Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm downvoting you because you're not engaging with the arguments of those who disagree with you, and therefore not adding to the discussion. It's clear that one can both agree with "you can't always be 100% utilitarian", and that accommodation is good, and still think this particular application of it is not an optimal resolution. Simply repeating back that "we need to accommodate the disabled" is not responding to…
>I'm downvoting you because you're not engaging with the arguments of those who disagree with you, and therefore not adding to the discussion. I am in two separate threads. My question was in this thread, where I was downvoted with no response . I cannot engage with arguments that are not put forth. >It's clear that one can both agree with "you can't always be 100% utilitarian", and that accommodation is good, and st…
1) "The law says ... ." Okay, this thread (as well as the previous discussions) wasn't speaking to the issue of whether it's a technically correct application of the law, but whether it's stupid for the law to require something like this. Hence, not adding to the discussion, at least where you added it.
2) "We should accommodate the disabled even when it fails a simple cost/benefit test." The others side already agrees with you! Hence why it's frustrating to hear you keep claiming that "golly, it just comes down to utililitarianism vs caring about the disabled; some of us have a little sympathy" -- no, those ones who disagree with you do support accommodations for the disabled, even at the cost of the greater good, just not this one, when it's impact is to make the materials less available, as it puts UCB in a "no good deed goes unpunished" situation.
I have yet to see you attempt to address that argument beyond "yep, some of us want to help the disabled". That adds nothing.
>>Note that you have yet to answer even the challenge I presented in this thread: are you opposed to the private hosting of these videos?
>Can you supply me with a reason to answer that, when I do not have an opinion on UCB's decision?
I just gave it in the original thread. If you support forcing the accommodation requirements on materials given for free, which results in Berkeley taking the materials down, then you're saying that "it's okay to release these materials as long as you back-channel it". That does not sound like it logically follows from a coherent policy to support the disabled.
That is why I don't think your comments built onto the existing discussion.