Main > Everything Else

Blind people sue Target because they can't access Target's website.

<< < (27/33) > >>

ChadTower:

--- Quote from: tommy on October 07, 2007, 11:11:35 am ---A compliant site is just an aid, not a solve all problems for the blind.

--- End quote ---

It's not meant to be a solution to all problems for the blind.  It is meant to be a solution for one problem for the blind:  online shopping.

shmokes:

--- Quote from: tommy on October 07, 2007, 11:11:35 am ---
people who care about this blind person and know that trying to live your life blind is not an easy thing to do and even not a thing that is possible while not being able to see.


--- End quote ---

You mean like the people who passed the ADA, making it so one web programmer and a couple hours of spare time completely solves the problem entirely for thousands of people all at once, instead of trying to solve the problem by finding thousands of helpers each and every time the blind person wants to go online?  I find your argument that, "C'mon, these people are going to be forced to get help and one point or another," argument thoroughly unconvincing. 

I mean, what's the use in freedom of information?  Why should governments be required to publish laws.  At some point, right, some point, a lawyer is going to have to help you.  You may be able to look up some stuff, you may be able to figure some stuff out, but eventually there will be a problem that you need a lawyer for.  If a layperson cannot do all this on his own (like I believe he can't) then he has no need of access to the laws.

You see that the logic just doesn't work out.  It's not a matter of, "at some point the person will still need help, so if the problem isn't 100% solved there's no use doing anything about it at all."  That doesn't make sense.  Why have police officers if, at some point you will be the victim of a crime and there will be no police officers around to help you?  Why have public schools if at some point a person will run into a situation that their education has not prepared them for?  Why have cars if at one point it will break down and you will find yourself walking?  These things are meant to make your life better, not perfect.

The ADA does not replace eyeballs.  It doesn't perfect a blind person's life.  It makes it better.  Will they ever need help with a website?  Yeah . . . maybe.  But being able to do it on your own 95% of the time is a damned sight better than needing someone to do it for you 100% of the time. 

shmokes:
And, by the way, Tommy.  Have you ever known a blind person?  If not, I imagine that you have at least seen one.  They do not typically have access to a full-time personal assistant.  If you were blinded today by an industrial accident, would you have the resources to have someone to guide you through life all the time?  Even if you have a wife, presumably your earning potential is ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- now.  You sure as hell ain't making glass for a living without eyes.  Your wife is now the main breadwinner.  You think she's going to be around to baby-step you through life? 

By and large, blind people, whether they like it or not, have to just ---smurfing--- get on with it.  Even if finding someone willing to help was a simple matter (of course, it's not -- who the hell wants their life's purpose to be giving purpose to somebody else's life?), finding someone ABLE to help you on a scale like this would be nearly impossible.  People have their own responsibilities.  Blind people get to do things on their own whether they like it or not.  There is generally no alternative available to them.

tommy:

--- Quote from: shmokes on October 07, 2007, 12:11:01 pm ---
--- Quote from: tommy on October 07, 2007, 11:11:35 am ---
people who care about this blind person and know that trying to live your life blind is not an easy thing to do and even not a thing that is possible while not being able to see.


--- End quote ---

You mean like the people who passed the ADA, making it so one web programmer and a couple hours of spare time completely solves the problem entirely for thousands of people all at once, instead of trying to solve the problem by finding thousands of helpers each and every time the blind person wants to go online?  I find your argument that, "C'mon, these people are going to be forced to get help and one point or another," argument thoroughly unconvincing. 

I mean, what's the use in freedom of information?  Why should governments be required to publish laws.  At some point, right, some point, a lawyer is going to have to help you.  You may be able to look up some stuff, you may be able to figure some stuff out, but eventually there will be a problem that you need a lawyer for.  If a layperson cannot do all this on his own (like I believe he can't) then he has no need of access to the laws.

You see that the logic just doesn't work out.  It's not a matter of, "at some point the person will still need help, so if the problem isn't 100% solved there's no use doing anything about it at all."  That doesn't make sense.  Why have police officers if, at some point you will be the victim of a crime and there will be no police officers around to help you?  Why have public schools if at some point a person will run into a situation that their education has not prepared them for?  Why have cars if at one point it will break down and you will find yourself walking?  These things are meant to make your life better, not perfect.

The ADA does not replace eyeballs.  It doesn't perfect a blind person's life.  It makes it better.  Will they ever need help with a website?  Yeah . . . maybe.  But being able to do it on your own 95% of the time is a damned sight better than needing someone to do it for you 100% of the time. 

--- End quote ---


There is a difference in not being able to do something because of a handicap and not being able to do something because you are not smart enough or are ignorant.

All the rest of your comments about police and lawyers are just silly and do not apply here.

tommy:

--- Quote from: shmokes on October 07, 2007, 12:19:18 pm ---And, by the way, Tommy.  Have you ever known a blind person?  If not, I imagine that you have at least seen one.  They do not typically have access to a full-time personal assistant.  If you were blinded today by an industrial accident, would you have the resources to have someone to guide you through life all the time?  Even if you have a wife, presumably your earning potential is ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- now.  You sure as hell ain't making glass for a living without eyes.  Your wife is now the main breadwinner.  You think she's going to be around to baby-step you through life? 

By and large, blind people, whether they like it or not, have to just ---smurfing--- get on with it.  Even if finding someone willing to help was a simple matter (of course, it's not -- who the hell wants their life's purpose to be giving purpose to somebody else's life?), finding someone ABLE to help you on a scale like this would be nearly impossible.  People have their own responsibilities.  Blind people get to do things on their own whether they like it or not.  There is generally no alternative available to them.

--- End quote ---


I have seen one, and known one, they have a person who comes to their house every week and takes care the things for that person that they cannot do on their own.

Remember, this is also about being worthy of being sued over or not.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version