Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

jsonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#31

Post by jadell »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #26
cortesoft wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> make special amendments for some people? This one. You make reasonable accommodations for people who can't follow the normal rules. This is how the ADA is worded - employers have to make reasonable accommodations as long as it doesn't prevent the person from doing their job.

How do you define reasonable? How do you justify making accommodations just for some people? Why not for all? Rights should be equal, not based on any discriminatory criteria.

That's the "all lives matter" argument. The problem with it is that rights are not distributed equally, they are biased towards the privileged. Making special accommodation for someone with a disability isn't giving them special rights, it's leveling the playing field that is tilted against them.

Reasonable in this case means providing a way for them allowing them to do their job in spite of their limitations. The "privilege" they are being granted is being able to work at all, which is a privilege most people have naturally and take for granted.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#32

Post by hestipod »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #26
cortesoft wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> make special amendments for some people? This one. You make reasonable accommodations for people who can't follow the normal rules. This is how the ADA is worded - employers have to make reasonable accommodations as long as it doesn't prevent the person from doing their job.

How do you define reasonable? How do you justify making accommodations just for some people? Why not for all? Rights should be equal, not based on any discriminatory criteria.

It's not discriminatory to meet someone's disability related needs. You don't have those same needs. It gets old seeing people without those needs say "it's not fair". Nobody would choose a disability to get some some perceived "perk" which is nothing of the sort in reality.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#33

Post by analog31 »

santoshalper wrote: post #23

This is a complete smokescreen. The truth is that Jimmy Anderson is a Democrat, and the speaker, Robin Vos, is a Republican. Vos is simply trying to screw over and disenfranchise a Democrat by any means available. Just like Republicans refuse to even consider Democratic justices and constantly try to disenfranchise voters. To a Republican, power is the only thing that matters at any cost. There is no other useful ver…

I guessed the party of the Representative before reading the article. I was right.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#34

Post by AnthonyMouse »

cortesoft wrote: post #30
AdrianB1 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define reasonable? How do you justify making accommodations just for some people? Why not for all? Rights should be equal, not based on any discriminatory criteria.

So are you against handicap parking? You define reasonable by using reason. You examine the situation and try to see if you can make an accommodation for the person that lets them do their job while not sacrificing performance. If you can, you do it. You justify making these accommodations because you realize that there are some people who have conditions that make following the same routines that most people do impo…

You're comparing two different things though. Not everyone can have the closest parking space, but couldn't everyone attend the meeting remotely?

If you add the capability to do it then I can give you a thousand reasons why someone should need it. They could be photosensitive and need to avoid sunlight, or agoraphobic, or have children they can't leave home alone, or follow a religion that requires them not to look upon an uncovered woman who is not their wife. They could be poor and unable to afford the travel, or live far away from the meeting place.

By the time I'm done listing reasons, there won't be anybody left without one.

The same is true for parking spaces, but giving everyone the closest parking space is not an option. How is allowing anyone to attend remotely not an option?

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#35

Post by lazyasciiart »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #27
santoshalper wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right and obvious solution is to make special accommodations for people with special needs.

That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.

Obvious failure modes of "equal treatment to everyone" include six year olds joining the army.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#36

Post by mffnbs »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #27
santoshalper wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right and obvious solution is to make special accommodations for people with special needs.

That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.

What are you gaining from removing disabled people from "everyone"? You're against protections for these people because it's not fair to you? Ever consider that your way is not fair to them and potentially any other arbitrarily defined group of people?

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#37

Post by hestipod »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #27
santoshalper wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right and obvious solution is to make special accommodations for people with special needs.

That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.

You have the same right to accommodation when/if you are ever disabled as anyone else. If you aren't disabled and don't need the accommodation to function normally or without medical complications then you aren't being deprived of anything.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#38

Post by modsiw »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #27
santoshalper wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right and obvious solution is to make special accommodations for people with special needs.

That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.

Everyone enjoys the right that if you are unable to fulfill your job due to a disability, and a reasonable accommodation could be provided which would allow you to fulfill your job, you’re entitled to the accommodation.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#39

Post by modsiw »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #35
AdrianB1 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.

Obvious failure modes of "equal treatment to everyone" include six year olds joining the army.

Oh oh oh. Can I play?

Everyone is entitled to enter a restroom or no one is. I can get behind that. No more multi-toilet rooms with stall gaps.

Re: A Wisconsin lawmaker who's paralyzed isn't allowed to participate in meetings

#40

Post by hestipod »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #35
AdrianB1 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not right and that is not obvious. First, because "right" means it is right for all, that would imply the same rights and obligations for everyone. Because it is not right, it is not obvious. The only right way is to give equal treatment to everyone.

Obvious failure modes of "equal treatment to everyone" include six year olds joining the army.

While I am strongly opposed to child labor and military conscription, a six year old can do a LOT of damage. I'd not want to face a squad of them on my best day.
Post reply on HN