Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Jason Pancake, Jul 22, 2003.
Blind Child Drowns Under the Supervision of A Blind Person
Holadem - I am really not that heartless...
Common sense is uncommon.
a sad story indeed. However, putting them under the supervision of someone who is also visually impaired was just plain stupid.
There's a reason someone coined the phrase "the blind leading the blind"...
I think the problem is that there seems to be no consensus on how handicapped people should be--or want to be-- treated. There are two distinct groups: one that wishes to get certain, limited special treatment (such as handicapped parking spots), and another that wants everyone to pretend that they are just as capable as everyone else, regardless of the obvious limitations. You can't please everyone.
I remember a case in which a Wendy's Hamburger restaurant was criticized because they created a special wheelchair lane for handicapped patrons (so they wouldn't have to snake through the line with everyone else). Instead of being appreciative, a man in a wheelchair was offended because he felt that other people in the regular line looked down on him (figuratively). He may have even sued.
It's understandable to want to live a "normal" life regardless of injury or handicap, but refusing to acknowledge any limitations is silly and sign of denial, IMHO.
> she feels that Rodgers is reinforcing old images of the blind
What images? That they can't see?
Aren't we missing the simple fact that included in the word "supervision" is the word "VISION?" The people supervising the kids should be held responsible, blind or otherwise.
No, just easy to blame the people who failed at their job. I hope they aren't considering the outing a success. "Hey, we only lost one kid..."
They do want special treatment if you ask me. If this same event happened while a non visually impaired individual was supervising, that individual would be held responsible. But these people are saying that it's not their fault: they're blind.
this is a tough call. i congratulate their efforst to lead independent lives and i'm all for it, but this may have pushed too far.
it's not like they're walking around a forrest or amusement park. they're in an environment where one mistake can (and in this case obviously did) lead to tragedy.
i think their desire to be independent was a mistake in this case - they should have had someone there who can see.
they should be charged (or whatever) just the same as anyone else - their blind status should NOT have any bearing whatsoever.
Just arrived in my email, and seems apropos :
New Bill of Rights
The following has apparently been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President:
"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal, bed wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights."
ARTICLE I: You do not have the unearned right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything. ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone-not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be. ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy. ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care. ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure. ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you learn the Country's language and are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights."
The above seems to have been written by an American. Strikes this Canuck as amusing!
Sorry about that, Ted...
That was just my own opinion on the article, and how it made me feel.
Just ignore that comment...
np mark - i just wanted to be sure i didn't miss something in the article...