Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal - Page 7

Flint · 09-13-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

I don't see the distinction. You're citing the strong feelings you have, about a situation you have faced personally, as the differentating factor. It isn't. Since I'm not in a wheelchair, I don't have a peanut allergy, and I don't have asthma; I see all these situations equally. Fairly. Without bias.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Nothing I've said recently has mentioned feelings.

Okay, bad choice of words. But now that I've mentioned it, do you have a response?

09-13-2007, 01:22 PM

I really don't have feelings about the smoking issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other as far as being able to shop or eat (I don't smoke in my home or when I eat anyway. I only smoke a pipe or cigar a few times a week and prefer to have my environments smoke free unless it is a bar or smoke shop. The only emotion I have attached to that is that the assault on freedom worries me and makes me defensive... it leads to other things.
I do not see making places open for people who are in wheelchairs (the ibot is a red herring and off-topic, it is not available to 99.999% of those whom are disabled who can afford it and is not covered by any insurance company) is not giving those people a choice to choose to shop there or not.
How does it make me feel, frustrated and marginalized.
Read anything by anyone who lived before Jim Crow laws were removed and the culture of that mind-set changed and that is exactly how it makes me feel.
Once in the store I don't care if all the isles/tables/etc, are chair width apart if they are accommodating.
But, even in accessible stores it is not unusual to be treated like a nuisance before anyone even talks to you, or worse like a child (people will often give people in chairs candy or pat us on the head and talk to us like children then not give us the same service they give any other adult).
How would it make you feel to be told "we don't have time to help you (your kind) you are going to have to go somewhere else" because they choose to exclude you?
It is humiliating and frustrating because there is NO reason for it and NO excuse for it.
Again I don't want to hear the bullshit about subliminal fears of contagion or being faced with one's own mortality because that is a cop-out and bull-shit.

When I was vegan for a long time I developed a bad reaction to animal protean, though it was not deadly it was very sensitive.
I was often lied to about the contents of soup and bread... it is difficult and for those this kind of thing is deadly for (I became vegan because my wife did develop a deadly allergy to animal protean because of pituitary tumor) the guidelines need to be far more stringent.
But, I don't think peanuts need to be banned from public.

DanaC · 09-13-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

A place that is built with a barrier to a specific group of people is an ENTIRELY different thing... it is not only the SAME as the Jim Crow signs stating "Whites Only" it is worse because a black or Asian could CHOOSE to ignore the sign and enter the establishment anyway, as they did during the civil rights (for able-bodied only) fight.

Ohhh.....I see...you are more discriminated against than African Americans under Jim Crow laws. Okay.

Quote:

It is humiliating and frustrating because there is NO reason for it and NO excuse for it.

You are absolutely right there is no excuse for it.

I certainly wouldn't expect any store to stop selling peanut products, nor would I shut down private businesses that chose to allow smoking. I just took issue with the idea that the people who suffer with the life threatening conditions we've spoken of in this thread, are presented with a choice that is in reality no choice and may have a different perspective; one which does not deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

Flint · 09-13-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

I really don't have feelings about the smoking issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...

Quote:

I really don't have feelings about the wheelchair issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...

Quote:

I really don't have feelings about the peanut issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...

Flint · 09-13-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the wheelchair guy

How does it make me feel, frustrated and marginalized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the asthma guy

How does it make me feel, frustrated and marginalized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the peanut guy

How does it make me feel, frustrated and marginalized.

Why is the wheelchair guy the only one whose feelings matter?

Clodfobble · 09-13-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I did not know that.
Are you suggesting peanuts be outlawed or people be allowed special treatment like separation or able to say "I am peanut allergic so I need clean utensils"?
There are people who are allergic to the sun.

No, I'm merely saying that I agree with the analogies others have put forth in this thread: having a severe peanut allergy in a restaurant that serves peanuts all over the table is equivalent to that same restaurant not having a wheelchair ramp.

