Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/8/2004 5:54:07 AM EST

How about waiting for the DVD?



"It's a drop in the bucket," said Cheryl Heppner, chairwoman of the Coalition for Movie Captioning, an alliance of advocacy groups for the deaf and hard of hearing. The coalition says the deal requires only "the ability to show captioned movies on roughly 5 percent of AMC/Loews screens forever."

Other advocates say the Rear Window system is cumbersome and that a better approach would be "open captions"--subtitles projected on the screen and visible to all patrons.



This is the kinda of attitude that we have to defeat. The goal in this society seems
to be to pull every facet of life down to the lowest common demoninator. We've come
to accept it in schools, .GOV, and the workplace; now even our bread and circus' are
infested.

I'm heading to Home Depot right now to pick up some concrete so I can build a wheelchair
ramp to my front door. I would hate to get sued by a disabled Jehovah Witness.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:04:15 AM EST
PATHETIC!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:13:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 6:13:51 AM EST by eagle1911]
Why would you say deaf people are the lowest common denominator? Are you incinuating that a person who is deaf or hard of hearing is stupid? Do you fell they act deaf so that they can get special benifits? So people who have a disability should stay at home and never do anything?
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:18:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911: So people who have a disability should stay at home and never do anything?



the non deaf population shouldn't be forced by government to accomodate cripples

Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:22:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By eagle1911: So people who have a disability should stay at home and never do anything?



the non deaf population shouldn't be forced by government to accomodate cripples




Ok, I have a solution then, since it seems to interfer with your life, lets round up everyone who is a cripple, served your country and lost both legs, served your country and are paralyzed, does not matter, report to the train. We are going to give you a shower first before we assign you to your new barricks. Put all you belongings in a pile you will get them later. Make sure you inhale deeply while tking your shower, the steam will really clean out your sinuses.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:23:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 6:24:38 AM EST by Red_Beard]

Originally Posted By eagle1911:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By eagle1911: So people who have a disability should stay at home and never do anything?



the non deaf population shouldn't be forced by government to accomodate cripples




Ok, I have a solution then, since it seems to interfer with your life, lets round up everyone who is a cripple, served your country and lost both legs, served your country and are paralyzed, does not matter, report to the train. We are going to give you a shower first before we assign you to your new barricks. Put all you belongings in a pile you will get them later. Make sure you inhale deeply while tking your shower, the steam will really clean out your sinuses.




how do you get from not wanting to be forced to put a cripple ramp on my store to wanting to round up cripples and gas them to death? fucking idiot.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:26:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Why would you say deaf people are the lowest common denominator?



That perhaps was a bad way to phrase my displeasure. But in this case
the denominator is the ability to hear a movie. The passage I quoted
seemed to suggest that the 99 "hearing-abled" patrons in a theater
should be inconveinced by the one hearing-disabled person. Thus, everyone
is brought down to the level of the hearing-disabled person.

That is the essence of what I have a problem with, not only in this case,
but that mentaility is everywhere.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Are you incinuating that a person who is deaf or hard of hearing is stupid?



"lowest common denominator" simply means to bring everyone down
to the lowest common level. See above.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Do you fell they act deaf so that they can get special benifits?



Not in the slightest (and no where did I insinuate that). I think that you
misinterpreted my meaning. See above.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
So people who have a disability should stay at home and never do anything?



No. But to expect equal enjoyment of an event in which you do not have the
ability to participate in one key aspect (e.g. hearing the dialog) is not a
realistic goal. Furthermore, to force everyone else to suffer so that you can
enjoy the event is worse.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:26:46 AM EST
eagle' I like your point but since you brought up the Nazi solution you automatically lose (loose for you idiots) the argument. Rule one (won) is the first person to bring up nazis in an argument on this site (sight) loses (looses?).

But you probably (polly) knew (new) that right.


Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:29:06 AM EST
It's funny, for years people have been saying that are people impaired don't need any help, but then they push for the ADA. Unused Handi-capped parking spaces have poping up like rabbits. At my son's local elementary school, handicap parking spaces has grown from 3 unused to 5. At that rate, we would have 90% handicapped parking spaces, and 10% others.

I've only seen only one elderly man used the double-wide handi-cap parking space because they have to be wide in order to accomodate the loading ramp which extends about 5-7 on the side of the automobile.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:33:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Ok, I have a solution then, since it seems to interfer with your life, lets round up everyone who is a cripple, served your country and lost both legs, served your country and are paralyzed, does not matter, report to the train. We are going to give you a shower first before we assign you to your new barricks. Put all you belongings in a pile you will get them later. Make sure you inhale deeply while tking your shower, the steam will really clean out your sinuses.



Wow. It took only five posts for someone to drop a Nazi reference. That
has to be a record.

