Please explain to me how it is fair that, by studying a free online uncaptioned lecture, someone gets even more of an advantage over me just because they weren't born deaf.
But if the net effect is that good free content will just become unavailable for everyone to achieve a sense of fairness, Then that seems petty and I'm not on board.
I hope they lose this case spectacularly as it would set a terrible precedent.
If a free lecture provides benefit to someone, but forcing it to be captioned causes it not to be released, would you be happy with that outcome? It's the same principle.
Whatever your opinion is here, they are not the same principle.
Please explain how it's fair that the plaintiffs would rather that everyone lose access to this educational material than deal with the fact that maybe not everyone will be able to use it.
Please explain how it's fair to act like a petulant child, screaming that if they can't have it, nobody can.
Because they agreed to follow said laws: the ADA. They have options if they choose not to follow the laws.
> Please explain how it's fair that the plaintiffs would rather that everyone lose access to this educational material than deal with the fact that maybe not everyone will be able to use it.
They do not want everyone to lose access. Instead, what they want, is for everyone to be able to use the content. Regardless, they do not want everyone to lose access. Your question is merely based on ignorance of the desires of the plaintiffs.
> Please explain how it's fair to act like a petulant child, screaming that if they can't have it, nobody can.
Because when someone breaks the law and it harms you, you have the right to seek redress in our system.
I've answered your questions. Now, please answer mine, which are written with the same care that you wrote yours.
Please explain why you feel it's okay that organizations should be able to ignore and back out of laws they don't agree with.
Please explain why you feel you have more right to the material than others.
Please explain what it's like being a petulant, self-entitled child?
I look forward to your reply.
Something being the law doesn't mean that it's fair. I shouldn't have to explain that. Also, it hasn't been established that these universities are actually breaking the ADA.
>They have options if they choose not to follow the laws.
What do you mean by this?
>They do not want everyone to lose access.
Well, that's the likely outcome of suing a university trying to offer a free service.
>Please explain why you feel it's okay that organizations should be able to ignore and back out of laws they don't agree with.
Again, it's not established that they were breaking the law.
I see nothing wrong with breaking immoral laws. If the ADA forbids disseminating educational material for free unless it follows a certain format, the ADA is immoral.
>Please explain why you feel you have more right to the material than others.
I don't feel that I have this right. I feel that deaf people don't have the right to demand that educational organizations curate information in a way that suits their fancy. How would you feel if the swahili speakers of America sued MIT for not translating their free educational videos to swahili?
>Please explain what it's like being a petulant, self-entitled child?
Nice ad hominem. You aren't even explaining why you're calling me that; you're literally just name-calling.
Strictly speaking it's not ad hominem. A careful reader will see that nowhere has (s)he called you a "spoiled petulant, self entitled child". You're merely being asked to explain your understanding of the meaning of a highly pejorative term which you introduced into the discourse.
So if someone or a company feels they shouldn't have to follow a law, you are okay with them not having to answer for breaking the law?
> Also, it hasn't been established that these universities are actually breaking the ADA.
This is why they are being sued. Some think they are. Considering your swahili statement, you disagree with the American legal system and the way it works.
> What do you mean by this?
I'm not sure what you don't understand. It's English, and it says exactly what I wanted it to say. Are you suggesting they were forced to break the law?
> Well, that's the likely outcome of suing a university trying to offer a free service.
Considering the other provisions of the ADA and their non-impact on free services offered by countless other business both big and small all across the country, you'd need to back this up with real, hard evidence. Please do.
> I see nothing wrong with breaking immoral laws.
In your opinion immoral laws. Clearly others do not agree with you.
Would you support someone breaking a law they considered immoral and you considered moral if breaking the law harmed you?
> If the ADA forbids disseminating educational material for free unless it follows a certain format, the ADA is immoral.
It does not forbid this. If you think this is what the case is about, you are ignorant.
> How would you feel if the swahili speakers of America sued MIT for not translating their free educational videos to swahili?
People are allowed to sue others they feel have wronged them.
Why do you think people shouldn't be allowed to sue others they feel have broken the law or wronged them?
> Nice ad hominem.
So you can dish it out but can't take it yourself. So you really are a petulant, self-entitled child.
Oh, and right, the endowments are earmarked for other purposes as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, so I am also glad that none of the donors cared about making the educational material accessible to people with disabilities, and that the staff of those two organizations catered to the donors.
On an even more tangential note, let's not forget to praise the lack of social stigma against the use of expressions like "petulant children" in a thread discussing people who are trying to use legal means to prevent discrimination and giving even more advantage to the already advantaged. The comment of yours would have been unimaginable if it had been about racial minorities expressing the same sentiment. But feel free to dismiss my reply as being from a throwaway account, which I am using because I have time and time again encountered the sentiment "Oh... You are deaf. I thought you were smart" or words to that effect when people learned that I am deaf from my main Web identity.
[1] Looking at your GitHub page, you probably aren't. But, for just one example, consider that you have most likely run some of my code when using Python (I have contributed to the base CPython implementation). I am not employed, and hearing people right out of school who are seeing Python for the first time in their lives are employed by the dozen..
[2] Watching lectures and learning from them — a way that is completely inaccessible to me since I can't even pay for someone to transcribe the lectures.
I mean, look at this. You're blaming your situation (which at least includes being unemployed) on your disability, while simultaneously trying to convince yourself that you're better than random people on the internet. You literally clicked through some random person's profile so that you could find some piece of evidence that they're inferior to you, in the hopes of convincing yourself that it can't be your fault; it's everyone else's.
I wish you the best.