[quote]pushharder wrote:
Will, is the the length of the grass fibers used on the course important to wheelchair bound folks who play mini golf?[/quote]
Yes, because it’s harder to move the wheelchair in deep artificial grass.
With respect to public, eg gov’t offices, buildings, courts, and other publicly funded buildings, I see the requirement of access.
But for private businesses, if the owner feels the need to spend their money on building the need routes of access, then it is their decision whether or not to make that choice, and it shouldn’t be legislated.
It’s like with foods, when people can slap a positive claim on it, someone can the same with their business, eg wheel-chair access provided.
I also don’t think it would be bad to give a tax incentive for people that choose to build access platforms either. Then at least they’d have a positive economic incentive to do so.
It just comes down to economics.
Forcing people to spend their money on things that aren’t going to directly benefit their business, is simply wrong.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Will, is the the length of the grass fibers used on the course important to wheelchair bound folks who play mini golf?[/quote]
Yes, because it’s harder to move the wheelchair in deep artificial grass. [/quote]
Have you ever ever ever visited a mini golf course with artificial grass so incredibly deep that a wheelchair could not navigate it?
Have you witnessed wheelchairs stuck in this deep grass?
Do you realize how deep into grass you must be to post this stuff?[/quote]
If you’ve ever pushed a wheelchair you would know that the wheels are difficult to turn in deeper material, be it carpet, snow, gravel, dirt, turf, whatever. A person with a clue would understand this.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Will, is the the length of the grass fibers used on the course important to wheelchair bound folks who play mini golf?[/quote]
As a person who’s wife is disabled it does make a difference. It can be difficult to move the chair.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
With respect to public, eg gov’t offices, buildings, courts, and other publicly funded buildings, I see the requirement of access.
But for private businesses, if the owner feels the need to spend their money on building the need routes of access, then it is their decision whether or not to make that choice, and it shouldn’t be legislated.
It’s like with foods, when people can slap a positive claim on it, someone can the same with their business, eg wheel-chair access provided.
I also don’t think it would be bad to give a tax incentive for people that choose to build access platforms either. Then at least they’d have a positive economic incentive to do so.
It just comes down to economics.
Forcing people to spend their money on things that aren’t going to directly benefit their business, is simply wrong.
[/quote]
That’s cool, then me and my disabled spouse will go spend our hard earned money with someone that realizes it will directly benefit them.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Someone is sure having some fun here. Sayonara, Will. You low post count gave it away. Next time you’ll have to work a little harder and longer to develop your troll.[/quote]
Not trolling at all, I just thought it was shameful to claim lunacy for improving the quality of life of disabled people.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
With respect to public, eg gov’t offices, buildings, courts, and other publicly funded buildings, I see the requirement of access…
[/quote]
As someone who was recently wheelchair bound for nearly six weeks I sure can relate…but not that much. How did disabled people get by before the modern era of wheelchair friendly parking spaces and bathrooms? Why not mandate that a small space be left aside in government buildings where disabled people or philanthropists can pay to have their own bathrooms installed? Either that or they learn to use a pooper scooper like the rest of us.
Well obama plays golf,perhaps he has a wheel chair friend who told him,“barack these grasses are too tall, you the president,do something”
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
With respect to public, eg gov’t offices, buildings, courts, and other publicly funded buildings, I see the requirement of access.
But for private businesses, if the owner feels the need to spend their money on building the need routes of access, then it is their decision whether or not to make that choice, and it shouldn’t be legislated.
It’s like with foods, when people can slap a positive claim on it, someone can the same with their business, eg wheel-chair access provided.
I also don’t think it would be bad to give a tax incentive for people that choose to build access platforms either. Then at least they’d have a positive economic incentive to do so.
It just comes down to economics.
Forcing people to spend their money on things that aren’t going to directly benefit their business, is simply wrong.
[/quote]
That’s cool, then me and my disabled spouse will go spend our hard earned money with someone that realizes it will directly benefit them.[/quote]
Exactly.
When did we lose the sacrosanctity of private property rights? Is equality really equality if forced by the end of a gun barrel?
[quote]Will207 wrote:
I see no problem with a regulation that enables wheelchair bound people to use a washroom, go grocery shopping, or even play a round of mini-putt.
