In places like Hong Kong and Singapore this is not his right and their mentally disabled are much better off. Much less revolving door, less stigma, less crime, more family support, etc.
Just because we do something one way doesn't make it the best way.
I agree with this. I'll add that if you want him to work and still receive aid you're probably better off moving to a state or country that doesn't treat their disabled so badly.
Of "first world" countries US is the worst place to be if you have disabilies.
That's not the point OP is making. OP is saying that having the right-of-way does a fat lot of good to someone who now has to live life as a quadriplegic.
Actually, yes, and the reason is, if the disabled (and being able-bodied is only a temporary situation, for everyone) took their business elsewhere, those companies would lose business to those that of their own free choice did install whatever accessibility.
It's better of society if people do the right things for the right reasons, not because there's a threat of the law hanging over their heads.
Seconded. That stood out to me too in his post. Disability seems to be widely abused in the western world. I'm for social welfare, but I'm not for mismanagement and abuse. Disability as it exists today is a concern that needs to be addressed.
Seems like she very specifically wants to draw LESS sympathy for herself, at least over this. From her description, her husband doesn't seem keen on letting his disability slow him down or prevent him from living life either.
As far as the demanding accommodations go, I think ramped entrances and handicapped parking spots are pretty reasonable standards, ones which have been legally mandated for many years now. While I commend your father for finding folks who respect him to do business with, I cannot agree that it is morally wrong to demand equal access. The American Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act both exist because it was determined that equal access to public businesses and accommodations is a moral imperative, and a right even. I don't think the author is out of line for being frustrated that in 2017 it's still difficult to do something as benign as go out to eat with someone who uses a wheelchair.
I understand your point, but I don't share the same interpretation of the author's point.
I don't think the author is claiming that he wants the /only/ face of the culture to be the most disabled members of society. I think the point is that those people are increasingly being pushed to the side-lines.
It's not socially OK to be disabled in China. There's a very strong pressure to conform to a certain standard, e.g. use a bleach to whiten skin for women, dress "appropriately", be able bodied, be Han, etc.
I find your attitude as entitled and dishonest; that law did not target disabled people, so you cannot say it is anti-disabled people, it is just a side-effect. It's that simple.
Just because we do something one way doesn't make it the best way.
reply