Disabled Teen Kicked Out Of Theater

[Pooja]

OLDSMAR, Fla. -- The mother of a disabled teen complained to the American Civil Liberties Union after she and her son were kicked out of a movie theater because he was laughing too loudly.

Susan Brown said she and her 19-year-old son, Matt, were asked to leave an AMC Woodlands 20 theater during a showing of "The Pink Panther" Sunday. An AMC spokeswoman said several patrons complained about the teen's outbursts.

Susan Brown said she was outraged. Her son has Angelman syndrome, a neurological disorder that impairs a person's ability to speak and maintain balance. The disorder also affects mental development and can prompt excessive laughter and seizures.

"Here's a child that was laughing at a comedy," she said. "His way of expressing delight and joy at this movie was laughing, but because his communication technique got in the way of someone else's space, he had to leave."


Brown, 46, said her son laughed at all the funny parts during "The Pink Panther," a slapstick comedy starring Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau. He also laughed at some parts that others didn't find so funny, she said.

About an hour into the film, a manager approached and asked her to step outside. After refusing because she couldn't leave her son unattended, the manager asked them to leave. She refused their offer of a refund.

"Several members of the theater audience complained that the guest's outbursts were disruptive," AMC spokeswoman Melanie Bell said in a statement.

Brown said Matt has always enjoyed the movies. He's never been asked to leave before.

"We won't change our lives," she said. "We'll keep going to the movies, but we won't go there, obviously."

[Superstring]

Who know, it could've been pretty fucking bad.

[Snowflake]

lol

[Fade2Black]

Just rent the goddamn movie and watch it at home! j/k

Edit: INTP's are tough on everyone (serious.)

[booyalab]

Just rent the goddamn movie and watch it at home! j/k
I agree. not jk.
why should the other moviegoers have to suffer just for the sake of political correctness?

[attila_the_hunny]

I agree. not jk.
why should the other moviegoers have to suffer just for the sake of political correctness?

My initial thought was along those lines.

[MacGuffin]

I dunno, that could be real bad.

I, for example, could have really bad intestinal gas that I cannot control. Actually I do, but I mostly control it. I wouldn't expect a whole theater to put up with me.

[booyalab]

I think it is actually sympathetic to the teen to have him removed. I have been so close to physically abusing loud people when at the movies.

[papertrail]

my first reaction is so. (almost feel bad about it)

as long as it doesn’t violate the americans with disabilities act….

the kid has an issue that is uncontrollable but that doesn’t mean everyone in the theatre should be subjected to his outbursts. they expected a certain level of quiet in the theatre.

i’m guessing he must have been pretty loud because i have heard some num-nums laughing so loud in the theatre papertrail wanted to beat a b*tch…and they were never asked to leave.

[attila_the_hunny]

I dunno, that could be real bad.

I, for example, could have really bad intestinal gas that I cannot control. Actually I do, but I mostly control it. I wouldn't expect a whole theater to put up with me.

Assuming it was a packed theater, no one would be sure who it came from. If it was silent...well, no one will even have a clue.
Everyone knows which tard is laughing in a theater.

[Pooja]

I agree, in that they were right (perhaps even too kind) in asking him to leave. The mom of the teen sounds pretty annoying, imo.

My ethics prof. mentioned this article today, but the context in which he talked about it, was that it's wrong to discriminate against those who are "different"... I thought I was the only one that missed the point during the lecure. I guess it is an "INTP" thing...

[Snowflake]

If you can't discriminate, how would you know someone is different??

[attila_the_hunny]

I don't like bumper stickers, but I agree with the one that says I Don't Discriminate, I Hate Everyone Equally.

[Fade2Black]

I Don't Discriminate, I Hate Everyone Equally.

Simple and yet so elegant.

[Johnny]

This mother should be smacked upside the head for taking her handicapped son to a theatre and then using him as bait to fuck with innocent people.

[CoHo]

Reminds me of this time I was standing outside a bar. It was one of those types that you have to walk down a stair-case to get inside.

Well there was this big argument going outside from the manager and this hefty woman about how she wanted someone to carry her friend down there so he could enjoy watching her get wasted or something.

