[nfb-talk] [NFB-talk] Here We Go Again: Home Makeover-blindcouple in OH

David Andrews dandrews at visi.com
Fri Dec 10 04:11:58 UTC 2010


John:

I think Steve is correct in that you do polarize the discussion 
especially over audible traffic signals.  You indicate that the NFB 
is against all such signals, and then bring up complicated 
intersections etc.  We are not against all of them and have 
acknowledged that in some instances they may well be a good 
thing.  You conveniently ignore this though.

I would say we are not in favor of having them installed every where, 
as I suspect you would be.

I really question the wisdom of discussing this yet again -- over the 
years we have changed our position some, I doubt you have.  We need 
to disagree and move on.

Dave

At 04:40 PM 12/9/2010, you wrote:
>John,
>
>You and probably some others are intentionally polarizing this 
>issue.  Your example of intersections with unusual configurations is 
>irrelevant, for example,
>since we don't oppose them in that situation.  The rest of your 
>premise is based upon the concept that if the sighted have it then 
>we should as well.  Nobody
>is saying we should do away with walk lights.  The question is 
>whether getting the same information to us is necessary and in some 
>cases even helpful.
>
>As an attempt to get a broader handle on issues that confront us, 
>when do we say we need the same access to something to which sight 
>provides access
>and when do we say we don't need the same access, just consideration 
>so we can use alternative approaches to a problem?  If safety is a 
>prime issue for
>example, how does one balance the fact that the safest thing we can 
>do is to stay home.  Don't amusement parks have the right to decide 
>it is not safe for
>us to ride without being accompanied by someone who can warn us of 
>sudden changes as some amusement parks have claimed?  Even if we reach the
>point that it is easy to install an audible signal at every corner 
>that has a controlled light, It would, in my opinion, be a mistake 
>to allow safety to become the
>sole governing factor for decisions as to what is good for us.  It 
>would also be unfortunate if we were to loose the ability to figure 
>out alternative ways of
>doing things rather than expecting that everywhere we go, someone 
>will provide an exact copy of the sighted experience because that 
>isn't likely to
>happen.  I think this is at least partly why you get such a strong 
>response to your position on audible signals.  It is unfortunate 
>that all discussion roads with
>you seem to lead to an audible intersection, though, because I think 
>you have made some worthwhile points and generated some good discussion
>regarding this TV show.  The idea that we only want to be portrayed 
>as completely self-sufficient including replacing our own plumbing 
>is a topic that is worth
>examining.  There are those who feel they could accept the good 
>stuff but educate at the same time.  I wouldn't be surprised that's 
>what these people may
>have thought they could do.  We have to be careful to realize that 
>this show isn't a documentary.  It is not a news show.  It is, in a 
>manner of speaking,
>fiction, a show designed to sell ads and get ratings, to make people 
>cry and tell themselves how lucky they are.  There's a lot of good 
>stuff to discuss here
>without walking down the same old APS path again.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Steve Jacobson





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list