[nfb-talk] NFB philosophy
C Applegate
marshapple at austin.rr.com
Wed Apr 23 16:10:08 CDT 2008
Nicely done.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] NFB philosophy
> John,
>
> I would like to step back to your original note for a moment, before we
> started to look at specific issues. While I agree with you completely
> that a giving and caring
> society is a
> happier and better society, I also believe that you are missing part of
> the picture. As a member of society, I cannot be an expert on all of the
> programs that my tax
> dollars support. I still, though, have some right to know that the taxes
> I pay are being used to help people in a way that benefits both the
> persons receiving help and
> society in the long run. In this case, I therefore have two roles, that
> of a blind person and that of a member of society.
>
> First, you seem to imply that NFB philosophy allows us to ask for nothing.
> You use the wheelchair ramps in a manner that implies, at least to me,
> that nothing is done
> for blind people presently. Consider the fact that we get special
> treatment in the Social Security Disability laws, that we have a special
> library service, that we have
> special
> exemptions in the copyright laws, that those of us who use dog guides can
> bring them with us even where dogs are not generally allowed, that even
> though it is
> sometimes inadequate, the government provides money to assist us in
> getting the training in alternative techniques that we need, that we get
> extra tax exemptions,
> that the heavier books that we use can go through the mail free, that we
> have had separate schools for the blind and separate agencies providing
> services to blind
> people, and I am likely missing many other examples. While those in
> wheelchairs have seen the
> establishment of curb cuts and ramps, we have advocated for and made major
> gains in the provision of materials in an accessible format. While ramps
> have pretty
> much always been a technical possibility, some of what we have asked has
> only been possible with the advancement of technology, and the feasibility
> is, in some
> cases, variable. Therefore, I would submit that we have already requested
> and received a number of considerations that at least seemed essential at
> the time. Your
> question seems to be why should we not receive what would be convenient
> even if not necessary. I hope that you would agree that this is, then, a
> different
> question than that of ramps for wheelchairs.
>
> I believe society does have a responsibility to help its members to
> succeed. Society actually is richer, and not just happier, if it is able
> to help more of its members be
> self-sufficient in the
> long run, and I also subscribe to your premise that society will be a
> happier society. I further do not believe that I can always judge what is
> best for certain elements
> of society. I must take on faith to some degree that the help society
> gives other groups using my name and my resources is truly needed, and
> that groups receiving
> my help are mindful that the help they receive costs me something. This
> is one part of the
> picture you are ignoring in my opinion.
>
> In this discussion, blind people are playing two roles. We are viewing
> the assistance we get from the viewpoint of society at large and this is
> what you are
> addressing. However, we also play a special role. That role is that of
> being a group who receives special consideration from society. For us to
> accept help that is
> not really necessary is nothing less than squandering society's resources.
> This is wrong, and this is the kind of thing that much of society is
> starting to react to
> negatively. We do need to offer some degree of accountability to society.
> As a group, we will not always agree on what is truly needed and that is
> to be expected,
> but we must hold the discussions. What I see you saying is that if you
> can come up with a fact that shows that some kind of help makes a
> difference in your life,
> society has the obligation to provide that help. Whether you accept my
> interpretation as applying to you or not, it is something I have
> definitely seen in arguments
> made by others, and it is not going to be helpful in the long run.
>
> Another missing part of the picture is that we are better off if we can
> find ways to deal with the world as it is rather than requiring the world
> to change. Please note
> that there
> is an "if" in that last sentence. We cannot always deal with the world as
> it is, so understand that I am not saying the world never should be
> modified. However,
> when we are able to deal with the world as it is, we are not having to
> wait for it to change, nor do we have to confine our activities to the
> parts of the world that have
> been modified for us. A basic example of this is that I do not wander
> around my work place without a cane expecting that no obstacles will be
> present. I use my
> cane and count on it to find obstacles. My cane allows me to function
> without requiring everyone to change their way of operating. Of course,
> this also applies to
> persons using a dog. There was a time in the past when your argument
> probably was used to maintain that we should not need to use a cane or a
> dog, society's
> obligation is
> to assume that a blind person might walk a given path. I am not saying
> that you would have made that argument since you apparently travel with a
> dog, but it is an
> example of how we are better off because we found ways of traveling that
> required less modification of the world, and if the same legal structure
> that exists now had
> existed back then, there would have been a strong argument made that we
> should not need travel aids, that the world is obligated to change.