It was funny to watch... neither side had a very good argument. And the guy in the wheelchair just sat there with his head between his hands.

[attila_the_hunny]

This mother should be smacked upside the head for taking her handicapped son to a theatre and then using him as bait to fuck with innocent people.

She probably has a little bit of Munchausen and put her kid in a theater, knowing full well he would disrupt the entire experience for movie-goers. Then go on and bitch to a reporter about how badly her son is treated and feel special she's in the paper.

[Edmond Zedo]

You gotta figure he was going completely nuts if several people complained. It takes a lot to get people to do that.

[booyalab]

I don't like bumper stickers, but I agree with the one that says I Don't Discriminate, I Hate Everyone Equally.
W.C. Fields, I believe

[Eileen]

You gotta figure he was going completely nuts if several people complained. It takes a lot to get people to do that.

Yeah, and if he's obviously handicapped, people are probably a bit less likely to do anything out of fear of seeming like assholes.

I feel for the kid (and the mom, actually) because it's fun to go to the movies--more fun than renting and watching at home--and its a shame that his disability makes it so that other people can't enjoy the experience at the same time that he does. Perhaps they should just try to go when they'll probably be the only ones there.

[booyalab]

I feel for the kid (and the mom, actually) because it's fun to go to the movies--more fun than renting and watching at home--and its a shame that his disability makes it so that other people can't enjoy the experience at the same time that he does. Perhaps they should just try to go when they'll probably be the only ones there.

yeah. dollar theaters can be good for that. although the seats always suck

[mgb]

You gotta figure he was going completely nuts if several people complained. It takes a lot to get people to do that.

I usually give three people 4 chances before I complain. The first chair kick I ignore. The second, I give them a nasty look. The third as ask them to please stop doing that. The fourth time I get a manager and have consistantly had great results.

Ever fucking time it's some goddamned bitch in her 40's who thinks she owns the world.

That said, a handicapped kid laughing too loud during a comedy isn't something I'd complain about it. If people feel put out they can get a refund and see it again. He has a right, no matter how loud he is, to laugh during a comedy and not expect to get kicked out. I'd way rather have that than someone talking on a cell phone or kicking my chair.

[libertarianjim]

Perhaps they should just try to go when they'll probably be the only ones there.

Given that they went to see the Pink Panther, maybe they thought the theater would be empty.

[Leftfield]

If I were a patron: I would be peeved and wonder wtf this person is laughing about...

If I were with the kid: I would make it known my kid is disabled and know to be subject to criticism.

Either way, if you (or your kid) has a disorder that can be annoying to others, it is your fault because society doesn't like you (your kid)...

Hypothetically: if I smoked in the theater and it was annoying people, I would stop it or flat out not do it knowing it would be a disturbance, this is no different.

However, if I see an obese person eating a huge bucket of popcorn (or anything not helping their cause) at the theater I believe they are also subject to criticism because it doesn't bode well with my value system (yes, this annoys me b/c of our obese culture).

I guess what I am saying is, anything can happen given your theater patrons.

[Rhu]

I think the really important thing to take away from this article is the fact that someone enjoyed Steve Martin's performance in The Pink Panther!

And we now know what kind of someone that is: a loud, uncontrollable, mentally handicapped kid named Matt.

I happen to know someone else who fits that exact description. Maybe I should have him see this film.

[ApeTheDog]

I'd simply have to know exactly how loud this kid was laughing before I can make a judgement. There are limits - it simply makes no sense to have one person spoil the experience for hundreds of others. However, I also know that some people can be absolute fascists when things don't go exactly the way they expect them to be, and it is not right to give them their way either. So it all depends on how loud this kid was.

[Snowflake]

The first chair kick I ignore. The second, I give them a nasty look. The third as ask them to please stop doing that. The fourth time I get a manager and have consistantly had great results.

Wow, a nasty look, I bet that accomplishes a lot.

[Johnny]

...it's fun to go to the movies--more fun than renting and watching at home...

Not fun for me I'd rather rent the movie and be home

bah humbug and stop breathing you're all wasting calories

[Eileen]

Not fun for me I'd rather rent the movie and be home

bah humbug and stop breathing you're all wasting calories


Yeah, actually, I feel the same way. I'd rather rent...

