Is it discrimination to treat Handicapped people better than the rest of us?
- Thread starter krazykidd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes and no.
Technically, yes. One group gets different treatment than the rest of the society. It falls under the broad definition of discrimination. But then again, when you are nicer to your friends than to people you never met, that's also technically discrimination.
Handicapped parking exists so people with crutches and wheelchairs wouldn't have to park half a mile away or drag themselves from the far end of the parking lot. We get up for the elderly and the infirm in trams and busses because they have more trouble standing up than we do.
It's not discrimination, it's courtesy and compassion, both on an individual level and on the level of society.
Technically, yes. One group gets different treatment than the rest of the society. It falls under the broad definition of discrimination. But then again, when you are nicer to your friends than to people you never met, that's also technically discrimination.
Handicapped parking exists so people with crutches and wheelchairs wouldn't have to park half a mile away or drag themselves from the far end of the parking lot. We get up for the elderly and the infirm in trams and busses because they have more trouble standing up than we do.
It's not discrimination, it's courtesy and compassion, both on an individual level and on the level of society.
Yes it is. It's also very unfair to them.
They should have enabling devices available - but - in the end, it's their choice. There's nothing different about their wants/needs or desires than my "disabilities" with myopia and epilepsy.
They should have enabling devices available - but - in the end, it's their choice. There's nothing different about their wants/needs or desires than my "disabilities" with myopia and epilepsy.
Because many people who are handicapped are physically impaired in some manner. I don't see how being handicapped can in any way be compared to being born ginger, one can severely impair a person, the other is a hair colour.BlueMage said:
I presume by 'in the ghetto' you mean in less-affluent areas? In which case, there are programs to help people who can't afford higher education, which is comparable as it's there to help people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own.
As long as you recognise that not all handicapped people in wheelchairs. The anecdote was just illustrating that point, not making it; I know anecdotes don't work as evidence.BlueMage said:
No, I don't think it is. But that doesn't really change my original point.
I don't know, I think being born without a soul is a bit more of an impairment than being unable to use your legs...b3nn3tt said:
You think a condition, cited in many medical journals as being positively influenced through cognitive therapy and medication therapy, where sufferers frequently underperform educationally due to having specific needs that a conventional classroom can't meet, is not a learning disability? A condition where sufferers are typically emotionally immature for their age, have difficulty communicating or may communicate in an inappropriate manner, even when coached, is not a disability of some description? Are you sure?Esotera said:
Disabled parking is NOT discrimination, discrimination is treating a group of people differently because they belong to that group. Disabled parking has to be applied for and assessed on an individual basis, at least here in the UK. Therefore disabled parking is not given to the group but those who can prove a need for it.krazykidd said:
I wish you actually HAD a handicap, then you could understand that no ammount of benefits one gains can truly ammont for the tragedy that is each and every handicap to a person. Yes I have a handicap, no I didn't ask for it, are two parking spaces such a tragedy to waste for people that can't walk their entire life? As for the job thing NO that also is not something that should be dropped. As a normal person your only excuse is being a lazy arse for not getting a job, as a handicap person the social integration happens way more difficult if at all, this comes to support that social integration.
Looking funny has no REAL negative consequence just mediocre stuff, being mentally Ill is as messed up as one can get it's like seeing one person lose a arm and the laugh at it like "Haha your soulder looks funny hahaha" it's actual being versus misfortune, how ignorant can you be.
Yes discrimination is when the group X has privilages over the all, I agree it's discrimination, your point being? Is it wrong to descriminate by giving some unfortunate people, some minor social adventages, is it so wrong and hard to tolerate their existence that you would even consider asking such a question in the first place? If all of us would be born the same then you could be right to ask for no discrimination. But wait not even then, if a car tomorow hits you and leaves you a handicap, what are you, a handicap or a normal person? Anyone can become a handicap at any given time trough ANY misfortune that might happen to you. Handicap is not a group of people like men or women, whether you're 10 - 20 - 50 years old, male, female, alien, dumbass you can become a handicap at ANY given time.
If you really want to prove your point grab some anestetic, cut one of your legs off and then we'll see if you feel the same. As a person with no disability you have no damn right to complain, as a handicap person you shouldn't complain since that won't acomplish anything, as a fool who has no idea what he's saying you have all the right in the world to believe whatever you want without actually thinking about what you're saying.