>
> I subscribe to our philosophy not as some theoretical thing that sooths my
> need to have a philosophy, but because I have come to believe that it is
> an approach that
> makes sense. We have a responsibility not to ask for help that we don't
> truly need, and we benefit when we find ways of fitting into the world as
> it is. This means,
> though, that answers are never completely absolute. This kind of
> philosophy is a guiding force and not a dictate and we need to discuss
> issues completely and
> carefully to know how they impact us.
>
> Let's briefly look at currency and your exchange with Dave. You say that
> an opinion that is backed up by fact should carry more weight than one
> that is not. In
> another note, and I hope I have this right, you stated that it was a fact
> that if money was spent to make currency accessible that we would be able
> to identify it. The
> implication I took from this is that since you have a fact to back up your
> opinion that currency should be accessible, your opinion is more valid
> than Dave's. First, I
> question that your opinion is really supported by your fact. Accessible
> currency has not
> necessarily been universally accepted as a success in terms of identifying
> money. The success will be determined not by whether it is done but how
> it is done. But
> even if it is successfully done, the true benefit is not even addressed in
> your statement. To some degree, the benefit of accessible currency will
> be an opinion and
> not a fact even in your case, and opinions will vary. If you truly mean
> that the only measure is that assistance results in a benefit, then let's
> look at social security. it
> is a fact that if the government gives blind people more money, that we
> will generally live better. to some degree, we all want to see certain
> work disinsentives
> removed from Social Security laws, but at what point would our request be
> unreasonable? There is no point at which we wouldn't live better if we
> received more
> money, but there is an associated opinion as to when we might exceed what
> is reasonable that becomes more of an issue than the fact.
>
> I find your assertion that accessible currency is a piece of cake when
> compared to integration to cut both ways. I believe that I understand
> what you are
> saying but correct me if I am wrong. You seem to be making the point that
> if we got through the process of integration and the backlash, that
> getting through any
> backlash associated with accessible currency would be easy. If my
> characterization is correct, I would agree with you regarding the
> backlash. However, would you
> maintain that accessible currency has the same
> impact on us? would you even say that accessible currency has the same
> impact upon us as wheelchair ramps have had on those using wheelchairs? I
> would be
> very surprised if you would say that either is the case, but doesn't that
> mean that the impact also have to be taken into account? Don't we have to
> look at both the
> cost and the gain and make some decisions?
>
> Finally, in your original note on this subject, you stated that you wanted
> to look at philosophy separate from the legal issues. That really makes
> accessible currency a
> poor choice upon which to base a discussion of philosophy. Much of the
> reasoning for taking the position that we have taken has been for legal
> reasons. We have
> supported the idea of accessible currency if it could be built into a
> redesign process already. Certainly philosophy can play a role in a legal
> position, but it makes
> separating the two much more complicated.
>
> Okay, fire away!
>
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:04:39 -0500, John Heim wrote:
>
>>>From the wikipedia entry on the NFB:
>
>>"Federation philosophy holds that blindness should not be used as an
>>excuse
>>for insisting that the world be remade for the convenience of blind
>>people.
>>Sometimes providing reasonable access does demand modifications in
>>infrastructure, but if such changes are not necessary, then blind people
>>should not expect them"
>
>>Why not?
>
>>Note that we're not talking about legal principles here. The above stated
>>philosophy seems to contradict the Christian ethic -- that doing good for
>>others is a moral obligation. If doing good for others is a moral
>>obligation, then there can be nothing wrong with asking for accomodations.
>
>>If you haven't guessed, in my opinion, the above philosophy is dead wrong.
>>We are all in this together. There's nothing wrong with laws prohibiting
>>racial discrimination. There's nothing wrong with laws requiring
>>accessible
>>bathrooms. We, as a society, have every right to make laws that we feel
>>create the best society. If those laws place a burden on some people at
>>the
>>expense of others, well, that's unfortunate but it cannot be hhelped.
>
>>For instance, we, as a group, are better off because the law requires that
>>buildings must be made wheelchair accessible. I'm not saying we're a
>>richer
>>society. That may be. I'm saying we're a better society. I guess you could
>>say the total amount of happiness in our society has been increased by
>>that
>>law. We're a more just, more open, and happier society as a result of the
>>law that required that buildings be wheelchair accessible.
>>It isn't intuitively obvious that the above stated philosophy is
>>beneficial
>>to blind people. If the NFB is going to support a philosophy, they ought
>>to
>>be able to justify it. So what benefits do I, as a blind person, get from
>>the NFB's philosophy?
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>nfb-talk:
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/steve.jacobson%40visi.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/marshapple%40austin.rr.com
More information about the nfb-talk
mailing list