Unless it's something like King Kong, which is FUCKIN' AWESOME on the big screen, albeit fuckin' long also.

And worry not about the calories! I've got plenty of those to spare. Boy howdy.

[ApeTheDog]

Movie theatres all have excellent sound too - when I watch DVD's at home with my family, I'm always pushing to put the sound up higher (I want to FEEL the movie, not just hear it - I want the sound to be inescapeable and impossible to ignore) and they want it lower.

[cathmc]

I dunno, that could be real bad.

I, for example, could have really bad intestinal gas that I cannot control. Actually I do, but I mostly control it. I wouldn't expect a whole theater to put up with me.
Which is it, controllable, or not controllable???

Cooped up in that mask and suit intestinal gas could have dire consequences.

[Snowflake]

Movie theatres all have excellent sound too - when I watch DVD's at home with my family, I'm always pushing to put the sound up higher (I want to FEEL the movie, not just hear it - I want the sound to be inescapeable and impossible to ignore) and they want it lower.

Most movie theatre sound systems suck.

[MacGuffin]

Which is it, controllable, or not controllable???

Cooped up in that mask and suit intestinal gas could have dire consequences.
LOL I can control it, my hypothetical person in black leather and breathing mask could not.

[DeadDove]

Shit, what some of you fail to understand is the family involved and how they want their child to have a normal life with "normal" expirences. I could go into a long drawn out post about that but I'm too annoyed with reading so many people really talk out of their ass (plus student confindentially issues I'd want to be sure to steer away from). Instead I'll just add that hopefully the situation could have been avoided if the mother let the audience know her situation ahead of time (based on reading that article I doubt she did) so they would better understand her situation. I understand completely why she didn't go with the manager when requested because she was concerned about her son that she couldn't really leave alone. Now if you all could really be INTP's and place yourself from that perspective then you might actually start to HAVE A CLUE. Later.

[Ivy]

AYFKM? Political correctness? What about basic human compassion? Anybody who gets that upset at a retarded kid laughing joyfully at the Pink Panther (which was probably more noticeable because nobody else was laughing-- poor Steve Martin, how the mighty have fallen) needs to have a serious stickectomy.

[ApeTheDog]

Most movie theatre sound systems suck.

The ones I go to don't. They have lines of boxes and the sound comes at you from everywhere. When a dinosaur growls at you in jurassic park, you can actually feel it down in your stomach. That is the kind of experience I love.

Yes, my argument doesn't hold up for all movie theatres, but it does hold up for all the ones I go to - and since I don't go to the cinema to prove/validate other peoples points, that is enough for me.

[Snowflake]

AYFKM? Political correctness? What about basic human compassion?

What do you want from a bunch of INTPs?

[Ivy]

What do you want from a bunch of INTPs?

I know, I thought of that as I was writing, but I didn't want to make that kind of generalization. :nerd:

[CoHo]

Shit, what some of you fail to understand is the family involved and how they want their child to have a normal life with "normal" expirences.

But the kid isn't normal...

You can't fit a pie in a hot-pocket no matter how much concentrated sugar you may toss in there... sorry it just isn't possible.

[DeadDove]

While that is true, I'll be one INTP that will step away. STFU Snowflake!

[ApeTheDog]

Shit, what some of you fail to understand is the family involved and how they want their child to have a normal life with "normal" expirences. I could go into a long drawn out post about that but I'm too annoyed with reading so many people really talk out of their ass (plus student confindentially issues I'd want to be sure to steer away from). Instead I'll just add that hopefully the situation could have been avoided if the mother let the audience know her situation ahead of time (based on reading that article I doubt she did) so they would better understand her situation. I understand completely why she didn't go with the manager when requested because she was concerned about her son that she couldn't really leave alone. Now if you all could really be INTP's and place yourself from that perspective then you might actually start to HAVE A CLUE. Later.

Come on. The kid wants to have a normal life. If your mother stands up in front of the entire audience every time you go see a movie, and tells them that you're, well, basically retarded - you're not going to enjoy that very much, let alone have a normal life with normal experiences.

--

I don't think this would have been a problem 20 years ago. I'm worried that people are growing more and more intolerant. I'm careful not to read too much into this incident, but this reeks of it. Especially since there were only a few guests who complained.

