I quote you as follows: people in wheelchairs "pretty much couldn't get anywhere in public."
I assert that you are quite wrong, and I provide you an example of it happening. We shouldn't discount his achievements.
I assert that you are quite wrong, and I provide you an example of it happening. We shouldn't discount his achievements.
The example of a single person with nearly endless resources accomplishing something does nothing to refute a point about the masses. Heck, the "pretty much" qualifier is an acknowledgement that some people got around despite their condition.
I assert that you are not discussing this in good faith and won't be engaging with you further.
I also don't understand your fixation that just because Roosevelt was able to do something, that no one else was able to. In fact you should know employment of the disabled has actually gone DOWN since the ADA was passed, and in fact over half of the worknig age disabled worked before passsing of the ADA -- which usually involves going out at some point in public.
You've made abundantly clear that your "good faith" worries about others are in fact a projection of your own problem with keeping the good faith.
I'm not convinced you're reading the posts of the person you're arguing with, or really putting much effort at all into understanding what they're trying to say.
At first it was that the disabled pretty much couldn't go out in public. That I showed an example of that being incorrect.
Then it was yeah, but that didn't apply to the common person. In fact I showed before the ADA, over half the disabled were employed (which typically, but not always, involves going in public at some point). And I pointed out after the ADA their employment (a key part of being integrated in public) went down.
No one refutes that fact either, but now it's merely I haven't "convinced" you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The ADA is completely unconvincing in terms of effectiveness in actually integrating the disabled in public; and the argument the disabled were pretty much not in public before the ADA is equally un"convincing."
> I'm not trying to convince someone who lacks the ability to be reasoned with.
> ...
> No one refutes that fact either, but now it's merely I haven't "convinced" you.
That you think I'm the one who was arguing with you despite me saying "the posts of the person you're arguing with" instead of "my posts" confirms what I was saying.
You don't seem to care about actually understanding the other person's meaning. You're very clearly looking for a way to continue the argument and prove how smart you are, but I assure you as a (former) bystander that you're not succeeding.
Read the two quotes at the top of this post, really read them, and you'll hopefully see what I mean.
I tell you this because I've been there and it's not a good way to live, nor is it a good way to impress people.
That's an interesting, but inaccurate thought. How will you go about proving what is going inside my mind when I engage in discourse? Go ahead, I await your proof that is my goal. In reality, I have no interest in how smart you think I am.
>I tell you this because I've been there and it's not a good way to live, nor is it a good way to impress people.
You don't know about the way I live, or who I've impressed or in what way I may have done it. I never claimed to be charismatic and I don't care about impressing you. It's very rich of you to make presumptions about the way I live my life.
I haven't made any presumptions that you lead a life in "not a good way" because of our difference of opinion or presentation made in good faith on HackerNews, and I frankly find I'm quite taken back someone would be as foolish to make such an assertion. You opinion is duly noted, though I find it unconvincing.
In fact, despite struggles I am very happy with the way I live my life. I find the way I'm living it to be good, and it doesn't require your approval. You are free to pursue your own happiness, and if you don't enjoy my discourse I am not forcing you to engage in it.
I might add, you haven't added a single fact to this discussion, merely your ad hominem attacks on my character. I consider discourse purely driven in ad hominem (living life in "not a good way", wanting to "prove how smart") the hallmark of a weak mind.
>I tell you this because I've been there
You haven't been "here" with me. I'm not like you, and I never want to be, nor will be.
>Read the two quotes at the top of this post, really read them, and you'll hopefully see what I mean.
I hope you'll do the same, and understand what I really meant when I said I wasn't trying to convince someone who couldn't be reasoned with.
I wondered why no one else had told me how it looked or what it made me look like, but then I realized they had been. So that's all I'm trying to do now for you.
Here's my opportunity to tell you what you so wished to hear: I think in 10 years, you will look back, and realize your history and your embarrassment has repeated itself, and that you've not learned from your mistake. I'm definitely not "convinced" you've learned to read what others are saying, or really put much effort at all into understanding what they've said.
I also hope someday you understand that it is indeed dumb to suggest people pretty much can't go to space, or to suggest that those in wheelchairs pretty much couldn't go in public before the ADA.