tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35743239.post6187172962017956443..comments2024-03-29T03:43:45.977-04:00Comments on Of Battered Aspect: 23 TimesDave Hingsburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11918601687946534172noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35743239.post-81276611397149793212018-05-22T16:50:01.659-04:002018-05-22T16:50:01.659-04:00Perhaps she meant it is the individual's right...Perhaps she meant it is the individual's right to be in public...at least I HOPE that would be what she was trying (But failing) to say. Lauraleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445375613856156103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35743239.post-91461616369722786982018-05-17T02:34:08.160-04:002018-05-17T02:34:08.160-04:00The only time someone has the right to spit indoor...The only time someone has the right to spit indoors in public is if they're choking / their airway is blocked / they can't breathe, and they don't have a tissue or bucket to spit into. (I once spat water on the floor at the dentist while having my teeth cleaned, when I had accidentally aspirated a lot of water into my lungs and I literally couldn't breathe. It was that or choke.)<br /><br />If the gentleman needs to spit on a regular basis, he (or his carer) could carry a disposable vomit bag for him, most pharmacies carry them and they're not expensive.<br /><br />I'm Disabled and chronically ill, and I think it is reasonable to expect Disabled and/or chronically ill people to follow social rules wherever doing so does not harm us.<br /><br />For example, spitting in public without a compelling reason: no<br /><br />Refusing to shake hands because shaking hands causes four days of agonizing hand pain: yes.Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18285070926705237161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35743239.post-71117789453221729562018-05-16T13:09:30.424-04:002018-05-16T13:09:30.424-04:00"Rights" are ill-defined in this day and..."Rights" are ill-defined in this day and age. The dictionary defines it as: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. So according to the dictionary, rights and entitlements are synonymous. So . . . the fellow was "entitled" to spit on the floor? And if so - by whom? The owner of the mall? The janitor? The laws of the land he resides in? The moral code of the population? <br /><br />I'm not a fan of the word "rights" or the word "entitlements." I think they are convoluted "invented" words that come from folks who want you to think they're giving you some kind of gift. The way I see it - the fellow certainly had an opportunity to do that. But was that opportunity free of consequences? I don't think the staff did him any favors in terms of him being seen as "belonging" to or in his community at that point. He became aberrant. <br /><br />Aberrant gets excluded from a lot of opportunity. Ron Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05852385982605070675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35743239.post-58634248187264140122018-05-16T09:19:45.303-04:002018-05-16T09:19:45.303-04:00I don't think he has the 'right' to le...I don't think he has the 'right' to learn that because he has a disability it is OK for him to behave in socially unacceptable ways in public places. I think his care team/staff don't like him very much...and are ensuring that he doesn't gain the benefit of being included in the world around him. <br /><br />This is not about "the right to spit in public" it is about the staff not even trying to fulfill their responsibilities....and that is not right!<br />The phrase 'bigotry of low expectations..." comes to mind. clairesmumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12235828110880302069noreply@blogger.com