And really - it's laughter! If he was shouting "Kill the jews" I would understand, but can you flaw a child for laughing?

There has actually been a problem in my home city where some people who lived next door to a playground have complained, and filed a lawsuit against the playground, because the children were making too much noise. They won their case too, and the playground got closed down.

I really don't understand this selfishness. Well. I do - and I guess it has always been a part of some people, but seeing other people become more 'assertive' definately has encouraged more and more people that it's okay to be an asshole themselves. And that is a trend that is bothering me.

[DeadDove]

But the kid isn't normal...

You can't fit a pie in a hot-pocket no matter how much concentrated sugar you may toss in there... sorry it just isn't possible.

Guess what, you aren't "normal" then either in my book by failing to understand what I was getting at. :banghead:

[DeadDove]

And I seriously doubt you have a clue about Angelman syndrome.

[CoHo]

Guess what, you aren't "normal" then either in my book by failing to understand what I was getting at. :banghead:

That's why I don't go to the-ate-ors

[Snowflake]

While that is true, I'll be one INTP that will step away. STFU Snowflake!

See what I mean?

[Lee]

I agree. not jk.
why should the other moviegoers have to suffer just for the sake of political correctness?Read my mind.

[CoHo]

And I seriously doubt you have a clue about Angelman syndrome.

Does it have anything to do with Michael Landon?

[kuranes]

Does it have anything to do with Michael Landon?

LOL

[Eileen]

AYFKM? Political correctness? What about basic human compassion? Anybody who gets that upset at a retarded kid laughing joyfully at the Pink Panther (which was probably more noticeable because nobody else was laughing-- poor Steve Martin, how the mighty have fallen) needs to have a serious stickectomy.

I agree, though I also think that it depends on how much of a disturbance the noise of the kid laughing was whether it is reasonable for people to be annoyed by it. I just presumed--as Zedo did--that if enough people complained, it must have been quite a disturbance. Upon re-reading the article, I realize that I misunderstood Angelman's syndrome. When I read that it "impairs a person's ability to speak and maintain balance," my brain translated "balance" to "reasonable volume." So I was imagining this really disruptively loud laughter disturbing the whole theatre, but that doesn't seem to be what the article is describing. So, in short, people are lame.

[Pooja]

I agree, though I also think that it depends on how much of a disturbance the noise of the kid laughing was whether it is reasonable for people to be annoyed by it. I just presumed--as Zedo did--that if enough people complained, it must have been quite a disturbance. Upon re-reading the article, I realize that I misunderstood Angelman's syndrome. When I read that it "impairs a person's ability to speak and maintain balance," my brain translated "balance" to "reasonable volume." So I was imagining this really disruptively loud laughter disturbing the whole theatre, but that doesn't seem to be what the article is describing. So, in short, people are lame.

I had made that assumption as well...

[Eileen]

And really - it's laughter! If he was shouting "Kill the jews" I would understand, but can you flaw a child for laughing?




Right. Well... remember that he's not a child, he's nineteen. People probably look at him and see a nineteen year-old. If it was a child who was laughing loudly though the movie, they would have been more tolerant of it, I bet. This is not an excuse for them at all, because it sucks pretty much no matter how you slice it. When people see an adult with mental disabilities, they are very uncomfortable (and intolerant) of it. There's dissonance there in part because of what we expect adults to act like and what we allow children to do.

[The Don]

I agree with Ape. A large number of people are getting the impression that they have a right to object to everything that annoys them, no matter how inane. However, neither is it fair for people to have to tolerate everything. There needs to be a compromise.

I had a similar experience where I was in the theater watching Cast Away and there was another movie-goer toward the back of the theater making loud and annoying noises that vaguely sounded like a wookie. The person was unmistakably mentally retarded and was making these noises throughout the movie. I didn't complain as the annoying sounds would occasionally coincide with a scene in the movie that was dragging on and would make for some very innocent humor. Besides, I didn't really like Cast Away.

[Eileen]

I agree with Ape. A large number of people are getting the impression that they have a right to object to everything that annoys them, no matter how inane. However, neither is it fair for people to have to tolerate everything. There needs to be a compromise.