Looking funny has no REAL negative consequence just mediocre stuff, being mentally Ill is as messed up as one can get it's like seeing one person lose a arm and the laugh at it like "Haha your soulder looks funny hahaha" it's actual being versus misfortune, how ignorant can you be.
Yes discrimination is when the group X has privilages over the all, I agree it's discrimination, your point being? Is it wrong to descriminate by giving some unfortunate people, some minor social adventages, is it so wrong and hard to tolerate their existence that you would even consider asking such a question in the first place? If all of us would be born the same then you could be right to ask for no discrimination. But wait not even then, if a car tomorow hits you and leaves you a handicap, what are you, a handicap or a normal person? Anyone can become a handicap at any given time trough ANY misfortune that might happen to you. Handicap is not a group of people like men or women, whether you're 10 - 20 - 50 years old, male, female, alien, dumbass you can become a handicap at ANY given time.
If you really want to prove your point grab some anestetic, cut one of your legs off and then we'll see if you feel the same. As a person with no disability you have no damn right to complain, as a handicap person you shouldn't complain since that won't acomplish anything, as a fool who has no idea what he's saying you have all the right in the world to believe whatever you want without actually thinking about what you're saying.
Before i begin , i will state that i know the politically correct thing to say is no.
Already you lost me. What does that even mean? Are you one of those people to whom PC is an extremeley oprresive force that takes away your freedom of speech? Because then just skip the rest, man, I got nothing to say to you.
I'll give you an example. Handicap parking. Handicap parking is a parking spot that can only be used by people with a handicap. Thus discriminating towards people who DO NOT have a handicap , because we cannot park there.
You. Can. Walk. Is the handicapped parking realy that difficult a concept to grasp? If you can't walk or bareley walk, then giving them special parking spaces near the stores or whatever is not only a civilized thing to do, it's a great kindness. My little brother sometimes has to roll two blocks in his wheelchair, and that exhausts him, only because some prick took his parking spot. Good thing the popo is very strict about these things.
Another example. If i looked at a random person , and laughed at them because i thought they looked funny , it would be okay ( okay in the sense that although it would be mean , people wouldn't throw a FIT over it ) . But if it was to laugh at a random person that had a mental handicap , well then i would be looked down upon by everyone and be a heartless bastard. Meaning i could laugh at a "normal" ( sorry again for this term no mean to offend ) person , but not a handicapped person. Thus putting the handicapped person on a sort a social pedestal, in other words, they are higher up on the social ladder ( almost like better people that shouldn't be messed with )
... Laughing at people who look funny is considdered heartless and a realy prickish thing to do where I come from no matter what, so.. yeah, thanks for the insight in your personallity.
Already you lost me. What does that even mean? Are you one of those people to whom PC is an extremeley oprresive force that takes away your freedom of speech? Because then just skip the rest, man, I got nothing to say to you.
I'll give you an example. Handicap parking. Handicap parking is a parking spot that can only be used by people with a handicap. Thus discriminating towards people who DO NOT have a handicap , because we cannot park there.
You. Can. Walk. Is the handicapped parking realy that difficult a concept to grasp? If you can't walk or bareley walk, then giving them special parking spaces near the stores or whatever is not only a civilized thing to do, it's a great kindness. My little brother sometimes has to roll two blocks in his wheelchair, and that exhausts him, only because some prick took his parking spot. Good thing the popo is very strict about these things.
Another example. If i looked at a random person , and laughed at them because i thought they looked funny , it would be okay ( okay in the sense that although it would be mean , people wouldn't throw a FIT over it ) . But if it was to laugh at a random person that had a mental handicap , well then i would be looked down upon by everyone and be a heartless bastard. Meaning i could laugh at a "normal" ( sorry again for this term no mean to offend ) person , but not a handicapped person. Thus putting the handicapped person on a sort a social pedestal, in other words, they are higher up on the social ladder ( almost like better people that shouldn't be messed with )
... Laughing at people who look funny is considdered heartless and a realy prickish thing to do where I come from no matter what, so.. yeah, thanks for the insight in your personallity.
It's Aspergers but I think he makes most of it up to be honest. He's a complete arsehole, and his disability makes him that much more of an arse. He had a job that lasted about an hour because he got into a massive argument with the first person he served so they sacked him on the spot. He just doesn't like being told to do something that involves effort.Vault101 said:
If some people can use it as an excuse, they will. I'm sure there's plenty of Aspergers sufferers on here that can hold down a job, maybe not as easily as others but the fact is, they make the effort.
