Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!mintaka!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!William.Wilson
From: William.Wilson@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (William Wilson)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: Emergency Exits
Message-ID: <12789@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jul 90 19:33:37 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: William.Wilson@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/89.0 - BlinkLink, Pittsburgh PA
Lines: 68
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 9186

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

 DA> because of the safety overtones, we are still suffering blanket 
 DA> discrimination in these situations by the assumption that all 
 DA> blind people are not responsible because they are blindness.  
 DA> Airlines are allowing others to sit in the exit rows, people 
 DA> who are clearly not safe.

David,
     I wasn't going to touch this thread again, just wishing to
keep perspective and not drag it down to the depths of personal insult
but you've forced me to point out what I feel is a touch of hypocracy in
your position!
     You and others have repeatedly used the argument that safety isn't
the real issue here, but rather that it is a case of "blanket"
discrimination, something that promotes the image of blinks as helpless
creatures, thus adding to the stereotyping that keeps our employment
rate so low, etc.  David, I not only started to understand your position
on this, I was being swayed in my own opinion of this whole issue!  In
fact, it was Eric Bohlman's message about the use of the laundry/fire
laws that started my reinterpretation of the airline situation, and
indeed, it is a complicated issue.

 DA>  ---  I presume that an airline would be reluctant to allow a 
 DA>  guide row because of the possibility of blocking the exit.  I 
 DA>  would h agree with this one as the passageway should be kept 
 DA>  clear so leave.  It would be difficult to attend to the 
 DA>  removal of the and move the dog out by a single person.

DAVID!!!  Up to now I thought you were saying that safety was not the
real issue here, but rather it was an act of discrimination against a
single group...BLINKS!  Now you're saying it is ok to discriminate
against blinks with dogs, just not ones with canes!!!  All of a sudden
the discrimination part is thrown away so you don't have to worry about
tripping over a guide dog!!!  The fact that the person attached to the
guide dog is a blink becomes now secondary to the safety of the
passengers!

     Sorry David, but I say we got to have it one way or the other!  If
this is a discrimination issue and not a safety issue, all blinks should
have the right to sit their butts in the emergency row!  Breaking blinks
into 2 categories, ones with guide dogs and ones without guide dogs, the
later to be the only ones able to avoid the discrimination, just sort of
takes all the sting out of your argument, at least for me!
     Yep David, you've managed to get me right back where I started
from!  I said originally, as the "chances are" subject field of this
thread initially said, that if safety is the issue, I was all for
discriminating against more people!  I saw it at that time as a safety
issue, I believe the reality of the situation is that there is a slight
disadvantage to having a blind person sitting in the emergency row, just
as there is a disadvantage of having someone who has been drinking, or
someone who can't speak the dominant language of the plane passengers,
or someone who is prone to hysteria, etc. etc. etc.  I also find your
willingness to agree that blinks using guide dogs should be allowed to
be discriminated against by the airlines a good sign that you are
changing your mind on this issue!

You going to New Orleans or Tampa next year?
                                                        Willie
 

... BlinkTalk, Dr. Deb and Silver in Pittsburgh!

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!William.Wilson
Internet: William.Wilson@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org