The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Home Base

Home Base A starting point, and place for threads don't seem to belong anywhere else

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-13-2007, 03:15 PM   #106
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,400
Quote:
I am not talking about protection I am talking about access.
Two entirely separate topics.
Legal protection of your right not to be physically prevented from accessing a building, to which any non-disabled person might reasonably expect to be able to gain access.
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 03:17 PM   #107
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wow, that was some semantic gymnastics.
Fine, but not padding the world.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 03:25 PM   #108
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,400
What you don't think the laws governing disabled access are legal protections?
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 03:31 PM   #109
9th Engineer
Bioengineer and aspiring lawer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
Legal protection of your right not to be physically prevented from accessing a building, to which any non-disabled person might reasonably expect to be able to gain access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rk
Wow, that was some semantic gymnastics.
Fine, but not padding the world.
Not semantics at all, that was a much clearer definition of your complaint. You can't define your grievance by what you want done about it. Very good wording on her part.

Quote:
Then you think peanuts should be illegal?
I could argue that they should not be allowed in any public facility and be as right as someone saying that every building must have a ramp. Not the same as illegal since we're excluding private residences.
__________________
The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.
9th Engineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 03:35 PM   #110
Flint
Libturd Snowflake
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Coastal Elite
Posts: 12,156
The logical conclusion of rkz's argument is that rkz should not be guaranteed access to the hotdog place. Why? Because the peanut guy can't go to the burger joint, and the asthma guy can't go to the barbecue place. So, let's be fair. If wheelchair guy wants to say "fuck peanut guy" and "fuck asthma guy" then, by all means, fuck you too, wheelchair guy.

Should peanuts and smoking be made illegal? No, I don't think so. But if they restrict certain people from entering those businesses, then so be it (according to rkz). If the lack of a wheelchair ramp restricts rkz from entering a business, then so be it. Let's be fair, okay? Let's not be selfish, point-dodging hypocrites.
__________________
******************
There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there
it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your
expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever
gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio
Flint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 04:37 PM   #111
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Again, I am talking about access only not, protection.
An allergy does not restrict access. Good topic for another thread.
We are off-topic and I never stated nor implied fuck anyone.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 04:42 PM   #112
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,400
Access only, not protection? How does that work if that access is not protected by law?
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 05:02 PM   #113
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Exactly, I am talking about access being protected by law.
I am not talking about making substances or behavior within establishments illegal. That is off-topic.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 05:20 PM   #114
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,400
Okay. I think I get the distinction.

[eta] Although the distinction reminds me a little of that which can be drawn between de facto and de jure discrimination.
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 05:21 PM   #115
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool.
Going out of town, see you guys on Monday.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 05:23 PM   #116
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,400
Sorry Rk, I think I edited that as you were posting :P

Have a good weekend!
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 09:50 PM   #117
Ibby
. . .
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,029
So I take it you're ignoring your ability to throw yourself forward and drag yourself into the store? Cause I mean, once you're in, you dont expect any kind of protection inside the store. You dont care if they make you eat on the floor, obviously. Right?
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh
Ibby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2007, 10:23 PM   #118
skysidhe
~~Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.~~
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,828
bye rk..have a good weekend good looking.
skysidhe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2007, 04:02 PM   #119
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibram View Post
So I take it you're ignoring your ability to throw yourself forward and drag yourself into the store? Cause I mean, once you're in, you dont expect any kind of protection inside the store. You dont care if they make you eat on the floor, obviously. Right?
I see you still can't read.
Still unable to understand that we are discussing access & I am not discussing what happens inside.
Unless you are unable to discuss access and this is just another lame attempt at changing the subject, either way...
Pathetic.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2007, 05:08 PM   #120
Clodfobble
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 18,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
Exactly, I am talking about access being protected by law.
I am not talking about making substances or behavior within establishments illegal. That is off-topic.
And with a wave of my hand, I have now changed the topic. In your opinion, rk, what should happen with regard to dangerous substances and behavior inside establishments? I'd like to broach the topic.
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.