When people talk about equality they don't mean aboslute, everyone is exactly the same and treated exactly the same. Equality is more about providing equal oppurtunities to people, for example, offering people in wheelchairs the ability to enter buildings. If I take your argument to a conclusion we have a world where doctors treat people with colds with the same urgency as they treat people with liver failure. There needs to be some distinctions between people.
Also, of course people are going to call you out if you insult people with disabilities or illnesses. Take the cancer argument you present, it's a bit douchy to call people ugly, but no-one is going to beat you up about it. However, this woman who has a potentially fatal illness doesn't deserve that, she in fact deserves sympathy and help, and calling her ugly is neither sympathetic nor helpful.
Also, of course people are going to call you out if you insult people with disabilities or illnesses. Take the cancer argument you present, it's a bit douchy to call people ugly, but no-one is going to beat you up about it. However, this woman who has a potentially fatal illness doesn't deserve that, she in fact deserves sympathy and help, and calling her ugly is neither sympathetic nor helpful.
Ha! My little brother once asked that very question in Bobbejaanland, Belgium, where he was moved to the front of the lines in every atraction. Their answer? "It's policy." So they don't know it either.Vykrel said:
But in many atractions, it was somewhat justified because he had to get in via the back or through a different route because of his arch-nemesis, the stairs, so he couldn't stand in line even if he wanted to... because of the standing.
Oh I am terrible today.
Like almost everything in this world, it's all about how you do it.
Say if you automaticly assume that someone in a wheelchair needs help, you can come of as insulting and demeaning. But I don't think there is any inherent discrimination in lending special help or at least showing yourself as willing to help if they want it.
I'll give you an example from my work. It may not be the best example but it's what I got:
I work in a game store, and the terminals for paying with credit cards are just a little to high up for people in wheelchairs to reach them. So, without asking, when I see someone in a wheelchair who want to pay with credit card, I pick up the card-machine and lean it over the counter and hold it there so they can pay. I haven't gotten any comments or complaints.
Say if you automaticly assume that someone in a wheelchair needs help, you can come of as insulting and demeaning. But I don't think there is any inherent discrimination in lending special help or at least showing yourself as willing to help if they want it.
I'll give you an example from my work. It may not be the best example but it's what I got:
I work in a game store, and the terminals for paying with credit cards are just a little to high up for people in wheelchairs to reach them. So, without asking, when I see someone in a wheelchair who want to pay with credit card, I pick up the card-machine and lean it over the counter and hold it there so they can pay. I haven't gotten any comments or complaints.
It strikes me that the examples of "positive discrimination" you allude to are instances where you want engage in some way with some person (forcing inconvenient parking, ridicule, aesthetic insult in your case) but feel like they're artificially protected from your actions in a way that others are not.krazykidd said:
I contend that this is true more generally with "Positive discrimination" objections. The popular conception is that there should be "one rule for all". This is because of a perceived need to justify the rules that are imposed on us by appeal to objective fact, and that the ONLY objective fact in place for the majority of them is that there is broad consensus. The thought, then, is that if we are held to one critical but arbitrary (and possibly unfair and damaging) set of restrictions, everyone else should be too, because there are "standards".
So, anyone who for any reason avoids the artificial restrictions placed on our own behaviour, or whose actions or status causes further artificial restrictions on our own behaviour with no more justification than that, will be met with opposition.
This is a mistake, but an entirely understandable mistake. The contention is this: things like parking, queueing, social graces, public aesthetics, pay grades, behavioural norms and the like, are all of them perceived as arbitrary impositions, and much of this perception is probably right. There is little reason for the particular rules to be exactly as they are; most of them are there as a result of history, rather than practical function.
But physical disability has an obvious, non-"standards" based justification for adjusting the protocol of social interaction - namely, that without such adjustments, interaction is significantly limited. If we want to structure society in such a way that people with certain disabilities can still participate in it, we need to write it in such a way as to not rely on the abilities that we expect some people to not possess.
The reason why it often feels like it's a standards thing is that we previously built our various constructs without that same sense of open interaction in mind, and have to come up with ad-hoc and unsatisfying fixes to keep the existing structures in place. Disabled parking spaces exist because the massive Car Park is not an effective way to deal with transport involving those with physical mobility problems and that may need staff assistance - the disabled space is there as a dirty hack to make the car park system work, rather than as a special privilege for people who have problems.
