It's nice to see the know all end all of knowledge chime in here.
No one person here is the know-all end-all of knowledge. That's what makes TS and similar forums great - the distributed wealth of knowledge and experience shared openly among members both old and new.
I'm glad my analogy is fundamentally flawed in your expert opinion.
Indeed, it is flawed, and I suggest that it isn't merely my opinion.
Evidently you are not looking at the overall moral question of exploiting the handicapped by using that which was designed to be used by them. Thats what I'm looking at.
I, too, am looking at the broader picture, but perhaps from a more practical perspective. The way in which one uses that which was designed for the handicapped determines, in part, whether the non-handicapped are simply utilizing or exploiting. Usage in and of itself does not constitute exploitation. To reference your example, and as I've already noted a bit more briefly, my using the concrete handicapped ramp at my local post office does not in and of itself constitute exploitation in my opinion.
Also, I never said I have bothered getting an ALD receiver
And I never suggested you have or would get an ALD receiver. I was merely speaking hypothetically to make a point.
however if I did feel like getting one and for some bizarre reason they needed it back I certainly would return it since I prefer an AUD recording anyways....
But supposing you did, how would you know from a practical standpoint the venue needed the ALD returned for someone truly in need? You wouldn't. And we're agreed on at least one thing - we both prefer AUD recordings.
Hmm, I really dont know how to respond to such harsh words.
You seem to have fared just fine in response, which we'll move to now...
What you need to know is I dont need to learn anything from you or anyone else on this board regarding morals. I am a middle aged adult man. I have had plenty of time to develop a strong set of morals.
Bully for you! I don't know you, but I'll gladly give you the benefit of the doubt - that's one of the reasons I struck my last comment.
In case you had difficulty reading what I actually wrote let me just reiterate, I took no postion either way on the matter. What I did take a postion on is people spouting moral opinions about an issue but then they only follow the issue when it suits them. All I did was pose a question there Socrates, surely you understand that.
Another reason I struck my last comment. I thought it best to simply address your question without making assumptions about your particular views.
By the way, the only reason I even responded to the comment was because if you really were trying to apologize for that drivel you would of edited it out of the post all together.
I fully intended my as sincere. But rather than whitewash everything by removing it entirely, I chose to strike instead of delete. I, like most people here, post drivel every so often. Once it's out there, I'm of the belief that I should not take it away outright, much as I couldn't delete the comment if we engaged in dialogue verbally instead of electronically.
Peace
Save the whales.