Nice strawman, by the way.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:40:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By eagle1911:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By eagle1911: So people who have a disability should stay at home and never do anything?



the non deaf population shouldn't be forced by government to accomodate cripples




Ok, I have a solution then, since it seems to interfer with your life, lets round up everyone who is a cripple, served your country and lost both legs, served your country and are paralyzed, does not matter, report to the train. We are going to give you a shower first before we assign you to your new barricks. Put all you belongings in a pile you will get them later. Make sure you inhale deeply while tking your shower, the steam will really clean out your sinuses.




how do you get from not wanting to be forced to put a cripple ramp on my store to wanting to round up cripples and gas them to death? fucking idiot.




the non deaf population shouldn't be forced by government to accomodate cripples





First off the idea of putting a system where only deaf people can read captioning is not causin major issues for hearing people. The second option of having captioing for everyone to read does. Secondly, putting a wheel chair ramp in your store is not that expensive either, so get over it. Whys is it you feel a population of people should be thrown to the wayside because they have a disability? Do you feel that you are better than them? Do you feel they should just be ignored because they are deaf or in a wheelchair? It is because people, schools, businesses did not make any attempts to work with those with disabilities that the ADA came about.

You use the word CRIPPLES, this shows yoo have some fear of people who are different than you. BTW if putting a wheelchair ramp in your store for $500 to a $1000 dollars, brings in 10 customers who spend a hundred dollars a week you will recupe the expense in no time.

People on this board always amaze me. Such and such business supports gun control, so and so actor is liberal and supports gun control. Boycott them, your money goes to gun control organization. Do you honestly believe that other organization and people do not do the same thing. Do you honestly believe that disabled people would not boycott your business if they new about your attitude. Do you believe that if you had an attitude that was supportive of the disabled they would not let thier friends know and business would increase?

BTW, I made the jump to gassing them by your attitude of calling them cripples. The first step to gassing or wholsale murder of people is by dehumanizing them.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:47:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Why would you say deaf people are the lowest common denominator?



That perhaps was a bad way to phrase my displeasure. But in this case
the denominator is the ability to hear a movie. The passage I quoted
seemed to suggest that the 99 "hearing-abled" patrons in a theater
should be inconveinced by the one hearing-disabled person. Thus, everyone
is brought down to the level of the hearing-disabled person.

That is the essence of what I have a problem with, not only in this case,
but that mentaility is everywhere.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Are you incinuating that a person who is deaf or hard of hearing is stupid?



"lowest common denominator" simply means to bring everyone down
to the lowest common level. See above.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Do you fell they act deaf so that they can get special benifits?



Not in the slightest (and no where did I insinuate that). I think that you
misinterpreted my meaning. See above.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
So people who have a disability should stay at home and never do anything?



No. But to expect equal enjoyment of an event in which you do not have the
ability to participate in one key aspect (e.g. hearing the dialog) is not a
realistic goal. Furthermore, to force everyone else to suffer so that you can
enjoy the event is worse.



First off there are two solutions outlined in the article, one requiring captioning so that everyone can see it. Yes it is an inconvienance, no I do not agree with this solution. The other one required a system in which only people utilizing it can see the captioning. the only people inconvienced in that aspect are the theaters. Will they pass on the cost to patrons, most likely, do you have to go watch the movie, no. Does it open it up to more people coming to the theater to see movies and most likely increaseing the profit margin, yes.

I can only respond as to what you wrote. Now that you have clarified I can see and hear that we agree an some of the issues, not all, but some.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 6:54:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:
First off the idea of putting a system where only deaf people can read captioning is not causin major issues for hearing people.



Just businesses, who will pass the costs on to everyone.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
The second option of having captioing for everyone to read does. Secondly, putting a wheel chair ramp in your store is not that expensive either, so get over it.



Wow...glad to see the spirit of small government is alive and well.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Whys is it you feel a population of people should be thrown to the wayside because they have a disability? Do you feel that you are better than them? Do you feel they should just be ignored because they are deaf or in a wheelchair? It is because people, schools, businesses did not make any attempts to work with those with disabilities that the ADA came about.



Government and schools, fine. Businesses and non-govenment institutions, not fine.

Let me clue you in on an important concept: market forces. Think about that for a
few minutes.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
You use the word CRIPPLES, this shows yoo have some fear of people who are different than you.



Words cannot hurt people who are not ashamed of themselves. Get over it.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
BTW if putting a wheelchair ramp in your store for $500 to a $1000 dollars, brings in 10 customers who spend a hundred dollars a week you will recupe the expense in no time.



That should be a choice, not a goverment mandate.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
People on this board always amaze me. Such and such business supports gun control, so and so actor is liberal and supports gun control. Boycott them, your money goes to gun control organization. Do you honestly believe that other organization and people do not do the same thing. Do you honestly believe that disabled people would not boycott your business if they new about your attitude. Do you believe that if you had an attitude that was supportive of the disabled they would not let thier friends know and business would increase?