Yes, this is a great point.


I find that I'm ambivalent about this, because I sort of dislike going to a movie when there are children there, because they make noise and fidget and do those things that children do that are distracting... at the same time, I can't think of what might make me actually go to the management and have the kid removed (actually, that's not true, if the small children whose mother brought them to see 28 Days Later or Dawn of the Dead or whichever zombie movie I was watching at the time hadn't been removed soon, I might have complained, but probably not). At the same time--if I go to see Harry Potter in a theatre, no matter how irritating the kids are, I understand that I'm sharing the theatre and kids are going to be kids, so I deal.

[mgb]

I think the people running the theatre could have handled it a lot better. I mean, it should have been obvious the woman couldn't leave her kid alone, why keep trying to drag her outside?

I guess people have a right to complain, as much as the kid has a right to laugh, the management is charged with balancing the rights of all and in this case they blew it. With any luck, the inconsiderate slob that evicted this woman from the theatre is getting fired right now.

[Snowflake]

With any luck, the inconsiderate slob that evicted this woman from the theatre is getting fired right now.

So IOW, inconsiderationg begets more inconsideration.

I hope the slob who fires the slob gets fired with any luck.

[Arioch]

Just a note, but two of the symptoms of angelman syndrome are
" A unique behavior with an inappropriate happy demeanor that includes frequent laughing, smiling, and excitability" and " Hyperactive behavior"

[wildcat]

I agree. not jk.
why should the other moviegoers have to suffer just for the sake of political correctness?
When you go to see a comedy you are supposed to be allowed to laugh. Some people laugh louder than others. So what. People with no sense of humour should stay at home. Political correctness is there for a reason.

[Johnny]

Shit, what some of you fail to understand is the family involved and how they want their child to have a normal life with "normal" expirences.

Have you considered that maybe this kid did get a normal experience? If I was in a movie theatre, disrupting enough people so as to require my ejection, I'd consider getting my money back a luxury.

[Johnny]

Just a note, but two of the symptoms of angelman syndrome are
" A unique behavior with an inappropriate happy demeanor that includes frequent laughing, smiling, and excitability" and " Hyperactive behavior"

Don't forget seizures

[booyalab]

When you go to see a comedy you are supposed to be allowed to laugh. Some people laugh louder than others. So what. People with no sense of humour should stay at home. Political correctness is there for a reason.
why do you insist on discriminating against people who have no sense of humor?

[Lee]

You wouldn't demand that a wheelchair bound person be allowed to go hiking, since they would slow down and ruin the experience for everyone else. As unfortunate as it is, disabilities - whether mental or physical - do exclude people from taking part in some activities, we can't force everyone else to pay the price for their misfortune, especially when those people paid to see a movie without a retarded kid laughing over the dialogue.

A cinema is a privately owned business who have to look after their customers, making one customer happy at the expense of several customers is not good business, they have the right to prevent disruptive customers from ruining the service for others.

This might seem harsh, it's certainly unfortunate, but it's just the price this person pays for their disability.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Disabled persons should be treated as persons as much as possible. So if they are too loud, they can be removed. They shouldn't be removed just for being retarded or because of laughing retardedly or inappropriately, because that is a matter of taste and opinion.

[Arioch]

Don't forget seizures

Actually not all people that have Angelman syndrome have seizures, so I didn't note it.

[Lee]

They shouldn't be removed just for being retarded or because of laughing retardedly or inappropriately, because that is a matter of taste and opinion."Taste and opinion" has everything to do with it, they are at the movie in the first place because of taste and opinion, taste and opinion influence everyones behaviour, in a business that it is trying to appeal to peoples taste and opinion nothing could be more important.

[DeadDove]

I agree with booyalab, it was completely fair given what we know of the circumstance. Although if I were part of the audience, I'm sure I wouldn't have complained to the manager because I'm lazy and don't really care.

I understand that getting kicked out of a theater is not that rare of an expirence but come it was the Pink Panther for crying out loud. On top of that it was AN HOUR into the movie, surely the people that were complaining should have figured out that something was up by then. And I know what you are going to say next, but come on, this kid has to be judged differently from others considering his situation. It really is that simple.

