Comments on: Too Advantaged Yet Still Disabled

By: RLM

RLM — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:15:28 +0000

Marylander,

I did not see your comment til 6/13. I am trying to explain that some lawmakers during the ADA bill debate, especially opponent of the pending ADA bill, tried to make an illogical agruments about the ADA law will protect pedophiles from any kind of discrimination.

We see more of alcoholics and substance abusers to be covered under the ADA law due to their genetic flaws, etc.

I am in total agreement that we ought not to criminalize alcoholic drinkers and substance drinkers and offer them rehabilation, instead of sending them to the slammers.

Pedophilism seems very voliate issue for many people.

I done the scholarly research on the effects of laws whether those laws help to reduce sexual offenses against ######## children or not.

I personally have no sympathy for pedophiles or child sexual predators or any kind of sexual predators so far.

Human beings are really complicated beings why and how we end up like doing those stuff against the humanity, etc.

Court-ordered castrations of numerous sexual offenders do more harm than protecting the society at large. Many pedophiles have some kind of cravings within their inner desires than abnormal testerone levels.

Back to the pre-ADA laws, the opponents of proposed ADA law tried the cheap shots of making comparsion of pedophiles to disabled individuals. That’s what I am trying to make some points regarding the definition of legal disability or not.

Robert L. Mason (RLM)

By: philly

philly — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:30:16 +0000

The useage of certain words, disabled, by media and IAAF (as well as others) have made are toward ethnocentrism. They chose those words to keep the minority away from the majority instead of focusing on performance of Pistoris or other athletes and working together.

Pistoris chooses to compete in Olympics to strive for his dream despite the facts he does not have legs and feet to support him. The prostheses he has do not really make any impact on him. Its the muscles which has to increase loads in order to influence the motions in lower legs to move quicker.

By: Ann-C

Ann-C — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:49:25 +0000

I suppose as more disabled athletes enter athletic competitions with the able-bodied that there will arise some of kind of regulatory body that will establish racing or competitive prostheses/aids standards to be developed so that they are on par with able-bodied, and not above.

This will fulfill many competitive sport requirements in events such as the Olympics. For years the Olympics had trouble with athletes taking advantage of other competitors via muscle or performance enhancing drugs. The Pistorius case may very well challenge athletic performance standards because it’s not drugs this time, but prosthesis or physical aid that can enhance a disabled athlete’s performance over an able-bodied one. That’ll be a first.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:06:56 +0000

This reminds me of a piece that ran in Sports Illustrated a couple years ago. Apparently there was controversy about the fact that double amputees were beating single-amputees in races because the double-amputees could attach TWO fake legs and make them LONGER. This increases the length of their strides. It seems having freakisnly longer shins (with springy curved blades for feet) makes you faster. So how would one regulate the technology to make sure fake legs doesn’t give you an competitive advantage? Next thing we know, athletes will be deliberately chopping off their limbs and replacing them with robotic arms and legs. So where does one draw the line?

Jesse

By: Marylander

Marylander — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:50:54 +0000

But the ADA forbid asking you “whether are you disabled” aon any employemt and admissions and anyforms. There is no affirmative action requirement in the ADA. Unlike the racial and gender laws, which required being ID on emplyment forms (if you’re a FED, you will know) and required an affirmative action but it is not enforced by the EEOC program since the 1980s….
Oh, yeah hearing people who were students or worked at Gallaudett have no rights like if they wanted an oral inteprreter, they are often turned down during my years in the 1980s.

By: Josh Mendelsohn

Josh Mendelsohn — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:51:43 +0000

Nope, it’s not illegal to require Gallaudet undergrad applicants to be deaf. The ADA (and similar laws) protect people who are disabled, but doesn’t protect people who are not disabled. So, it’s not illegal to discriminate against non-disabled folks. This is different from race-based or gender-based laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or gender (whether white or black, or male or female).

By: Marylander

Marylander — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:25:36 +0000

A coworker asked me years ago about why deaf people are not in the Paralympics, which occured after the regular Olympics every 4 years in the host countries. I told her that we have our own Deaflympics (www.deaflympics.com (sp?) I kind of told her that if deaf athletes were in the paralympics, we will win every and all events….But can all disabled athletes competed with abled-bodied athletes? There was this HS girl in a wheelchair who used her school system because they won’t let her race. Is requiring all applicants to Gallaudet to be deaf illegal under the ADA? Can we join the Special Olympics then?

By: Marylander

Marylander — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:22:45 +0000

“Several lawmakers blurted out “pedophilism” that would be seen as a legal disability due to the recurring behavior habits. Or should be only seen as a criminal behavior, not “disability”?” Pedophile is sick. it is not a disability, according to http://www.ada.gov and http://www.disability.gov

By: RLM

RLM — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:21:34 +0000

Josh Mendeleson gave a fine example of the legal definition of disability what we could apply to ourselves.

The definition of disability could be truly complicated or too general in many ways within legal means. The heated debates about the passage of the Americans with Disablities (ADA) back in the early 1990s what we should define “disability”.

Several lawmakers blurted out “pedophilism” that would be seen as a legal disability due to the recurring behavior habits. Or should be only seen as a criminal behavior, not “disability”?

I kinda applauded the IAFF’s decision to deny Pistorius his chance to compete due to his mitigation (use of Cheetah Flex Blade). That will set the good precedent to the whole world about what is really the disadvantage or advantage within the assistance of artifical stuff.

That’s what I am very concerned about the reality of CI users have an unfair advantage(s) over deaf mutes in employment market or informal networkings. Same thing with the use of hearing aids, too.

I have witnessed too often about deaf people with CI or hearing aids surely inflict “audism” among hearing people on daily basis. Hearing people usually prefer deaf individuals with CI or the use of hearing aid over deaf mutes.

Deaf mutes seems get the short drifts or being shortchanged by deaf individuals with CI or hearing aids in many ways while competed for the employment postiton or social interactions. Is that really fair to deaf mutes? Nope!

Any deaf individual with CI or use of hearing aid, ought not to qualify for any affirmative action program or disability at all.

Deaf mutes should be given top priority over deaf individual with CI or hearing aid due to the real existence with their so-called disability defined by the social perspective of the general society.

I still hope for the re-definition of disability for deaf individual with CI or hearing aid in the near future. Those deaf individuals agreely use their CI or hearing aid to enchance themselves to please the dominant society.

I will be not able to benefit from the use of hearing aid or CI anyway. I am severely profound deaf myself.

More and more people begin to hiss at disabled people in general for their special status and the right to accomodation, etc.

We must seperate the real humanity from any kind of artificality within our own existence.

Robert L. Mason (RLM)

By: Josh Mendelsohn

Josh Mendelsohn — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:32:15 +0000

All good points, Chris! Where does the boundary lie between mitigation and accommodation lie? For legal purposes, mitigation is usually done “at home” while accommodations are being provided at the workplace. If Pistorius is providing his own prosthetics, then it’s most likely mitigation. Much like getting CI’s on your own is mitigation, while getting a sign language interpreter at work is an accommodation BECAUSE of your disability.

Yes, this could lead to an ironic and semi-humorous result: the more you mitigate, the greater the possibility that you would no longer be considered as being legally disabled …