Ahh, see you do understand market forces.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
BTW, I made the jump to gassing them by your attitude of calling them cripples. The first step to gassing or wholsale murder of people is by dehumanizing them.



Don't know why I am still debating - you Nazi-ed the thread already.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:07:11 AM EST
The ADA is just a tool for lawyers to make money. I believe businesses should be accessible, but as I do not own them I can't mandate it. People forget the businesses are OWNED by people. You should be able to do what you wish with what you own. It is like the govt. coming to your house and making you put in ramps and an elevator. Not cool. If you look at how the law is implemented, it is a sue first, access later type of action. John Stossel did a piece on it where he showed several cases of businesses willing to make the accomodations when they found out it was required by the law but were sued anyhow because the people really wanted money, not access.

That said, people with disablities should be vocal about access, protest for access if needed, and boycott business if needed. Fight for access, just not at the point of a gun like the ADA allows.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:31:36 AM EST
The ADA is horrible. In my business, Real Estate, I have worked with several disabled people. A few were deaf. The way the law is written required us to employ someone who can sign, if requested, at our own expense for all interactions with the deaf person. Luckily all of the deaf people I've dealt with can read lips, and were willing to use a piece of paper if there was something they didn't understand. One couple always brought their son along who could hear and sign. They all complained about the deaf people who abuse the law, as it hurts their image. But the law has not been corrected anyway. If I had to employ someone to translate to/from sign language everytime I met with those clients, I would have lost money on the deals, and probably have left real estate. But, the only reason I didn't lose money is the deaf people I worked with were nice people. But there are plenty of deaf people that are assholes out there.

The other thing is the fact some areas of the country are now requiring all new homes constructed to have no steps to the first level, and all doorways to be weelchair width. Even though very few of them will ever have handicapped occupants.

The ADA is one of those noble bills that noone thought through correctly. Think back to other bills like the ERA, if that had passed, the country would be in sad shape. The ADA needs to be fixed, but what politician wants to be branded as the person that took away rights from those poor disabled people.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 7:39:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 7:45:44 AM EST by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By eagle1911:

You use the word CRIPPLES, this shows yoo have some fear of people who are different than you.

* * *

BTW, I made the jump to gassing them by your attitude of calling them cripples. The first step to gassing or wholsale murder of people is by dehumanizing them.




So, along with the rest of the PC knuckleheads, you're a believer in the power of magic incantations. Years ago, "moron" and "idiot" were clinical terms. "Moron" and "idiot" were and are used as pejorative terms because they refer to an undesirable condition or characteristic: lack of intellect. So, naturally, some ass like yourself decided that the clinical terms had to change. Thus we got "retarded." Woops! "Retarded" is now a pejorative term, because the condition to which it refers remains undesirable. Some linguistic retard decided that "retarded" should be replaced by "special needs." So how do teenagers ridicule a friend for doing something stupid? Often by referring to him as "special." Get it? Whatever magic you pretend to work with your hysterical incantations, Nazi-invocations, and word-policing is futile. Your precious new correct terms will not eradicate the undesirable characteristic to which they refer, and they won't even remain clean, shiny, and non-pejorative unless people somehow learn to like the idea of being retarded or crippled. Look at words for homosexuals and homosexuality. "Fag" and "queer" have always been regarded (when used by "outsiders") as pejorative. "Invert," an early PC term, never really took off. "Homosexual," however, made the big time - in two ways: one as a clinical term, and the second (clipped to "homo") as a pejorative. Why? Because it still referred to behavior many people find abhorrent. The current PC term is "gay." So what do teenagers (and arfcommers) say to one of their number who does something effete or unmanly? "You're gay!" or "How gay is that?"

Quite apart from your cluelessness on the subject of linguistics, you need some remedial training in logic. Yes, it is true that genocide is almost always preceded by dehumanization of the target population, but in equating use of the word "cripple" (a perfectly legitimate, if coarse, word for a person who is lame or crippled) with Nazi gas chambers, you declared yourself a fool of astonishing proportions. On a day-to-day basis, the first thing a gas chamber operator did upon arising was scratch his crotch and urinate. Based on your awe-inspiring logic, we can assume that everyone who begins the day with a scratch and a leak will be gassing Jews by sundown. You really should have sat this thread out.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:17:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:
...Do you feel that you are better than them?




Better at hearing than deaf people, and better at walking than the wheelchair bound.



Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:23:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Why would you say deaf people are the lowest common denominator? Are you incinuating that a person who is deaf or hard of hearing is stupid? Do you fell they act deaf so that they can get special benifits? So people who have a disability should stay at home and never do anything?


