Bike cops sneak up on non-handicapped
carl...@comcast.net
DougC
I love the last line-
�For the people who need these spaces, this isn�t a convenience or a
luxury, it�s a necessity,� Kaprielian said. �What these (violators) are
doing is denying people equality.�
Denying them their designated parking spaces?
What a fucking idiot.
~
Leo Lichtman
"DougC" wrote: Denying them their designated parking spaces?
> What a fucking idiot.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's right. It's really stupid to be handicapped.
Peter Cole
No, apparently it's stupid to defend the rights of the handicapped.
Chalo
>
> Leo Lichtman wrote:
> >
> > "DougC" wrote:
> >>
> >> or a luxury, it's a necessity, Kaprielian said. What these (violators)
> >> are doing is denying people equality."]
> >>
> >> Denying them their designated parking spaces?
> >>
> >> What a fucking idiot.
> >
>
> No, apparently it's stupid to defend the rights of the handicapped.
It's funny and incorrect to characterize special treatment or
privilege as "equality". I thought it myself when I read the
article.
First come, first served is equality. Every man for himself is
equality. You snooze, you lose is equality. There are certain
drawbacks to equal treatment, but the fact that such drawbacks exist
does not make it equality when we give advantages to the weak. It may
be just, but it's not equal.
If I were a double amputee or otherwise profoundly crippled, I would
be insulted by the suggestion that letting me park closer to my
destination somehow conferred equality upon me.
Chalo
landotter
How about making cripple and pregnant parking further away, instead?
Hobbling for a stronger tomorrow!
Leo Lichtman
"Chalo" wrote: (clip) First come, first served is equality. Every man for
himself is
equality. You snooze, you lose is equality. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have chosen to define equality in a particular way. One person could
say that equality gives every emperor the right to defend his wealth with an
army, and to take what others cannot defend. Someone else, at the other end
of the spectrum, could argue that equality gives everyone the right to share
the wealth created by society.
When the community creates handicapped parking, wheelchair access or
medical care for the indigent, it is intended to give a reasonable life to a
part of society that would otherwise suffer. Freedom from suffering is a
form of equality (that I favor.) You may be in favor of letting people
suffer, but don't claim it is an inherent from of "equality."
tonski
Both ends of the spectrum mentioned above exist in the way Chalo is
arguing for. Everyone sharing wealth is a "what's mine is yours"
perception meaning that parking spot is mine or Joe's as much as it is
a cripple or handicapped person's. The emperor defending his wealth
with an army lives in a fend for yourself world as much as Chalo
mentions.
You can't construe equality to mean whatever suits your needs.
Equality means equal for everyone, not your empathy or perception of
equal opportunity. We can argue semantics all day long.
Leo Lichtman
"tonski" wrote: (clip) We can argue semantics all day long.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not with you--it's pointless.
Dan O
There do seem to be a lot of those special parking permits used by
people whose fundamental impairment appears to be obesity. Seems kind
of ironic, maybe.
Chalo
I think you misunderstand me. I am in favor of accommodations for the
handicapped, including special parking. But those things are special,
not equal.
Coach seating is a form of equality. One size fits all (like a Huffy)
is a form of equality. Cans of Budweiser are a form of equality. 36"
high countertops are a form of equality. I am not in favor of any of
these things.
Meeting the needs of different people by different means isn't
equality-- but it's fair, and it's a good thing to do.
I'm not handicapped in the least, and I wouldn't trade places with
anyone even if I could. But I don't fit in cars, I have to pay a lot
extra for clothes, I hit my head on doorways, I can't ride on roller
coasters, and I have to build my own special bicycles. I know the
difference between special accommodations and equality.
Chalo
tonski
Probably. Instead of a better constructed example, an ad hominem will
win this one.
I'm saying don't confuse special treatment due to empathy to be
equality. I'm all for deserving handicaps having special parking
spots. I have hearing loss from the military and two bad knees and
can be labeled "disabled" by the government, that's why I cycle
instead of run. Federally I'm disabled but I wouldn't touch one of
those placards because I can walk well enough to park wherever.
