mindme
User
Karma: 44
|
Handicapped - 2007/05/05 21:42
I had a hard time with this show. Penn is a courts/defense/police guy and any laws mandating ramps for the handicapped he has to argue against. And there is certainly abuse of the disability act. They made a good argument about comparing handicapped rights and black rights. There were no laws against handicapped, but there were laws against blacks (and women) from voting, having property rights etc. Good point.
The unintended consequence of the law and the zealousness of people to sue can have a chilling effect on hiring the handicapped. Good point.
But it seems to me there are building codes. X number of people in a building, you need x number of bathrooms. X number of tables in your restaurant you need x parking spaces. You need fire escapes in certain places. You need doors that open in a certain way. We have building codes for health and safety reasons. Handicapped parking and ramps seem justified under reasons of health and safety.
And then I think the three fingered guy committed the False Continuum logical fallacy, if not by intent but the viewer might come away with that.
His quote:
"The ADA is not a civil rights issue. We are all different. You've got capabilities I don't have and I've got capabilities you don't have."
The False Continuum fallacy is when we claim we can't set up an objective demarcation line therefore we deny a problem exists. For example, some people have poor attention spans. Some people have ADHD. Where does one set the line? Since it's problematic, one is then tempted to argue the extreme on the continuum doesn't exist or it isn't a real problem.
(I'll probably repost this to the P&T web board, so don't be surprised if you see it there.)
|