[DeadDove]

You wouldn't demand that a wheelchair bound person be allowed to go hiking, since they would slow down and ruin the experience for everyone else. As unfortunate as it is, disabilities - whether mental or physical - do exclude people from taking part in some activities, we can't force everyone else to pay the price for their misfortune, especially when those people paid to see a movie without a retarded kid laughing over the dialogue.

A cinema is a privately owned business who have to look after their customers, making one customer happy at the expense of several customers is not good business, they have the right to prevent disruptive customers from ruining the service for others.

This might seem harsh, it's certainly unfortunate, but it's just the price this person pays for their disability.

Seriously, this is a complete load of shit. Your view is completely short-sighted even on the buisness side because you are failing to factor in the negative press recieved. Even if this weren't brought to the attention of the press there would have been word of mouth spread amongst the friends of the family with complaints about what happened that should really factor in what to do future circumstances like this. There's always pleanty of competing theaters in and around town and as such it should be this buisnesses duty to please everyone in some manner. Perhaps a private viewing could have been suggested/arranged to keep all sides happy, and prevent future incidents. However your stance on supporting the management is completely naive. Anyhow I will now exit this thread and leave you to your pseudointellectual thoughts on the matter while you blow smoke up your own ass. Later.

[Johnny]

Actually not all people that have Angelman syndrome have seizures, so I didn't note it.

OK I admit it I'm a pessimist

[kafkaesque]

I understand that getting kicked out of a theater is not that rare of an expirence but come it was the Pink Panther for crying out loud. On top of that it was AN HOUR into the movie, surely the people that were complaining should have figured out that something was up by then. And I know what you are going to say next, but come on, this kid has to be judged differently from others considering his situation. It really is that simple.

Exactly, it was the fucking Pink Panther, how much could the experience be ruined by excessive laughter? If he were disturbing a more serious situation it would be different, but it is just public entertainment. Whining about retarded laughter at a comedy is petty.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

"Taste and opinion" has everything to do with it, they are at the movie in the first place because of taste and opinion, taste and opinion influence everyones behaviour, in a business that it is trying to appeal to peoples taste and opinion nothing could be more important.
So if people are complaining about other visitors having a whinnying, moaning or gibbering laugh those should be removed also? If a group of fundamentalist muslims with an attitude were complaining about the women who don't wear burkas, should these women be removed too?

It's a public theatre, any kind of people could come in and enjoy it within reasonable bounds. You know that when you buy a ticket. To throw out someone for laughing in a movie theatre, it would require a decibel meter and a specific rule not to exceed the decibel limit.

[jyakulis]

This might seem harsh, it's certainly unfortunate, but it's just the price this person pays for their disability.


/disagree

[Master O]

Too fucking bad. If I'm paying ransom type dollars to see a movie, I don't want some loud mouth ruining it for me regardless of why he's doing it. His mother needs to get off her high horse and accept that he doesn't have free rein to all things regardless of how unfair she thinks life is.

That's why it's called a disability... because he is dis-able to do certain things. Wait for the DVD like half of America does anyway.




Edit: I was born with a disability too. I was born with a severe currency-deficiency, but you don't see me suing anybody because I can't go enjoy a $400 a plate dinner at an upscale restuarant. We don't get to do everything.

[Lee]

Seriously, this is a complete load of shit.No need for bad language.


Your view is completely short-sighted even on the buisness side because you are failing to factor in the negative press recieved. Even if this weren't brought to the attention of the press there would have been word of mouth spread amongst the friends of the family with complaints about what happened that should really factor in what to do future circumstances like this.First, it seems that the "nagative press" hasn't really been that negative, most people agree that assuming a sufficient disturbance was being caused, and enough people were having their movie experience spoiled, that the decision to have the person removed was the right choice. Because none of us know the precise details, it is difficult to pass any kind of negative or positive judgment, we can only use conditionals i.e. if.... then....

Now let's presume that the person was disturbing the other movie goers, how good would it be for business if 20 people went back to their families and complained about how a person was causing a real disturbance during the movie and the management did not remove him? this would also encourage repeat visits, repeat incidents, suddenly 40 or 60 local people have had their movie going experience negatively impacted. This isn't a guy 100 miles who is never going to go to that cinema getting a bad impression of the place, this is the local population, the core customer base.


