Your thoughts on runners with Prosthetics.

I am not certain which is more amazing.. you utter lack of knowledge, your ignorance, or your hate for Skybird.

Since you just demonstrated your ignorance and lack of knowledge that is very funny.
Looky....

Sky, btw is correct when he said that there is a quota for disabled persons

Well done
that isn't what he said.

So Thomen are you going to show knowledge and a lack of ignorance and deal with what was really written?
When you are talking about "quota" and employment laws then spot the word which sky used which is wrong, then spot the word I used which is really the case.

The state of Westphalia has these rules (based on federal law) in place for over 20 years.

Really? show the law which says you have to select the least qualified candidate?

But hey I am being generous since you have already shown your ignorance and lack of knowledge.
lets make it really simple, spot the difference
1.better qualification than somebody else.
2.two equally qualified candidates.
Then see under which condition the pick the disabled or pick the woman out of the two candidates option come in

For good measure would you like to quickly run through the conditions where you can legally reject the person because of their disability even if they are equally qualified for the job as the other candidate

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Since you just demonstrated your ignorance and lack of knowledge that is very funny.
Looky....

Well done
that isn't what he said.

So Thomen are you going to show knowledge and a lack of ignorance and deal with what was really written?
When you are talking about "quota" and employment laws then spot the word which sky used which is wrong, then spot the word I used which is really the case.


Really? show the law which says you have to select the least qualified candidate?

But hey I am being generous since you have already shown your ignorance and lack of knowledge.
lets make it really simple, spot the difference
1.better qualification than somebody else.
2.two equally qualified candidates.
Then see under which condition the pick the disabled or pick the woman out of the two candidates option come in

For good measure would you like to quickly run through the conditions where you can legally reject the person because of their disability even if they are equally qualified for the job as the other candidate

If I would just play it like you, I would tell you to bugger off and to look it up for yourself since I do not need to prove anything to you. Isn't that what you said or implied some while ago, that you can talk out of your ass because you do not have proof anything?

However, since I am in a good mood today, I will give you at least something to start at

And with that, I will take my leave and let you do your usual trolling.

If I would just play it like you, I would tell you to bugger off and to look it up for yourself since I do not need to prove anything to you.

Awww wassamatter was the spot the difference too hard for ya
I do understand that equal and better are very hard concepts for some to tell apart

And with that, I will take my leave and let you do your usual trolling.

Hey Thomen, it was you who jumped into the topic throwing around accusations of ignorance
Just because you plainly demonstrated that you didn't have the faintest idea what you were talking about is no need for you to get all stroppy

I will give you at least something to start at

yoohoo the answer was already given, the law is really very simple and you clearly didn't know it at all

[RickC Sniper]

There IS discrimination going on here, but I'm not referring to the disabled.

My friend's son a few years back tried to get into medical school....a very, very difficult thing these days. During the process, he learned he needed to score 10% higher on the exams or his slot would be given to a minority individual. Quotas do exist.
The family, in desperation, did a family history trace in an attempt to find just a small percentage of American Indian in their bloodline. If it had existed, the school would have accepted him. He was white and male, and discriminated against.


=============
@ Skybird. I am sorry your grandfather lost a leg in the war, bit I am afraid I must be the political correctness police and call you out on these:

The lack of difference between being "halthy" and "crippled", is true for other qualkities.

The terms are "able bodied" and "disabled" You are bright enough to know that a disable individual can be a VERY healthy person.

If crippled atheletes want to compete, then let them, but I do not wish to see their disability being raised to the level of the design-by-norm, nor their competition being mixed with that of "full-membered", "normal" people.

Crippled athletes again......the term is disabled.
and...it is not "full-membered", or "normal" people. They are "able bodied" people. AB is the commonly used abbreviation.

<--------removes PC police hat.

[RickC Sniper]

As for the man in the OP.

He has been in and out of court since 2008 in an attempt to compete against able bodied athletes.

He needs to take the gold medals he won at the paraolympics and enjoy them or compete in the next paraolympics and win some more medals. That is the venue where he should compete.