Let's try thinking for a moment: If the scale of interest is ability to hear then, by definition, those who cannot hear are the lowest common denominator on that scale. That has nothing to do with one's intellect. Your knee-jerk, completely irrelevant reaction clearly shows you have an insufficient prefrontal cortex that cannot control your amygdala. Work on that.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 8:34:47 AM EST
I have no problem making reasonable accommodations so that handicapped (disadvantaged, whatever) people can perform essential tasks by themselves.

Also, it’s to everybody’s advantage if handicapped people can be fully productive members of society rather than, say, living off some government program.

In line with that, I fully support things like ramps into buildings, handicapped parking (which is definitely abused around here) and such.

But this is entertainment. This really is going too far.

Incidentally, for some professions - law enforcement officers and pilots come to mind - people who wear glasses are (in some instances) essentially considered handicapped.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 9:23:09 AM EST
The thing is that whether you put up a wheelchair ramp or install closed captioning in a theater, it should be YOUR CHOICE as a business owner as to if you do it or not. You shouldn't be forced by the government anda band of lawyers to run your business in a way you don't deem to be profitable or attractive to your target customers.

For instance, if I started a spelunking / rock climbing store, if I wanted to build the store 20 feet in the air and have the only way to reach it be climbing up a rock faced wall, I should be able to do that. Why? Because I'm the one paying for the mortgage/ rent, employee pay, insurance, equipment expenses, and other items. I'm the one taking the personal and financial risk. Not the government, not lawyers, not a guy in a wheel chair. Me.

Whether you think I would recoup the cost of adding a wheel chair ramp through additional sales doesn't matter. It's what I believe is best for the business that I alone am responsible for. How I run it is my business, not yours.

Man, I love it when the nanny state contingent rears its head at ar15.com
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 9:31:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By eagle1911:
First off the idea of putting a system where only deaf people can read captioning is not causin major issues for hearing people.



Just businesses, who will pass the costs on to everyone.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
The second option of having captioing for everyone to read does. Secondly, putting a wheel chair ramp in your store is not that expensive either, so get over it.



Wow...glad to see the spirit of small government is alive and well.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Whys is it you feel a population of people should be thrown to the wayside because they have a disability? Do you feel that you are better than them? Do you feel they should just be ignored because they are deaf or in a wheelchair? It is because people, schools, businesses did not make any attempts to work with those with disabilities that the ADA came about.



Government and schools, fine. Businesses and non-govenment institutions, not fine.

Let me clue you in on an important concept: market forces. Think about that for a
few minutes.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
You use the word CRIPPLES, this shows yoo have some fear of people who are different than you.



Words cannot hurt people who are not ashamed of themselves. Get over it.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
BTW if putting a wheelchair ramp in your store for $500 to a $1000 dollars, brings in 10 customers who spend a hundred dollars a week you will recupe the expense in no time.



That should be a choice, not a goverment mandate.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
People on this board always amaze me. Such and such business supports gun control, so and so actor is liberal and supports gun control. Boycott them, your money goes to gun control organization. Do you honestly believe that other organization and people do not do the same thing. Do you honestly believe that disabled people would not boycott your business if they new about your attitude. Do you believe that if you had an attitude that was supportive of the disabled they would not let thier friends know and business would increase?



Ahh, see you do understand market forces.


Originally Posted By eagle1911:
BTW, I made the jump to gassing them by your attitude of calling them cripples. The first step to gassing or wholsale murder of people is by dehumanizing them.



Don't know why I am still debating - you Nazi-ed the thread already.



First, I believe you are deabting me because you enjoy a legitimate debate, and this is legitimate.

Second,

Words cannot hurt people who are not ashamed of themselves. Get over it.


You are partially correct. My Cousin who is 16 has been in wheelchair his whole life, he is not ashamed of himself. I am willing to bet that if you were standing infront of him and used the term cripple in a derogatory fashion, such as forget about him he is a cripple, the term would hurt him.

Last the nazi reference was not directed at you. You are one of the only ones who has legitimately debated this position. Most of the rest have degnerated to name calling and so forth. I welcome a debate but I have not attacked a persons intellect. You take a postion and defend it and debate the counter postion, thank you.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 9:40:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Ratters:
The ADA is just a tool for lawyers to make money. I believe businesses should be accessible, but as I do not own them I can't mandate it. People forget the businesses are OWNED by people. You should be able to do what you wish with what you own. It is like the govt. coming to your house and making you put in ramps and an elevator. Not cool. If you look at how the law is implemented, it is a sue first, access later type of action.



You are correct in parts. However, what about the people who have made reasonable attempts to get businesses to make acommodations, and were told CRIPPLES do not matter? In dealing with organizations regarding ADA accomodations, the aggrieved party always was told a lawsuit was a last option, that it would be better to try and work it out first.


John Stossel did a piece on it where he showed several cases of businesses willing to make the accomodations when they found out it was required by the law but were sued anyhow because the people really wanted money, not access.


I agree this is wrong, it just shows another part of society that is sue happy.