Is it irritating? Yes. Is it wrong? On a personal level, it isn't the decision I would make if it were my restaurant, but I don't feel it's bad enough to take legislative action against. Like you said, by not going in, you vote with your dollars and the company will in theory make the most economic decision.

09-13-2007, 01:57 PM

I don't agree, again, though it would be stupid, they can choose to eat there.
It is not a comparison on any level.

09-13-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

I really don't have feelings about the smoking issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...

Quote:
I really don't have feelings about the wheelchair issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...

Quote:
I really don't have feelings about the peanut issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...

All out of context.
The smoking issue does not inhibit anyone. They CAN go to the stores.
You are really having a hard time with the difference between can and can't huh?

Clodfobble · 09-13-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I don't agree, again, though it would be stupid, they can choose to eat there.

Wasn't it already established that you could throw yourself forward out of your wheelchair and crawl into the store? It would just be really stupid and dangerous for your health.

DanaC · 09-13-2007, 02:04 PM

I can physically walk into a room filled with poisonous gas.

09-13-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Quote:
I really don't have feelings about the smoking issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...

Quote:
I really don't have feelings about the wheelchair issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...

Quote:
I really don't have feelings about the peanut issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other...

Also, you asked me what my feelings were.
They are irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Wasn't it already established that you could throw yourself forward out of your wheelchair and crawl into the store? It would just be really stupid and dangerous for your health.

And I would not be able to open the door, enter and eat.

DanaC · 09-13-2007, 02:12 PM

rk you have argued yourself into a position of presenting your health and disability in competition with other disabling conditions. Is that really what you want?
.

(eta)

You insist that if anybody can walk a short distance, regardless of the effect of that exercise on their health (e.g somebody with severe respiratory problems or very severe rheumatoid arthritis) they shouldn't use the disabled parking spaces, thereby denying the protections you consider fair for someone who uses a wheelchair. You similarly deny people with highly disabling conditions the protections you consider are fair for someone in a wheelchair

09-13-2007, 02:27 PM

I never said short distance. In fact I stated that if they are just walking in to use a chair or cart provided by the store that is not what I am talking about.
I said if they are walking the entire store they can walk the extra spaces to their car. You misquoted me or did not read it, s-ok it is a hobby here.
My main argument is that those without lifts should not be able to use the spaces with loading zones.
I am not talking about protection I am talking about access.
Two entirely separate topics.

