[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[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]
Apparently human history (as JJ pointed out) is a straw man now.
[quote]SexMachine 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…
[/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.[/quote]
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not.
I think that’s a little extreme. Being that the handicapped are also represented by those in gov’t, access to gov’t and other publicly funded buildings should be in place for them.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
I was reading a very good book discussing this by Philip K Howard.
– jj[/quote]
What’s the title? If you don’t mind.
Has anybody here that is against any reasonable accommodation in pubic amenities ever had to get around or assist someone in a wheel chair long term?
Or, consider this- I do charity work for disabled veterans, some amazing guys, and my brother is one of them. Many of them are in wheel chairs, missing limbs, vertebra, have fragments of shrapnel and various other conditions that have disabled them gotten in service to their country. I can think of one guy in particular- an officer in the Army that was blown up by an ied, inflicting massive head trauma and spinal damage leaving him permanently, irreversibly and severely disabled.
What do you tell those guys? Could any of you who support the position that no accommodations should be made look at these guys and tell them to their face exactly what you are saying here?
Of course this being the internet- someone will say that they can, but really? Can you?
I mean it’s nice to argue concepts in a bubble, but how about where the rubber (from the tires on their chairs) meets the road?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Has anybody here that is against any reasonable accommodation in pubic amenities ever had to get around or assist someone in a wheel chair long term?
Or, consider this- I do charity work for disabled veterans, some amazing guys, and my brother is one of them. Many of them are in wheel chairs, missing limbs, vertebra, have fragments of shrapnel and various other conditions that have disabled them gotten in service to their country. I can think of one guy in particular- an officer in the Army that was blown up by an ied, inflicting massive head trauma and spinal damage leaving him permanently, irreversibly and severely disabled.
What do you tell those guys? Could any of you who support the position that no accommodations should be made look at these guys and tell them to their face exactly what you are saying here?
Of course this being the internet- someone will say that they can, but really? Can you?
I mean it’s nice to argue concepts in a bubble, but how about where the rubber (from the tires on their chairs) meets the road?
[/quote]
What facilities and accommodations are you referring to specifically?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Has anybody here that is against any reasonable accommodation in pubic amenities ever had to get around or assist someone in a wheel chair long term?
Or, consider this- I do charity work for disabled veterans, some amazing guys, and my brother is one of them. Many of them are in wheel chairs, missing limbs, vertebra, have fragments of shrapnel and various other conditions that have disabled them gotten in service to their country. I can think of one guy in particular- an officer in the Army that was blown up by an ied, inflicting massive head trauma and spinal damage leaving him permanently, irreversibly and severely disabled.
What do you tell those guys? Could any of you who support the position that no accommodations should be made look at these guys and tell them to their face exactly what you are saying here?
Of course this being the internet- someone will say that they can, but really? Can you?
I mean it’s nice to argue concepts in a bubble, but how about where the rubber (from the tires on their chairs) meets the road?
[/quote]
lol, so now questioning whether certain regulations are in fact appropriate, or maybe just a little over the top now means that anyone who questions is “ANTI HELPING HANDICAP PEOPLE”?
COme on with this. At least be reasonable.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Has anybody here that is against any reasonable accommodation in pubic amenities [/quote]
I’m just curious who you think this applies to. Maybe I’m not reading careful enough?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Has anybody here that is against any reasonable accommodation in pubic amenities ever had to get around or assist someone in a wheel chair long term?
Or, consider this- I do charity work for disabled veterans, some amazing guys, and my brother is one of them. Many of them are in wheel chairs, missing limbs, vertebra, have fragments of shrapnel and various other conditions that have disabled them gotten in service to their country. I can think of one guy in particular- an officer in the Army that was blown up by an ied, inflicting massive head trauma and spinal damage leaving him permanently, irreversibly and severely disabled.
What do you tell those guys? Could any of you who support the position that no accommodations should be made look at these guys and tell them to their face exactly what you are saying here?
Of course this being the internet- someone will say that they can, but really? Can you?
I mean it’s nice to argue concepts in a bubble, but how about where the rubber (from the tires on their chairs) meets the road?
[/quote]
lol, so now questioning whether certain regulations are in fact appropriate, or maybe just a little over the top now means that anyone who questions is “ANTI HELPING HANDICAP PEOPLE”?
COme on with this. At least be reasonable. [/quote]
No, nice try at turning it into something that it is not.
And, you didn’t answer the questions.
Ball-less attempt at dodging some real questions.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Has anybody here that is against any reasonable accommodation in pubic amenities ever had to get around or assist someone in a wheel chair long term?
Or, consider this- I do charity work for disabled veterans, some amazing guys, and my brother is one of them. Many of them are in wheel chairs, missing limbs, vertebra, have fragments of shrapnel and various other conditions that have disabled them gotten in service to their country. I can think of one guy in particular- an officer in the Army that was blown up by an ied, inflicting massive head trauma and spinal damage leaving him permanently, irreversibly and severely disabled.
What do you tell those guys? Could any of you who support the position that no accommodations should be made look at these guys and tell them to their face exactly what you are saying here?
Of course this being the internet- someone will say that they can, but really? Can you?
I mean it’s nice to argue concepts in a bubble, but how about where the rubber (from the tires on their chairs) meets the road?