Do you?
[/quote]
I was reading a very good book discussing this by Philip K Howard. The gist is that in the original Constitution rights were protection from the law. The shift starting in the 60’s to rights-based laws are exactly 180 degrees out of whack with the legal system. Case in point is that once handicapped accessible became a right, over $100 billion had to be spent nationally to make everything comply. It was pointed out that for about $2 billion the government could have given free housing and chauffeurs to everyone who was wheelchair bound at the time. Since it is a “right” there is not stopping any claim. Indeed, the requirement also meant that cities – most of which had paratransit which was free bus service on demand for handicapped – had to remove seats and change routes. The most measurable outcome of this was that it became much more expensive (sities had to absorb the cost) to run buses, so this meant stopping service too poorer and outlying areas. In other words, so that someone in a wheelchair might have the ability to exercise their right, a whole mess of little old ladies on fixed income could no longer get to the store.
The point is that since pretty much everything now is phrased in terms of rights which are legally in the US taken to be inviolate (e.g. Freedom of Speech) we are now on a slippery slope.
Another facet of this is that criminal law formerly was applied to only actual criminal activities, like murder, rape, robbery. Starting in the 70’s a new legal precept that rights were property (the legal justification for accepting rights as we do now, coming from various Left wing sources trying to make Getting welfare a right), so that if I have a right to sit on a bus and you prevent that, there is legally little difference between you and a serial pedophile (the law doesn’t address if there is a moral difference, btw). The point here is that making rights part of the criminal justice system in turn forces everyone to walk on eggshells and be afraid of any infringement, since prison or huge fines can easily result. Hence the outlandish statement from the prison wardens about needing to make their executions ADA compliant. There is zero reason for them to assume any risk especially if over-reacting is their best defense in cases of future lawsuits.
As always, full of shit.
– jj
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Is equality really equality if forced by the end of a gun barrel?[/quote]
Yes.
However, there is a limit. It is a fine line, and difficult to pin down, however there comes a point where the oppressed “freedom fighter” becomes the oppressor. And conversely the former oppressor becomes the oppressed.
As for the tread topic itself… My Brother-in-law has been in a chair for 10 years or so now, and we’ve talked about it a decent amount actually. I take a “he has been in that thing for awhile now, he knows what he is doing” approach and he appreciates it. When people pander to him or go out of their way, painfully, to “accommodate” him he gets pissed. Because in realty, he just wants to get treated like a normal guy who’s legs don’t move, not an special person who needs his ass wiped by society.
In short, I’ve never, in 34 years, see artificial turf that is going to slow this dude down.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Is equality really equality if forced by the end of a gun barrel?
Yes.
[/quote]
No. You forget about the person pointing the gun. S/he is way better than both of you and gets to make the decision about what is right and wrong or they wouldn’t be empowered to force the issue. Every attempt to make a more equal society ends up creating an elite with immense powers that reduces their citizens to abject terror (French Revolution, Pol Pot, Cultural Revolution, North Korea).
Still full of shit,
- jj
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
When did we lose the sacrosanctity of private property rights? Is equality really equality if forced by the end of a gun barrel?[/quote]
Really , where is the gun barrel ? Basic Straw man
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
When did we lose the sacrosanctity of private property rights? Is equality really equality if forced by the end of a gun barrel?[/quote]
Really , where is the gun barrel ? Basic Straw man
[/quote]
Lol. I forgot you think our government is a benevolent third party incapable of using force to bend its subjects to its will.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Is equality really equality if forced by the end of a gun barrel?
Yes.
[/quote]
No. You forget about the person pointing the gun. S/he is way better than both of you and gets to make the decision about what is right and wrong or they wouldn’t be empowered to force the issue. Every attempt to make a more equal society ends up creating an elite with immense powers that reduces their citizens to abject terror (French Revolution, Pol Pot, Cultural Revolution, North Korea).
Still full of shit,
- jj[/quote]
I thinking along the lines of equal under the law. So, therefore equally protected, equally treated and equally see as a sovereign being.
So, preventing things like murder, rape and theft, even by the threat of violence, is still “equality” in that sense.
However, your point is duly noted.