Jim A
> There do seem to be a lot of those special parking permits used by
> people whose fundamental impairment appears to be obesity. Seems kind
> of ironic, maybe.
I wouldn't assume the one is necessary the cause of the other. Lack of
mobility can make it more difficult to exercise and lose weight.
There, but for the grace of God ... etc,.
--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
Peter Cole
"Equality" in the sense used in the quotation seems to be the same as in
"all men are created equal", which doesn't mean literal equality
(physical characteristics, social standing, etc.), but equality of rights.
The state controls access to public spaces. Parking facilities are an
example of that. Access to public space is a right. If a stairway blocks
access to a public space, hasn't a wheelchair user effectively lost the
right to access that space? Isn't the same true for those who can't walk
the length of a parking lot?
The state is not obliged to provide equality of access in every context,
but in those cases where the facilities of access are provided by the
state (e.g. parking spaces), it seems reasonable and fair that the right
of access should be preserved when possible. I don't have a problem with
the phrase "denying equality" describing the poaching of handicap
parking spaces.
This discussion touches on the deep waters of "positive/negative
freedom". Libertarian thinkers default to a position of "freedom from"
(coercion, etc.) as a boundary for state involvement, where progressives
go to a "freedom to" position, assigning government the role of
compensating to provide an equal opportunity when circumstance doesn't.
I regard the parking space issue as a positive, "freedom to"
initiative by the state to attempt to provide equal opportunity. That is
where I see the "equality" and its denial.
(PeteCresswell)
>I'm not handicapped in the least, and I wouldn't trade places with
>anyone even if I could. But I don't fit in cars, I have to pay a lot
>extra for clothes, I hit my head on doorways, I can't ride on roller
I stopped even *thinking* about air travel when a 5'4" family
member complained about the lack of leg room on a recent flight.
--
PeteCresswell
Andre Jute
WTF? This is the first time I've heard you say something truly stupid,
Chalo.
There are many kinds of equality. We should at the very least in a
democracy all believe in equality of opportunity. No one in his right
mind believes in the bare bones of a meritocracy, not even those who
would benefit most by it, not least because they have the brains to
understand that they would have no security against dispossession by
large numbers of the envious.
Parking spaces nearer the door for handicapped people is merely
another form of the most basic kind of equality of opportunity: to
have no artificial handicaps to arriving at the door together.
Of course, if at the door you want to throw your weight around, my
dear Chalo, and elbow aside the wheelchairs, that's your privilege,
and I would quite understand. But it would be a truly cruel society
which does not make the minimum effort of ramps and marked parking
places closer to the door for its wheelchair users, so that you can
elbow them aside at the door just like any whole person.
Reserved parking is a great bringer of order and civility to society.
Andre Jute
Scholarship boy
Jay Beattie
Very nicely put -- and a good summary of the justification for the ADA
and similar state anti-discrimination laws. Also, one should be
careful who he elbows. http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/murderball/sm_vid.html
-- Jay Beattie.
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > First come, first served is equality. Every man for himself is
> > equality. You snooze, you lose is equality. There are certain
> > drawbacks to equal treatment, but the fact that such drawbacks exist
> > does not make it equality when we give advantages to the weak. It may
> > be just, but it's not equal.
> >
> > If I were a double amputee or otherwise profoundly crippled, I would
> > be insulted by the suggestion that letting me park closer to my
> > destination somehow conferred equality upon me.
>
> democracy all believe in equality of opportunity. No one in his right
> mind believes in the bare bones of a meritocracy, not even those who
> would benefit most by it, not least because they have the brains to
> understand that they would have no security against dispossession by
> large numbers of the envious.
>
> Parking spaces nearer the door for handicapped people is merely
> another form of the most basic kind of equality of opportunity: to
> have no artificial handicaps to arriving at the door together.
But it's still not equal. I'm not saying it doesn't help; of course
it helps to remove barriers to the mobility impaired. But if I arrive
in an iron lung, or if I have to drag myself across the threshold
using only my lips, then it doesn't really level anything out to be
able to park right in front of the door. Call it accommodation, call
it fair treatment-- whatever. It has nothing to do with equality, not
even equality of opportunity. It's more about trying to make _some_
opportunity where there had been none.
