Originally posted by Oliver North
the majority of your position against the bill appears knee jerk and sensationalist to the point that you seem to be deliberately misreading the intent of the bill to rant about what you perceive as a PC mandate.
Oh, that is what you meant. You're clearly wrong, of course.
I am open to some education, though. How his this "treaty" Politically Correct?
Originally posted by Oliver NorthHe is a contrarian by nature. If this forum's demographic was primarily conservative, and the majority of the topics were anti-liberal in nature, he would be championing PC.
the majority of your position against the bill appears knee jerk and sensationalist to the point that you seem to be deliberately misreading the intent of the bill to rant about what you perceive as a PC mandate.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
He is a contrarian by nature.
That's slightly true. I am not a contrarian: I only argue against stuff that is wrong or clearly lacks perspective.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
If this forum's demographic was primarily conservative, and the majority of the topics were anti-liberal in nature, he would be championing PC.
You cannot pass off my own words as you original idea: that is something I have said of myself. Just take out the "PC" and put in "correct information", and your statement would be a very close paraphrase to what I have said of myself, before. I do it with my Mormon comrades when they get stupid with their conservatardness.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You missed an important question in my post. 🙂
I didn't call it PC, I said your rant seemed like it was written in that tone. That might be my misinterpretation, but, let me try to elaborate:
To the part of the treaty that is intended to fight against discrimination that people with disabilities face, you posted this (you also used this as an answer to most other points, but lets just highlight the discrimination section):
Originally posted by dadudemon
2.Non-discriminationImpossible: they have to be discriminated against as a necessity in some situations. No, paraplegic dude, you cannot take that escalator at the mall. No, quadriplegic gal, you cannot ride that roller-coaster. No, cerebral palsy guy, you cannot go to the gun firing range. No, mentally disabled friend, you cannot sign those legal documents.
"Throwing a silly blanket statement like this out there just shows that this is more about a "feel-good" message of idiots pandering for votes than it is about actually making meaningful lawful contributions to the civilized world."
Except that is completely irrelevant. It is not discriminating against a person when their disability causes a real limitation. What you have pointed out are limitations, not discrimination. Blind people cannot be lifeguards because of a physical limitation. Blind people face immense discrimination when trying to find employment for jobs they are equally qualified for.
Like, not only did you misinterpret what the point of the section is, you did it in such a way that only highlights the need for its existence. Not only that, some of your examples don't hold up either. With the exception of the roller-coaster, or maybe very severe cases of cerebral palsy, considerations can be made for all of those things to happen. I'm not saying they need be legally mandated, but an escalator could easily be made to accommodate a wheelchair.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Except that is completely irrelevant. It is not discriminating against a person when their disability causes a real limitation. What you have pointed out are limitations, not discrimination. Blind people cannot be lifeguards because of a physical limitation. Blind people face immense discrimination when trying to find employment for jobs they are equally qualified for.Like, not only did you misinterpret what the point of the section is, you did it in such a way that only highlights the need for its existence. Not only that, some of your examples don't hold up either.
It looks like you do not know what "discriminate" means, even in context. I don't think I believe that about you, however:
"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"
Not letting a person in a wheel chair take the escalator is discrimination specifically because of their "category" of disability and lack of ability. Not allowing someone, with debilitating cerebral palsy, to shoot at a firing range is discrimination specifically because of their disability and lack of ability.
Using your words, it is discrimination because of their limitations, and rightly so.
Originally posted by Oliver North
With the exception of the roller-coaster, or maybe very severe cases of cerebral palsy, considerations can be made for all of those things to happen. I'm not saying they need be legally mandated, but an escalator could easily be made to accommodate a wheelchair.
I like it when businesses make those accommodations. However, I do not like it to be forced accommodations. The business should get to chose to make those, not forced. So it would appear we agree that it does not necessarily mean it should be legally mandated. HOORAY!
Originally posted by Oliver North
/sighexhibit B)
You're right: discriminating against certain groups of the disabled is not actually discriminating nor is it a good idea to discriminate against them because they need equality in all facets of society. My post was just a knee-jerk reaction to the "Treaty." My bad.
the fact that this is your response to something trying to end discrimination against handicapped people is nonsensical, like you are deliberately trying to be satirical or something
EDIT: Like, if I wanted to mock your position, I'd say something like "now them blind folk wanna be lifeguards! Damn special treatment, they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps... etc", which I don't actually think is very far from what you are saying...