That said, people with disablities should be vocal about access, protest for access if needed, and boycott business if needed. Fight for access, just not at the point of a gun like the ADA allows.


That is the key point, we do not know the whole story with said legal action. What grassroots efforts have already been attempted? What other acommodations were offered? We are just seeing a news article.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 9:45:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 9:56:51 AM EST by eagle1911]

Originally Posted By bastiat:
The thing is that whether you put up a wheelchair ramp or install closed captioning in a theater, it should be YOUR CHOICE as a business owner as to if you do it or not. You shouldn't be forced by the government anda band of lawyers to run your business in a way you don't deem to be profitable or attractive to your target customers.

For instance, if I started a spelunking / rock climbing store, if I wanted to build the store 20 feet in the air and have the only way to reach it be climbing up a rock faced wall, I should be able to do that. Why? Because I'm the one paying for the mortgage/ rent, employee pay, insurance, equipment expenses, and other items. I'm the one taking the personal and financial risk. Not the government, not lawyers, not a guy in a wheel chair. Me.

Whether you think I would recoup the cost of adding a wheel chair ramp through additional sales doesn't matter. It's what I believe is best for the business that I alone am responsible for. How I run it is my business, not yours.

Man, I love it when the nanny state contingent rears its head at ar15.com



Ok so you are the only grocery store in a small town, a wheelchair bound person ask you to put a ramp in so he can access your store, you say no, he offers to pay half of the cost for installation, you still say no. What do you recommend?
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 9:57:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:

Ok so you are the only grocery store in a small town, a wheelchair bound person ask you to put a ramp in so he can access your store, you say no, he offers to pay half of the cost for installation, you still say know. What do you recommend?



Oh, by all means, he should be FORCED to accommodate this one guy or go out of business. Absolutely, the guy in the wheelchair has the right to require other people to behave in a way suitable to himself. That's what you & the ADA say, anyway.

Only an asshole would decline reasonable accommodation, but people have a right to be assholes. The fact that you whine does not make your problems anybody else's. The deaf people in the movies thing is just stupid beyond words. If there were a market for movies for the deaf, the technology in question would already be in place. I guess if deaf people are entitled to force a theater owner to pay for a way for them to watch movies in his theater (but at the same price per ticket), blind people are entitled to have a narrator stand at the front of the theater and describe the action so they can "watch" movies, too. "He's touching her hair. They're looking into each other's eyes. He's putting his right hand on her right - no, her left tit."

I think it's terrible that some people are dealt relatively lousy hands in life. However, those hands were dealt to them and there is no legitimate right to use force (that's what the law is - force) to cause others to ameliorate their situation.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:05:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 10:06:10 AM EST by maximumbob_tx]
Can I add another twist?
I'm a juvenile prosecutor and work closely with our schools. Because of the ADA, schools must keep misbehaving children in school if their misconduct is related to their diability. At present, I know of three children (community size is 11000) that are escorted every day by aides for the sole reason that they cannot be trusted to be out of sight of an adult. For confidentiality reasons, I cannot describe the situation further.
If I were to constuct any NEW property, I would probably make it ADA compliant because someday I might be "crippled" or one of my friends or family might be disinclined to climb stairs.
I really don't think the congresscritters thought this one thru.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:08:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By maximumbob_tx:
I'm a juvenile prosecutor



What are your plans after you turn 18?
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:12:28 AM EST


Ok, just for the sake of argument, let's say a wheelchair bound anti-gunner uses the ADA to sue the B.A.T.F. and forces them to employ him as a field agent. Would I get sued for not having a ramp at my front door when the JBT's can't get him in my house?

Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:14:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 10:17:36 AM EST by eagle1911]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By eagle1911:

Ok so you are the only grocery store in a small town, a wheelchair bound person ask you to put a ramp in so he can access your store, you say no, he offers to pay half of the cost for installation, you still say know. What do you recommend?



Oh, by all means, he should be FORCED to accommodate this one guy or go out of business. Absolutely, the guy in the wheelchair has the right to require other people to behave in a way suitable to himself. That's what you & the ADA say, anyway.

Only an asshole would decline reasonable accommodation, but people have a right to be assholes. The fact that you whine does not make your problems anybody else's. The deaf people in the movies thing is just stupid beyond words. If there were a market for movies for the deaf, the technology in question would already be in place. I guess if deaf people are entitled to force a theater owner to pay for a way for them to watch movies in his theater (but at the same price per ticket), blind people are entitled to have a narrator stand at the front of the theater and describe the action so they can "watch" movies, too. "He's touching her hair. They're looking into each other's eyes. He's putting his right hand on her right - no, her left tit."

I think it's terrible that some people are dealt relatively lousy hands in life. However, those hands were dealt to them and there is no legitimate right to use force (that's what the law is - force) to cause others to ameliorate their situation.