Go to a grocery store in a wheelchair and try to do your shopping
without standing up. Perhaps then you'll see that the provision of
choice parking and wheelchair ramps does not make for equality. Some
sort of access, sure. But not any kind of equality.
> Of course, if at the door you want to throw your weight around, my
> dear Chalo, and elbow aside the wheelchairs, that's your privilege,
> and I would quite understand. But it would be a truly cruel society
> which does not make the minimum effort of ramps and marked parking
> places closer to the door for its wheelchair users, so that you can
> elbow them aside at the door just like any whole person.
>
> Reserved parking is a great bringer of order and civility to society.
That's not my point of contention. If the person in the article said
"violators are denying people basic accommodations" or "violators are
acting against social order and civility", then on what basis could I
possibly have a problem with that? But the person was quoted as
saying parking violators were denying the handicapped their
_equality_, which in fact was never there to be denied. Their
disabilities are what deny equality to the handicapped, just like my
own outlandish size is what makes my experience of public facilities
inherently unequal-- not necessarily better or worse even, but
unequal.
Special accommodations are inherently unequal. That's the whole point
of them.
Chalo
Andre Jute
Ha! i'll be buying that movie. I grew up in a culture where rugby was
compulsory through school and college. It is a game so violent it
makes American football look like a pastime for sissies, but in my
time it was played without helmets or any padding whatsover, just in
shorts and a jersey and, of course, studded boots. My team took the
President's Cup three years running. Many of those stretchered off on
opposing teams thought they were headed for wheelchairs...
Andre Jute
A roadie in full fig, arse in the air, is a visual incitement to
"pour encourager les autres"
Andre Jute
I apologize for misunderstanding you Chalo. I see now that you were
complaining about the common misuse of words. Semantically, I'm on
your side.
Andre Jute
The first business of sociologists and other enemies of society is to
pervert the common meaning of words
Dan O
> Dan O wrote:
> > There do seem to be a lot of those special parking permits used by
> > people whose fundamental impairment appears to be obesity. Seems kind
> > of ironic, maybe.
>
> I wouldn't assume the one is necessary the cause of the other.
Just for the record, I wouldn't, either.
> Lack of
> mobility can make it more difficult to exercise and lose weight.
Certainly.
(I've no doubt that many permits wind up in the hands of people who'd
be better off instead walking more, though.)
> There, but for the grace of God ... etc,.
I know, I know - absolutely and always I appreciate how fortunate I
am, and mean to judge no one.
Cam
> Ha! i'll be buying that movie. I grew up in a culture where rugby was
> compulsory through school and college. It is a game so violent it
> makes American football look like a pastime for sissies, but in my
> time it was played without helmets or any padding whatsover, just in
> shorts and a jersey and, of course, studded boots. My team took the
> President's Cup three years running. Many of those stretchered off on
> opposing teams thought they were headed for wheelchairs...
>
> Andre Jute
> A roadie in full fig, arse in the air, is a visual incitement to
> "pour encourager les autres"-
I played both sports in high school. Rugby is significantly less
violent than American football. There are fewer concussions and fewer
broken bones. The hard helmets and pads used in football allow
tacklers to smack their opponents much more violently.
Cam
Andre Jute
Aah! That explains why the Canadians don't make it to the World Cup.
-- AJ
(PeteCresswell)
>I played both sports in high school. Rugby is significantly less
>violent than American football. There are fewer concussions and fewer
>broken bones. The hard helmets and pads used in football allow
>tacklers to smack their opponents much more violently.
I heard a group of ex-middleweight contenders say something
similar about boxing.
The spiel was that back in the bare-knuckle days, injuries
(especially brain...) were minimal because boxing was essentially
an endurance sport with each fighter moving around trying to
avoid the other. Once a solid blow was landed, the fight was
usually very close to being over.
OTOH, once gloves came into use, fighters learned to "take a
punch" and got their brains repeatedly rattled to the point of
long term damage.
--
PeteCresswell