Originally posted by dadudemon
6.Accessibility
That should be up to the business owners, not the law. If a business wants to be an a**hole to a specific group of customers, let them. Do force them to pander their business to specific groups.
I skimmed through your post and this one caught my eye because I used to feel exactly the same way. Never understood why business owners had to cater to certain groups(the disabled] from a legal standpoint, when "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is still legal.
But I also feel as a society helping those less fortunate is a good thing, so forcing some would-be ******* to install a ramp isn't necessarily bad, but it's still a bit of a grey area for me.
Originally posted by Robtard
I skimmed through your post and this one caught my eye because I used to feel exactly the same way. Never understood why business owners had to cater to certain groups(the disabled] from a legal standpoint, when "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is still legal.But I also feel as a society helping those less fortunate is a good thing, so forcing some would-be ******* to install a ramp isn't necessarily bad, but it's still a bit of a grey area for me.
If people want to reserve the right to be ******* then the rest of us get to reserve the right to be assholes to them. I have no problem forcing people not to discriminate but, because handicapped accessibility can be expensive, the government has a responsibility make it easier to do.
Edit: Apparently ******* is inappropriate but assholes is okay.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If people want to reserve the right to be ******* then the rest of us get to reserve the right to be assholes to them. I have no problem forcing people not to discriminate but, because handicapped accessibility can be expensive, the government has a responsibility make it easier to do.Edit: Apparently ******* is inappropriate but assholes is okay.
That's part of why it's still a grey area to me, there should be government assistance for a business owner who is being forced to install handicap assess, imo.
I know of a business who had to spend close to $220,000 to retrofit a ramp and elevator so someone bound to a wheelchair could get inside the building (building is a against a hillside, so this is why it cost so much); that was 3 years ago and to date not a single person has used the ramp/elevator. Granted, this is probably a rare situation with older buildings costing this much to make accessible.
Originally posted by Robtard
know of a business who had to spend close to $220,000 to retrofit a ramp and elevator so someone bound to a wheelchair could get inside the building
see, I agree with you here
it is probably unreasonable to expect any company to be able to foot that type of a bill, given they are under a certain size, and the government should have either step in and assist or relax the requirements.
Originally posted by Oliver North
For small enough businesses, I can see giving them some leeway, but I don't have a problem saying that someone who operates a two-story mall has an obligation to make sure there is at least an elevator somewhere.
WHY DO YOU HATE THE RICH!!!! COMMUNIST SCUM!
Jokes aside, as noted, building a new building with access can be relatively cheap compared to retrofitting a pre handicap law building to conform with new(er) laws.
Originally posted by Robtard
COMMUNIST SCUM!
mother****er
we're not friends anymore
Originally posted by Robtard
Jokes aside, as noted, building a new building with access can be relatively cheap compared to retrofitting a pre handicap law building to conform with new(er) laws.
oh, for sure. and ya, as I said, in the situation of retrofitting old buildings the state should decide on a case by case basis how to deal with it, but unless it is owned by some large business, offer some type of assistance.
Originally posted by Robtard
I skimmed through your post and this one caught my eye because I used to feel exactly the same way. Never understood why business owners had to cater to certain groups(the disabled] from a legal standpoint, when "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is still legal.But I also feel as a society helping those less fortunate is a good thing, so forcing some would-be ******* to install a ramp isn't necessarily bad, but it's still a bit of a grey area for me.
I'm okay with...maybe.....maybe.....forcing mega corporations to have to accommodate the disabled with things such as ramps, guard rails, hand rails, and elevators. But not mid-size to small businesses.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If people want to reserve the right to be ******* then the rest of us get to reserve the right to be assholes to them. I have no problem forcing people not to discriminate but, because handicapped accessibility can be expensive, the government has a responsibility make it easier to do.Edit: Apparently ******* is inappropriate but assholes is okay.
I fully support your post and everything in it. If I knew of a big business that made no secret of being assholes to the disabled, you bet your sweet ass that I'd take my business elsewhere even if it meant paying a bit more.
Originally posted by Oliver North
For small enough businesses, I can see giving them some leeway, but I don't have a problem saying that someone who operates a two-story mall has an obligation to make sure there is at least an elevator somewhere.
Not too sure about the second part. I'd say if the owner owned a very successful franchise of several dozen malls (such as General Growth Properties), maybe then I would think about governments possibly requiring accommodations for the disabled. I would have to hear the arguments against forcing big-business to accommodate the disabled before I solidified my position on that, however.