9th Engineer · 09-13-2007, 03:06 PM

Lets go back to the Five Guys example (we have one on campus so I know what the peanut thing is about). We have Peanut Allergy Guy (PAG), and Wheelchair Bound Guy (WBG). The store has steps with no ramp and both patrons and cooks are eating some amount of peanuts. PAG cannot enter the store because of the concentration of airborne peanut contaminants, and can't eat the food even if someone goes in and gets it for him because of the moderate possibility of peanut oil being transfered to some part of his food at some point (cook picking up the bun, etc). WBG cannot enter the building because of the lack of a ramp but could eat something through take-out.

````````````````| WBG | PAG |
-----------------------------------
Can enter building`| no | no |
-----------------------------------
Can eat food`````| yes | no |
-----------------------------------

I'll tell you the truth rk. The case against the restaurant is the same as the case against the perfume department, the only difference is that you are willing to be inconvenienced by one and not the other. You bring me one, I'd use it to slam both with infractions. And absolutely you could take to court a restaurant who's air quality caused someone to go into respiratory arrest or something equivalent. BBQ's will need to maintain a certain level of air cleanliness and the 'smoky' atmosphere will be a thing of the past.

Law 101 man

09-13-2007, 03:10 PM

Then you think peanuts should be illegal?

09-13-2007, 03:06 PM	#104
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	Lets go back to the Five Guys example (we have one on campus so I know what the peanut thing is about). We have Peanut Allergy Guy (PAG), and Wheelchair Bound Guy (WBG). The store has steps with no ramp and both patrons and cooks are eating some amount of peanuts. PAG cannot enter the store because of the concentration of airborne peanut contaminants, and can't eat the food even if someone goes in and gets it for him because of the moderate possibility of peanut oil being transfered to some part of his food at some point (cook picking up the bun, etc). WBG cannot enter the building because of the lack of a ramp but could eat something through take-out. ````````````````\| WBG \| PAG \| ----------------------------------- Can enter building`\| no \| no \| ----------------------------------- Can eat food`````\| yes \| no \| ----------------------------------- I'll tell you the truth rk. The case against the restaurant is the same as the case against the perfume department, the only difference is that you are willing to be inconvenienced by one and not the other. You bring me one, I'd use it to slam both with infractions. And absolutely you could take to court a restaurant who's air quality caused someone to go into respiratory arrest or something equivalent. BBQ's will need to maintain a certain level of air cleanliness and the 'smoky' atmosphere will be a thing of the past. Law 101 man __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity. Last edited by 9th Engineer; 09-13-2007 at 03:07 PM. Reason: spaces didn't hold the graph in place :(

09-13-2007, 01:22 PM	#92
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	I really don't have feelings about the smoking issue, it does not inhibit me one way or the other as far as being able to shop or eat (I don't smoke in my home or when I eat anyway. I only smoke a pipe or cigar a few times a week and prefer to have my environments smoke free unless it is a bar or smoke shop. The only emotion I have attached to that is that the assault on freedom worries me and makes me defensive... it leads to other things. I do not see making places open for people who are in wheelchairs (the ibot is a red herring and off-topic, it is not available to 99.999% of those whom are disabled who can afford it and is not covered by any insurance company) is not giving those people a choice to choose to shop there or not. How does it make me feel, frustrated and marginalized. Read anything by anyone who lived before Jim Crow laws were removed and the culture of that mind-set changed and that is exactly how it makes me feel. Once in the store I don't care if all the isles/tables/etc, are chair width apart if they are accommodating. But, even in accessible stores it is not unusual to be treated like a nuisance before anyone even talks to you, or worse like a child (people will often give people in chairs candy or pat us on the head and talk to us like children then not give us the same service they give any other adult). How would it make you feel to be told "we don't have time to help you (your kind) you are going to have to go somewhere else" because they choose to exclude you? It is humiliating and frustrating because there is NO reason for it and NO excuse for it. Again I don't want to hear the bullshit about subliminal fears of contagion or being faced with one's own mortality because that is a cop-out and bull-shit. When I was vegan for a long time I developed a bad reaction to animal protean, though it was not deadly it was very sensitive. I was often lied to about the contents of soup and bread... it is difficult and for those this kind of thing is deadly for (I became vegan because my wife did develop a deadly allergy to animal protean because of pituitary tumor) the guidelines need to be far more stringent. But, I don't think peanuts need to be banned from public.

09-13-2007, 01:57 PM	#97
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	I don't agree, again, though it would be stupid, they can choose to eat there. It is not a comparison on any level.

09-13-2007, 02:04 PM	#100
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	I can physically walk into a room filled with poisonous gas.

09-13-2007, 02:12 PM	#102
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	rk you have argued yourself into a position of presenting your health and disability in competition with other disabling conditions. Is that really what you want? . (eta) You insist that if anybody can walk a short distance, regardless of the effect of that exercise on their health (e.g somebody with severe respiratory problems or very severe rheumatoid arthritis) they shouldn't use the disabled parking spaces, thereby denying the protections you consider fair for someone who uses a wheelchair. You similarly deny people with highly disabling conditions the protections you consider are fair for someone in a wheelchair

09-13-2007, 02:27 PM	#103
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	I never said short distance. In fact I stated that if they are just walking in to use a chair or cart provided by the store that is not what I am talking about. I said if they are walking the entire store they can walk the extra spaces to their car. You misquoted me or did not read it, s-ok it is a hobby here. My main argument is that those without lifts should not be able to use the spaces with loading zones. I am not talking about protection I am talking about access. Two entirely *separate* topics.

09-13-2007, 03:10 PM	#105
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	Then you think peanuts should be illegal?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)