Where do we draw the line? Well, criminal pathology and institutionalization are the baseline. There are some disabilities that are such that the only way we can deal with you is to remove you from general society. And in my personal opinion, it seems that is a good point to actually decide the matter. If our opinion is that the person in question needs a specialised environment in order to function, then it does not seem that there is a general obligation to accommodate their specific needs in the public sphere. On the other hand, if we would be unwilling to condemn a person to an isolated environment, then we should probably be developing our structures to facilitate their interaction with us.
(TL;DR) In conclusion, consider whether that person needs to be excluded. If they don't, then don't exclude them.
This may be over your head. Maybe a civics class would do you good, judging by your attitudes towards the person's physical appearance.
Because people can get out of the ghetto and dye their hair. People without the use of their legs can't get out of the chair.BlueMage said:
Edit: Also, how the hell is being born a ginger even in the same sentence as being born in the ghetto? I get it, gingers have no soul. Hardyharhar. *Sigh* Can you please stop copying South Park. That joke wasn't funny to begin with and people have used it to death.
Yes, discrimination in itself is NOT the problem.krazykidd said:
The problem is unfair discrimination, like saying black People can't stay in your hotel just because they are black. Racial discrimination.
But saying a convicted child molester can't be a babysitter, that TOO is discrimination, the justified kind.
Like if an old lady is struggling with a heavy suitcase up a flight of stairs, it is discrimination to offer to help her when you didn't offer to help all the young, fit, able bodied people who were also carrying large loads. The point is you used proportional discrimination.
How dumb are people that they think "any type of discrimination is wrong". The problem I think comes from:
-Sexists hear "Sexual discrimination is wrong"
-Racists hearing "Racial discrimination is wrong"
-Homophobes hearing "Discriminating on sexual orientation is wrong"
They stupidly assume the problem is not sexism, racism, homophobia and so on, but the absolutist argument of:
"well, if I can't (unfairly) discriminate against blacks, gays or women, then I guess I can't make any form of discrimination"
Making the TINY BARELY PERCEIVABLE consideration for those of lesser ability is discrimination vital for a functioning society. So that those who have a weakness in one area don't have it hold them back from a contribution in another area.
In fact, with the appropriate technology the "disabled" become "differently-abled". Poor eyesight + glasses = different vision but ultimately functional vision. Poor walking + wheelchair = just as mobile as anyone else the function of independant locomotion is there, in fact If you were to race a wheelchair user in a marathon the wheelchair user would likely win, it has the advantage in speed and efficiency. Able, but differently abled.
But ONLY if you give them the chance, and include wheeled access to vital facilities like learning, parking and so on.
Ramps and lifts aren't just good for wheelchair users, they are good for everyone who may need to transport something on wheels, like a trolley of equipment or a wheeley suitcase or just to ride your skateboard.
ahh that explains alotEeveeElectro said:
I do wonder if he has actually been diagnosed, anyway Ive heard this a few times...that its "trendy" to aparently have aspergers, so certain peopel (weather they actually have it or not) can use it as an excuse to be dicks..PLUS the misconception that being an aspsie (or autism) makes you a quirky genius and gives you mental superpowers
it doesnt, not for everyone, and as you said many aspie/autistic people hold down jobs and function
Yeah, aren't they already disadvantaged enough with out privileged dickheads deciding they don't deserve it because they want to park in the good spaces. Discrimination is associated with loads of negative connotations whereas the facilities put in place for the disabled are there to ease their difficulty.xXxJessicaxXx said:
If someone's paralyzed from the waist down do you really think it's discrimination against people who can walk to assign them two or three parking spaces close to the entrance of a shop? Don't put it under the guise of social equality.
Christ, some of the people on this site. You have legs, fucking walk. First women, then homosexuals and now people who're suffering from cancer or another disability? How can you be so self-absorbed that you can't understand why some groups would need some things in society to specifically help them and not the broader demographic? My mind boggles. I'm not even singling out the OP, I wish I could, but it's so common on this forum it's ridiculous. I hope you never have to face real discrimination or hardship caused by ill-health because I don't think you'd be able to cope with it at all.
EDIT:
I would hug you if I could.Treblaine said: