to spare) so that their content is slightly more accessible to a vanishingly small portion of the population. Because they agreed to follow said laws: the ADA. They have options if they choose not to follow the laws. > Please explain how it's fair that the plaintiffs would rather that everyone lose access to this educational material than deal with the fact that maybe not everyone will be able to use it. They do not want everyone to lose access. Instead, what they want, is for everyone to be able to use the content. Regardless, they do not want everyone to lose access. Your question is merely based on ignorance of the desires of the plaintiffs. > Please explain how it's fair to act like a petulant child, screaming that if they can't have it, nobody can. Because when someone breaks the law and it harms you, you have the right to seek redress in our system. I've answered your questions. Now, please answer mine, which are written with the same care that you wrote yours. Please explain why you feel it's okay that organizations should be able to ignore and back out of laws they don't agree with. Please explain why you feel you have more right to the material than others. Please explain what it's like being a petulant, self-entitled child? I look forward to your reply.

wyager 12y ago
>Because they agreed to follow said laws: the ADA. Something being the law doesn't mean that it's fair. I shouldn't have to explain that. Also, it hasn't been established that these universities are actually breaking the ADA. >They have options if they choose not to follow the laws. What do you mean by this? >They do not want everyone to lose access. Well, that's the likely outcome of suing a university trying to offer a free service. >Please explain why you feel it's okay that organizations should be able to ignore and back out of laws they don't agree with. Again, it's not established that they were breaking the law. I see nothing wrong with breaking immoral laws. If the ADA forbids disseminating educational material for free unless it follows a certain format, the ADA is immoral. >Please explain why you feel you have more right to the material than others. I don't feel that I have this right. I feel that deaf people don't have the right to demand that educational organizations curate information in a way that suits their fancy. How would you feel if the swahili speakers of America sued MIT for not translating their free educational videos to swahili? >Please explain what it's like being a petulant, self-entitled child? Nice ad hominem. You aren't even explaining why you're calling me that; you're literally just name-calling.
- handojin 12y ago
  EDIT: for clarity, removing rhetoricals Strictly speaking it's not ad hominem. A careful reader will see that nowhere has (s)he called you a "spoiled petulant, self entitled child". You're merely being asked to explain your understanding of the meaning of a highly pejorative term which you introduced into the discourse.
  - loco5niner 12y ago
    Don't worry, he got there eventually
- jasonlotito 12y ago
  > Something being the law doesn't mean that it's fair. I shouldn't have to explain that. So if someone or a company feels they shouldn't have to follow a law, you are okay with them not having to answer for breaking the law? > Also, it hasn't been established that these universities are actually breaking the ADA. This is why they are being sued. Some think they are. Considering your swahili statement, you disagree with the American legal system and the way it works. > What do you mean by this? I'm not sure what you don't understand. It's English, and it says exactly what I wanted it to say. Are you suggesting they were forced to break the law? > Well, that's the likely outcome of suing a university trying to offer a free service. Considering the other provisions of the ADA and their non-impact on free services offered by countless other business both big and small all across the country, you'd need to back this up with real, hard evidence. Please do. > I see nothing wrong with breaking immoral laws. In your opinion immoral laws. Clearly others do not agree with you. Would you support someone breaking a law they considered immoral and you considered moral if breaking the law harmed you? > If the ADA forbids disseminating educational material for free unless it follows a certain format, the ADA is immoral. It does not forbid this. If you think this is what the case is about, you are ignorant. > How would you feel if the swahili speakers of America sued MIT for not translating their free educational videos to swahili? People are allowed to sue others they feel have wronged them. Why do you think people shouldn't be allowed to sue others they feel have broken the law or wronged them? > Nice ad hominem. So you can dish it out but can't take it yourself. So you really are a petulant, self-entitled child.

wyager 12y ago

>Because they agreed to follow said laws: the ADA. Something being the law doesn't mean that it's fair. I shouldn't have to explain that. Also, it hasn't been established that these universities are actually breaking the ADA. >They have options if they choose not to follow the laws. What do you mean by this? >They do not want everyone to lose access. Well, that's the likely outcome of suing a university trying to offer a free service. >Please explain why you feel it's okay that organizations should be able to ignore and back out of laws they don't agree with. Again, it's not established that they were breaking the law. I see nothing wrong with breaking immoral laws. If the ADA forbids disseminating educational material for free unless it follows a certain format, the ADA is immoral. >Please explain why you feel you have more right to the material than others. I don't feel that I have this right. I feel that deaf people don't have the right to demand that educational organizations curate information in a way that suits their fancy. How would you feel if the swahili speakers of America sued MIT for not translating their free educational videos to swahili? >Please explain what it's like being a petulant, self-entitled child? Nice ad hominem. You aren't even explaining why you're calling me that; you're literally just name-calling.

handojin 12y ago
EDIT: for clarity, removing rhetoricals Strictly speaking it's not ad hominem. A careful reader will see that nowhere has (s)he called you a "spoiled petulant, self entitled child". You're merely being asked to explain your understanding of the meaning of a highly pejorative term which you introduced into the discourse.
- loco5niner 12y ago
  Don't worry, he got there eventually
jasonlotito 12y ago
> Something being the law doesn't mean that it's fair. I shouldn't have to explain that. So if someone or a company feels they shouldn't have to follow a law, you are okay with them not having to answer for breaking the law? > Also, it hasn't been established that these universities are actually breaking the ADA. This is why they are being sued. Some think they are. Considering your swahili statement, you disagree with the American legal system and the way it works. > What do you mean by this? I'm not sure what you don't understand. It's English, and it says exactly what I wanted it to say. Are you suggesting they were forced to break the law? > Well, that's the likely outcome of suing a university trying to offer a free service. Considering the other provisions of the ADA and their non-impact on free services offered by countless other business both big and small all across the country, you'd need to back this up with real, hard evidence. Please do. > I see nothing wrong with breaking immoral laws. In your opinion immoral laws. Clearly others do not agree with you. Would you support someone breaking a law they considered immoral and you considered moral if breaking the law harmed you? > If the ADA forbids disseminating educational material for free unless it follows a certain format, the ADA is immoral. It does not forbid this. If you think this is what the case is about, you are ignorant. > How would you feel if the swahili speakers of America sued MIT for not translating their free educational videos to swahili? People are allowed to sue others they feel have wronged them. Why do you think people shouldn't be allowed to sue others they feel have broken the law or wronged them? > Nice ad hominem. So you can dish it out but can't take it yourself. So you really are a petulant, self-entitled child.