From Wickipedia
At the 2008 Summer Paralympics, he took the gold medals in the 100, 200 and 400 metres (T44) sprints.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by RickC Sniper

There IS discrimination going on here, but I'm not referring to the disabled.

My friend's son a few years back tried to get into medical school....a very, very difficult thing these days. During the process, he learned he needed to score 10% higher on the exams or his slot would be given to a minority individual. Quotas do exist.
The family, in desperation, did a family history trace in an attempt to find just a small percentage of American Indian in their bloodline. If it had existed, the school would have accepted him. He was white and male, and discriminated against.


=============
@ Skybird. I am sorry your grandfather lost a leg in the war, bit I am afraid I must be the political correctness police and call you out on these:
The terms are "able bodied" and "disabled" You are bright enough to know that a disable individual can be a VERY healthy person.

Crippled athletes again......the term is disabled.
and...it is not "full-membered", or "normal" people. They are "able bodied" people. AB is the commonly used abbreviation.

<--------removes PC police hat.

Two things.

First, my grandfather called himself a cripple (one leg, one lung, one eye), and referred to himself as "Huckepeter". Let a more capable translator than me explain what that term means, but I can tell you despite his fate he was a man of great humour and good heart.

Second, as former psychologist and when working for limited time in a psychiatry, I learned one thing: disabled people, mentally or physically, often do not want at all a special way of being dealt with: with special care, special foresight in wording, special respect - to them right this often appears as not dealing normally with them, but to sort them out by treating them "special". My grandfather also did not want that, he said "I'm a cripple, so why shouldn'T I called like that?" This political "sensitivity" about different words for the obvious thing is like psychology'S attempt to heal the hysteric by stopping to use the term"hysteria " in diagnostics (today it is called "histrionic", since that is less discrminative, they argue - but it means the same thing.)

I mean you can use most terms in a "normal" and in a "derogatory" way, it depends on the rest of your behaviour, your voice, the situation.

To me, somebody with two lost legs, is disabled, or a cripple, and I use both terms and do not think twice about it. And the PC crowd certainly can kiss me where the sun never shines.

BTW, what is currently the politically correct term to refer to Americans of African skin-colour, to put it this way (no offence meant)? Is it negro? Black? Coloured? Afro-American? It seems terms change with fashions, and get phased in and out. The only thing I am certain of is to not call somebody "******", for historic reasons the connotation with that one is obvious. But the other terms I mentioned - I see no problem with them at all. But some do. Well - who am I to need to understand everything...? My master, mentor and trainer often referred to me as "der Freak", and often called me a "Raufbold" (ruffian). Was that an offence - or a compliment? He continued to train me. I call a cripple a cripple - and continue to deal with him and talk to him like to any other. So what? I once called a German gay not "Schwuler" (=gay), but homosexual. He took offence from that, and insisted to be called "schwul" (gay). Oh dear, heaven save me please!

I think the intellectually handicapped people that claim moral superiority in political issues these days are a much bigger problem than this issue of which terms and labels are acceptable, and which not. And if "cripple" is understood to be derogatory - then what to t hink of people who politically correctly call them "handicapped" or "disabled" or whatever - and still mean the other term, and deal with them accordingly, sorting them out - and by that preventing the normality that they insist should be installed?

Words. Ha!

[RickC Sniper]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And if "cripple" is understood to be derogatory - then what to t hink of people who politically correctly call them "handicapped" or "disabled" or whatever - and still mean the other term,

Words. Ha!

Yes, words. You do so much debating here in GT and much of the time the discussions are over exactly that....words or semantics. You know of their subtle importance.

It does not matter what you think in your head that no one can control, know, or comment on. It matters what you put on paper or type in a forum for all to see.





My salutes to your grandfather. I think I would have liked him had I met him.

[RickC Sniper]

Originally Posted by Skybird

then what to t hink of people who politically correctly call them "handicapped" or "disabled" or whatever - and still mean the other term, and deal with them accordingly, sorting them out - and by that preventing the normality that they insist should be installed?

Normal hurdles the disabled community struggles to overcome and change on a daily basis.

