Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!samsung!olivea!oliveb!bunker!hcap!hnews!261!1055.0!Mary.Otten
From: Mary.Otten@p0.f1055.n261.z1.fidonet.org (Mary Otten)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: possible ramifications
Message-ID: <16144@handicap.news>
Date: 18 Jun 91 16:13:19 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.isc-br.com
Reply-To: Mary.Otten@p0.f1055.n261.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:261/1055.0 - The Keeping Room, Baltimore MD
Lines: 38
Approved: wtm@bunker.hcap.fidonet.org

Index Number: 16144

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In your message to Tim, yoj mentioned that NFB looked at overlap and
possible raifications of one issue upon another. My argument is, how far
out do the possibleramifications have to be before they are judged to be
of low probability, or before the advantage gained to blind people by
use of the technology or adaptive equipment involved outweighs sch
possible ramifications? I'm sick of hearing about how this or that
modification can't be put in because somebody in the NFB or anywhere
else, for that matter, has decided that it's bad, hurts peoples' chances
of getting a job or maybe hurts the immage of blind people as fully
functional always independent human beings. In point of fact, not all
blind people are "fully independent" and not all blind people are super
travelers, and not all blind people are this or that or whatever else
the NFB wants to portray as the immage of the ideal blind person.Some of
us can make good use of some of this adaptive equipment. Take the tiles
for instance. What on earth is wrong with putting them in subways or in
other places where a misstep could really prove at the least a serious
problem and at worst, could lead to death? Somebody made a point on here
that blind people should have good mobility training and not need things
like these tiles or audible signals etc. Well, the operative word there
is should. There shouldn't be wars, but we have defense forces because
there still are. There shouldn't be robberies, but lots of people have
security systems on their houses because they feel safer, more protected
against robgers. Even with great mobility training, not all blind people
have the same aptitude for it. Why deprive the large numbers of people
who could benefit from the judicious use of adaptive equipment from
being more independent than they otherwise would feel they could be
because you are worried about a hypothetical immage problem? By you,
Idon't necessarily mean you personally, but the body of those who would
deprive others of useful aids because they are worried about what some
nebulous third party may or may not think?

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!261!1055.0!Mary.Otten
Internet: Mary.Otten@p0.f1055.n261.z1.fidonet.org