The law also says reasonable acommodations. The operative word is reasonable. If said person is willing to meet half way then a reasonable accommodation is in effect. The business man is also afforded a tax break for expenses incured making the accomodation. If a $500 to $1000 dollar ramp is going to put the grocer out of business, then he was already in trouble. You are acting as if GKC and loews are mom and pop businesses and are going to go bankrupt by making reasonable acommodations, they are not. You act as if because they make these acommodations movie ticket are going to go sky high. I have news for you movie tickets are sky high because of what it cost to make movies.

Your comment about a blind person having another person explain the movie is very funny. Of course that is not a reasonable acommodation is it?

How do we know that ther is not a market for movies for deaf people? Oh, BTW, my brother who is 80 % deaf stopped going to movies because the devices they currently use do not work half the time. He would love to go to movies but does not. So would his friends, but they do not either.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:19:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By Spackler:

Ok, just for the sake of argument, let's say a wheelchair bound anti-gunner uses the ADA to sue the B.A.T.F. and forces them to employ him as a field agent. Would I get sued for not having a ramp at my front door when the JBT's can't get him in my house?




Is the directed at me?
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:25:49 AM EST
Nope , ME!
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:30:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/8/2004 10:32:01 AM EST by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Your comment about a blind person having another person explain the movie is very funny. Of course that is not a reasonable acommodation is it?



I dunno, but some blind jackass with a keen sense of entitlement can certainly pull the theater owner into court for the $200 federal filing fee, can't he? And if one "reasonable" solution to the "problem" of deaf people being unable to hear movie dialogue is to inflict subtitles on everyone, why shouldn;t we all have to listen to an action narrator, just in case there's blind man in the room?


How do we know that ther is not a market for movies for deaf people?


If there is a market - one worth serving - market forces will cause it to be satisfied. I assume there is no such market, because the technology exists, and I've never seen a theater ad touting "Subtitle Sundays for the Deaf." I also assume that there isn't a big "paintings for the blind" market, because so far, art galleries aren't required to have people accompany the blind to describe paintings to them.


Oh, BTW, my brother who is 80 % deaf stopped going to movies because the devices they currently use do not work half the time. He would love to go to movies but does not. So would his friends, but they do not either.


I'm sorry your brother and his friends are deaf. But beyond feeling sorry for him, who gives a shit? Who cares whether he goes to the movies or not? Why are you comfortable with the idea of using force to require others to behave as though your brother's problems were their own? It is the job of the individual to accommodate himself to the world as it exists, or to change it through his own efforts. Using force to invert that allocation of responsibility is immoral, and should be criminal.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:30:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By gunman0:
The ADA is horrible. In my business, Real Estate, I have worked with several disabled people. A few were deaf. The way the law is written required us to employ someone who can sign, if requested, at our own expense for all interactions with the deaf person. Luckily all of the deaf people I've dealt with can read lips, and were willing to use a piece of paper if there was something they didn't understand. One couple always brought their son along who could hear and sign. They all complained about the deaf people who abuse the law, as it hurts their image. But the law has not been corrected anyway. If I had to employ someone to translate to/from sign language everytime I met with those clients, I would have lost money on the deals, and probably have left real estate. But, the only reason I didn't lose money is the deaf people I worked with were nice people. But there are plenty of deaf people that are assholes out there.



Just like some gunowners make the rest of us look bad.


The ADA is one of those noble bills that noone thought through correctly. Think back to other bills like the ERA, if that had passed, the country would be in sad shape. The ADA needs to be fixed, but what politician wants to be branded as the person that took away rights from those poor disabled people.


I agree.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:38:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By eagle1911:
Your comment about a blind person having another person explain the movie is very funny. Of course that is not a reasonable acommodation is it?



I dunno, but some blind jackass with a keen sense of entitlement can certainly pull the theater owner into court for the $200 federal filing fee, can't he? And if one "reasonable" solution to the "problem" of deaf people being unable to hear movie dialogue is to inflict subtitles on everyone, why shouldn;t we all have to listen to an action narrator, just in case there's blind man in the room?


How do we know that ther is not a market for movies for deaf people?


If there is a market - one worth serving - market forces will cause it to be satisfied. I assume there is no such market, because the technology exists, and I've never seen a theater ad touting "Subtitle Sundays for the Deaf." I also assume that there isn't a big "paintings for the blind" market, because so far, art galleries aren't required to have people accompany the blind to describe paintings to them.


Oh, BTW, my brother who is 80 % deaf stopped going to movies because the devices they currently use do not work half the time. He would love to go to movies but does not. So would his friends, but they do not either.


I'm sorry your brother and his friends are deaf. But beyond feeling sorry for him, who gives a shit? Who cares whether he goes to the movies or not? Why are you comfortable with the idea of using force to require to behave as though your brother's problems werte their own? It is the job of the individual to accommodate himself to the world as it exists, or to change it through his own efforts. Using force to invert that allocation of responsibility is immoral, and should be criminal.