[BossMark]

Think I need to go to spec savers, when I first saw the title of this thread I thought it said your thoughts on runners with prostitutes

[RickC Sniper]

Originally Posted by BossMark

Think I need to go to spec savers, when I first saw the title of this thread I thought it said your thoughts on runners with prostitutes

[Growler]

Rick, on this topic in particular, I wonder if anyone else noticed your signature.

Here's the thing with anyone who's suffered a disabling injury, or is born with a disabling condition: Your life is, by the very nature of that disability, now different from what the able-bodied consider "normal" living. That's just the way it is; things are going to be different for you for the rest of your life. That statement, in and of itself, is not discriminatory, it's just reality.

I'm not saying this well, because I'm not finding the words well. It's the difference between skill and innate ability. I can throw a ball, and so can a major league pitcher. For both of us, a casual toss is just that, a casual toss. But that pitcher has a skill I don't have - since I don't have the practice to develop the skill he has, he will always be able to throw better than I, even though we both share the same innate ability (the act of moving our arm to propel a ball.) For a disabled person, the loss of the limb (the dominant arm, in this example) limits or eliminates the innate ability (moving the arm to propel a ball - without the arm, you just can't throw a ball with it), to replace it solely with a learned skill (manipulating the prosthetic to throw a ball).

If the prosthetic is capable of more than the limb replacing it was capable of, then learning to use it grants an unfair advantage, the same as cork in a baseball bat provides an unfair advantage to a hitter.

If the prosthetics were, on a point-by-point basis, identical to and on par with the limbs replaced, then he should be allowed to run wherever he wishes. But if the limbs are, in any manner, superior to the ability of a healthy, developed limb, then they're No-Go.

It's a tribute to the man's skill that he can run on prosthetic limbs, and he provides great hope for disabled people worldwide. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that he is disabled. He has learned to live with his disability remarkably well, better than some able-bodied people, for sure. That fact does not confer upon him the right to any special advantages.

[RickC Sniper]

Well said Growler.

Please see my post #20.

There IS discrimination going on here, but I'm not referring to the disabled.

yes, but is the process in Colorado the same as the EU one or the german one or Skybirds fictional one

I learned one thing: disabled people, mentally or physically, often do not want at all a special way of being dealt with: with special care, special foresight in wording, special respect - to them right this often appears as not dealing normally with them, but to sort them out by treating them "special".

Spot on.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Growler

Rick, on this topic in particular, I wonder if anyone else noticed your signature.

Here's the thing with anyone who's suffered a disabling injury, or is born with a disabling condition: Your life is, by the very nature of that disability, now different from what the able-bodied consider "normal" living. That's just the way it is; things are going to be different for you for the rest of your life. That statement, in and of itself, is not discriminatory, it's just reality.

I'm not saying this well, because I'm not finding the words well. It's the difference between skill and innate ability. I can throw a ball, and so can a major league pitcher. For both of us, a casual toss is just that, a casual toss. But that pitcher has a skill I don't have - since I don't have the practice to develop the skill he has, he will always be able to throw better than I, even though we both share the same innate ability (the act of moving our arm to propel a ball.) For a disabled person, the loss of the limb (the dominant arm, in this example) limits or eliminates the innate ability (moving the arm to propel a ball - without the arm, you just can't throw a ball with it), to replace it solely with a learned skill (manipulating the prosthetic to throw a ball).

If the prosthetic is capable of more than the limb replacing it was capable of, then learning to use it grants an unfair advantage, the same as cork in a baseball bat provides an unfair advantage to a hitter.

If the prosthetics were, on a point-by-point basis, identical to and on par with the limbs replaced, then he should be allowed to run wherever he wishes. But if the limbs are, in any manner, superior to the ability of a healthy, developed limb, then they're No-Go.

It's a tribute to the man's skill that he can run on prosthetic limbs, and he provides great hope for disabled people worldwide. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that he is disabled. He has learned to live with his disability remarkably well, better than some able-bodied people, for sure. That fact does not confer upon him the right to any special advantages.

This was basically the crux of my argument.

[Anthony W.]

This almost takes us into the debate of cyborgism. When humans and robots are combined to extend the ability of the body to fit it with the fullest extent of the mind.