[/quote]
lol, so now questioning whether certain regulations are in fact appropriate, or maybe just a little over the top now means that anyone who questions is “ANTI HELPING HANDICAP PEOPLE”?
COme on with this. At least be reasonable. [/quote]
No, nice try at turning it into something that it is not.
And, you didn’t answer the questions.
Ball-less attempt at dodging some real questions.
[/quote]
Utter horse shit. Read my post in this tread. I’m in fact around a Vet in a wheel chair quite often, and we’ve talked about this very thing a lot.
So, no, my balls are quite intact, and I answered your question before you asked it.
Now, back to you putting words in people’s mouth and pretending people are against things because they question government.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
No, nice try at turning it into something that it is not.
And, you didn’t answer the questions.
Ball-less attempt at dodging some real questions.
[/quote]
From before you even posted your little appeal to emotion:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
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]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
No, nice try at turning it into something that it is not.
And, you didn’t answer the questions.
Ball-less attempt at dodging some real questions.
[/quote]
From before you even posted your little appeal to emotion:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
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]
[/quote]
An appeal to emotion? It must have struck a chord with you then.
I was drawing from real world experience. You seem to be the one reading into it from an emotional standpoint.
Whats wrong? Can’t hide behind the numbers when asked a direct question?
I think everyone should build taller pots and sinks in public bathrooms. My back is killing me bending over to take a piss and wash my hands.
Also tables should be raised 4 inches to accommodate my huge legs.
In fact Airplanes should have more space in them. I hit my head on the door into the plane. Hit my head on the over head compartments, and also the chairs are too narrow. Airlines are discriminating against me. IT IS MY RIGHT to be comfortable on an airplane.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
An appeal to emotion? It must have struck a chord with you then.[/quote]
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
sigh…
Secondly, what struck a chord with me is the assumptive first sentence in your post. Not only do you assume people are “against reasonable” things, which I don’t recall anyone saying, so please point that out to me. But the rest of your post is an appeal to emotion based on a faulty assumption I just outlined.
Read that link.
lol. Good lord. You taking the pittbull tactic of ignoring what you don’t want to read? Should I post what I stated that is a direct answer to your “question” for a third time now?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
An appeal to emotion? It must have struck a chord with you then.[/quote]
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
sigh…
Secondly, what struck a chord with me is the assumptive first sentence in your post. Not only do you assume people are “against reasonable” things, which I don’t recall anyone saying, so please point that out to me. But the rest of your post is an appeal to emotion based on a faulty assumption I just outlined.
Read that link.
lol. Good lord. You taking the pittbull tactic of ignoring what you don’t want to read? Should I post what I stated that is a direct answer to your “question” for a third time now?
[/quote]
No need for the link. I’ve taken a couple of college level English courses and understand argumentation fallacies.
I’ve read your post, and wasn’t impugning you in any way with mine, but man you sure jumped on it.
So tell me about how to handle people who’ve gotten their motor cortex scrambled buy a fragmentation mine.
Should they have handicapped stalls or treaded ramps on sidewalks at a crosswalk for their chair?
Is the ADA a good regulation or a bad regulation?
It’s not like anybody is demanding that an elevator be installed in all buildings built since the passage of the act just so they can check out the view from the roof if they so choose.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Has anybody here that is against any reasonable accommodation in pubic amenities
[/quote]
Are regulations governing the size, slope, and even the length of the grass fibers used on a putt-putt golf course reasonable accommodations?
[/quote]
I don’t know. Is the owner accepting any grants from the federal gov. to develop the business?
Cuz if the owner is, then yeah, that is reasonable.
Don’t like compliance? Don’t accept the money! It’s a lot like that old adage about dancing with the devil.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I’ve read your post, and wasn’t impugning you in any way with mine, but man you sure jumped on it.[/quote]
Because you’re making broad assumptions about people’s perspective based on emotional appeals.
Unless someone said we should remove the things you listed below this, it has zero to do with whether regulation of astroturf is reasonable government intervention or just completely government intrusion at worst and utter waste of time at best.
Not building a sidewalk so a chair can get up it =/= regulating astroturf length.
Just because someone questions if government should be regulating astroturf length, doesn’t mean they want public ways constructed in a way that hinders the movement of those in a chair. That is the issue with your post, because it clearly doesn’t understand that delineation or doesn’t care too, one or the other.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I’ve read your post, and wasn’t impugning you in any way with mine, but man you sure jumped on it.[/quote]
Because you’re making broad assumptions about people’s perspective based on emotional appeals.
Unless someone said we should remove the things you listed below this, it has zero to do with whether regulation of astroturf is reasonable government intervention or just completely government intrusion at worst and utter waste of time at best.
Not building a sidewalk so a chair can get up it =/= regulating astroturf length.
Just because someone questions if government should be regulating astroturf length, doesn’t mean they want public ways constructed in a way that hinders the movement of those in a chair. That is the issue with your post, because it clearly doesn’t understand that delineation or doesn’t care too, one or the other.
[/quote]
I got to the delineation with the last post in response to Push, which is, is a business accepting public monies to improve their own station?
In that regard, regulating construction requirements is =, whether it is astro turf or building a sidewalk.