Yet when an individual does, I.E. the whole reason for this discussion, they are wrong. As I stated earlier, we do not know the whole story, just the outcome. Maybe he did offer other solutions but was shot donw, Maybe the two final solutions are there to get the most reasonable one, which is, in my opionion, the option of having the device that allows only those with the devices to see the subtitles. Or maybe the idea is to have subtitles or captions set up on certain movies and times, with extra payment then. The point is again reasonable acommodation. With the reaction on this board so far, you would think that there are 1000 ADA lawsuits everyday. The report at the website does not even come close, in fact a lot of the complaints were settled out of court with reasonable acommodations that did not bankrupt any body involved.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:42:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Spackler:

Ok, just for the sake of argument, let's say a wheelchair bound anti-gunner uses the ADA to sue the B.A.T.F. and forces them to employ him as a field agent. Would I get sued for not having a ramp at my front door when the JBT's can't get him in my house?




If the ATF is employing a wheelchair bound JBT to come to your front door, run and hide, because while he distracts you in the front they will come in the back.

Though this might work. They will no longer have to use flash bangs. While you are so busy watching the guy in the wheel chair do the tactical entry, you will be sufficiently distracted that the rest can get you.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 10:43:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:
The point is again reasonable acommodation. With the reaction on this board so far, you would think that there are 1000 ADA lawsuits everyday. The report at the website does not even come close, in fact a lot of the complaints were settled out of court with reasonable acommodations that did not bankrupt any body involved.



You seem oblivious to the evil inherent in the mere theoretical possibility of using force to make other people "be nice." You probably have a limited appreciation for legal fees, even in a case that "doesn't bankrupt anybody." You really think it is A-OK to force people to spend their money for your benefit as long as you don;t bankrupt them?
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 1:52:07 PM EST
In Austin the bus service has to have wheelchair lifts on every single bus. Back in '94 when a friend drove, he told me that each lift system cost 60 grand. The buses are largely empty. Of the few who ride, a negligable % were in wheelchairs. The company originally said why not just buy a few dozen vans with lifts and have drivers dedicated to the handicapped, but the ADA gang said no, you must flush 10's of millions of dollars down the toilet for no reason at all. The bus lifts break down all the time.

I have heard tales (friend of a friend type) of small business owners who had to get ramps at a cost of $40+k, couldn't justify it, and sold the store.

Where I used to work we rented a trailer for special (not that kind of special ) training and the city made us build a wheelchair ramp, although no wheelchair bound employees where available. They also came out and made us tear it down and do it again, at a slightly different angle. $22k.

The city also made us build a special bathroom. $24k.

I swear there are a legion of usless idiots taking money (in permits and inspection fees) just like the Mafia.

ADA was a good intentioned, good hearted idea. It needs to be altered to prevent it from killing small business and to keep @#$! from making money from it. Somewhere there is a city council member with a brother who owns a bus wheelchair lift company just laughing his butt off (probably from the Caymans).
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 1:58:03 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 2:02:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
eagle' I like your point but since you brought up the Nazi solution you automatically lose (loose for you idiots) the argument. Rule one (won) is the first person to bring up nazis in an argument on this site (sight) loses (looses?).

But you probably (polly) knew (new) that right.







We have many impaired people on this site and their problem is not deafness.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 2:34:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 2:44:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:Last the nazi reference was not directed at you. You are one of the only ones who has legitimately debated this position. Most of the rest have degnerated to name calling and so forth. I welcome a debate but I have not attacked a persons intellect. You take a postion and defend it and debate the counter postion, thank you.



Yeah right, name calling

My first post in the thread was "the non deaf population shouldn't be forced by government to accomodate cripples" and you fly off into some nazi gas chamber execution fantasy.

Link Posted: 5/8/2004 2:46:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:

Originally Posted By Ratters:
The ADA is just a tool for lawyers to make money. I believe businesses should be accessible, but as I do not own them I can't mandate it. People forget the businesses are OWNED by people. You should be able to do what you wish with what you own. It is like the govt. coming to your house and making you put in ramps and an elevator. Not cool. If you look at how the law is implemented, it is a sue first, access later type of action.



You are correct in parts. However, what about the people who have made reasonable attempts to get businesses to make acommodations, and were told CRIPPLES do not matter? In dealing with organizations regarding ADA accomodations, the aggrieved party always was told a lawsuit was a last option, that it would be better to try and work it out first.



the only moral solution is to take your business elsewhere, anything else is violence by proxy (i.e. do what I say, or I'll get some government goon to tell you to do it. Do what the government goon says or the police will come for you. don't go with them and you get shot.)

Link Posted: 5/8/2004 2:48:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
The thing is that whether you put up a wheelchair ramp or install closed captioning in a theater, it should be YOUR CHOICE as a business owner as to if you do it or not. You shouldn't be forced by the government anda band of lawyers to run your business in a way you don't deem to be profitable or attractive to your target customers.

For instance, if I started a spelunking / rock climbing store, if I wanted to build the store 20 feet in the air and have the only way to reach it be climbing up a rock faced wall, I should be able to do that. Why? Because I'm the one paying for the mortgage/ rent, employee pay, insurance, equipment expenses, and other items. I'm the one taking the personal and financial risk. Not the government, not lawyers, not a guy in a wheel chair. Me.

Whether you think I would recoup the cost of adding a wheel chair ramp through additional sales doesn't matter. It's what I believe is best for the business that I alone am responsible for. How I run it is my business, not yours.

Man, I love it when the nanny state contingent rears its head at ar15.com



Ok so you are the only grocery store in a small town, a wheelchair bound person ask you to put a ramp in so he can access your store, you say no, he offers to pay half of the cost for installation, you still say no. What do you recommend?




I'd suggest he hire someone who can walk to go in and buy groceries for him. Or protest the store with his wallet and go to a store in another town.

Link Posted: 5/8/2004 2:50:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:

First, I believe you are deabting me because you enjoy a legitimate debate, and this is legitimate.



It is and I do.



Second,

Words cannot hurt people who are not ashamed of themselves. Get over it.


You are partially correct. My Cousin who is 16 has been in wheelchair his whole life, he is not ashamed of himself. I am willing to bet that if you were standing infront of him and used the term cripple in a derogatory fashion, such as forget about him he is a cripple, the term would hurt him.



Another problem with society is that people let others define them. That being the case,
I choose not to use pejoratives when describing peoples disabilities (or other differences)
out of respect (more for myself than others).


Last the nazi reference was not directed at you. You are one of the only ones who has legitimately debated this position. Most of the rest have degnerated to name calling and so forth. I welcome a debate but I have not attacked a persons intellect. You take a postion and defend it and debate the counter postion, thank you.


I understand, but in order to debate effectively you cannot keep making these obvious
fallacious arguments, such as that Nazi strawman. Make a reasoned argument without
resorting to generalizations or hyperbole.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 3:07:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By eagle1911:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By eagle1911:

Ok so you are the only grocery store in a small town, a wheelchair bound person ask you to put a ramp in so he can access your store, you say no, he offers to pay half of the cost for installation, you still say know. What do you recommend?



Oh, by all means, he should be FORCED to accommodate this one guy or go out of business. Absolutely, the guy in the wheelchair has the right to require other people to behave in a way suitable to himself. That's what you & the ADA say, anyway.

Only an asshole would decline reasonable accommodation, but people have a right to be assholes. The fact that you whine does not make your problems anybody else's. The deaf people in the movies thing is just stupid beyond words. If there were a market for movies for the deaf, the technology in question would already be in place. I guess if deaf people are entitled to force a theater owner to pay for a way for them to watch movies in his theater (but at the same price per ticket), blind people are entitled to have a narrator stand at the front of the theater and describe the action so they can "watch" movies, too. "He's touching her hair. They're looking into each other's eyes. He's putting his right hand on her right - no, her left tit."

I think it's terrible that some people are dealt relatively lousy hands in life. However, those hands were dealt to them and there is no legitimate right to use force (that's what the law is - force) to cause others to ameliorate their situation.



The law also says reasonable acommodations. The operative word is reasonable. If said person is willing to meet half way then a reasonable accommodation is in effect. The business man is also afforded a tax break for expenses incured making the accomodation. If a $500 to $1000 dollar ramp is going to put the grocer out of business, then he was already in trouble. You are acting as if GKC and loews are mom and pop businesses and are going to go bankrupt by making reasonable acommodations, they are not. You act as if because they make these acommodations movie ticket are going to go sky high. I have news for you movie tickets are sky high because of what it cost to make movies.



Argh! This is not the point. In fact, this is another argument that really gets under my
skin: the big, bad, evil corporations can afford it. I am so sick of people living in grayscale
land. A law is either just or it is not. The size of the entity should not come into play.



How do we know that ther is not a market for movies for deaf people? Oh, BTW, my brother who is 80 % deaf stopped going to movies because the devices they currently use do not work half the time. He would love to go to movies but does not. So would his friends, but they do not either.



Your brother should look into starting a business that caters to the deaf movie-going
population. If there is no market, then there cannot be a HUGE number of disenfranchised
deaf people who are clamoring for a chance to watch a movie. You can't have it both
ways.
Link Posted: 5/8/2004 3:20:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
eagle' I like your point but since you brought up the Nazi solution you automatically lose (loose for you idiots) the argument. Rule one (won) is the first person to bring up nazis in an argument on this site (sight) loses (looses?).

But you probably (polly) knew (new) that right.





captioned for the spelling disabled???
Top Top