There's always pleanty of competing theaters in and around town and as such it should be this buisnesses duty to please everyone in some manner.Not when one customers satisfaction comes at the direct expense of other customers satisfaction, businesses have no duty to provide a service for this person, they are there to make money, not to do charity. There is no reason why this one persons movie going experience should be trump everyone elses, when they have paid for a service that they are not satisfied with.

It's unfortunate, but to expect everyone to bear the burden, that is unjustified, no matter how much you think they should feel otherwise.


Perhaps a private viewing could have been suggested/arranged to keep all sides happy, and prevent future incidents.Perhaps, but the cinema has to justify providing that service, unless that person is willing to pay for a private viewing, there is no way a management could justify providing it, the costs would have to be passed along to other customers. So if they are not paying the cost by haviung thier movie ruined, they are paying the costs in increased prices, but while provding the same service, increased prices will reduce revenues. There is no wayyou can avoid the costs of what you demand, someone has to pick up the bill somewhere, and the only practical and moral solution is to charge the person and their family who demand the service.


However your stance on supporting the management is completely naive. Anyhow I will now exit this thread and leave you to your pseudointellectual thoughts on the matter while you blow smoke up your own ass. Later.You have not actually presented any realistic solution to the problem, since you can't ignore the costs of the changes you desire. We can do what we can to make the lives of people with physical or psychological disabilities as "normal" as possible, but sometimes people just have to accept the hand they were dealt will bring problems, prevent them from doing things others can unless they are willing to pay for the infrustructure to support their added demands.

The basic principle of the solution you seem to desire is akin to preventing the smart kid from receiving an education because it's unfair on the stupid kid, trying to make everyone share the penalties of anothers misfortune. A third party dictating this situation is completely immoral, intellectually and logistically impossible to practically acheive.

[Lee]

So if people are complaining about other visitors having a whinnying, moaning or gibbering laugh those should be removed also? If a group of fundamentalist muslims with an attitude were complaining about the women who don't wear burkas, should these women be removed too?

It's a public theatre, any kind of people could come in and enjoy it within reasonable bounds. You know that when you buy a ticket. To throw out someone for laughing in a movie theatre, it would require a decibel meter and a specific rule not to exceed the decibel limit.No, complaining in itself would not require anything, it is a decision for management. Is the complainer justifed in the complaint? is the movie going experience of others being ruined by this individual? can we allow such behaviour to go on indefinitely? what are my priorities here, to please this one individual or please the rest of my paying customers?

You do not need any ridiculous bureaucratic measures like you suggest. Plus, it is not a public cinema, unless I am mistaken it is a private company, there is no obligation for them to allow anybody into their premises, just as a bouncer can throw troublemakers out of a bar.

[waxwing]

It's part of my job to take people with disabilities out in public. I would hope to avoid most of you (either that or make you second guess your attitudes, not sure).

Modeling appropriate behavior has become very important to me, and sometimes I see on people's faces they they are starting to understand why the disabled population deserves to enjoy the same freedoms they do. Other people will always be the ones to huff and puff in line or give dirty looks just because there are retarded people "interrupting" their lovely day. In my agency, we are very careful about only taking clients out one-on-one or in small groups so as not to draw unnecessary (possibly negative) attention to their behaviors. A movie theater can be a tough call. I'd in no way make a comment to the audience beforehand. That would be embarassing and not an example of how to treat a person with dignity and respect. But you'd better believe I'd fight being kicked out of the theater ( if not at the time, I'd calmly put the perpetrators in their place at another time). Sadly, the general public doesn't understand the importance of allowing people with disabilites to get involved in the community. Often poor choices on the part of parents or advocates can contribute to the misunderstanding, and in this case, parents/adovates should try to be a little more strategic about how to approach the problem of ignorance (In other words, a crowded movie theater may not be the best choice). It's a complex issue, however, and I've seen many approaches fail and a few succeed. On several occasions, Ive taken individuals to church and been met with dirty looks and shhs from all around the sanctuary. Makes me angrier than almost anything else. Don't even say that these people should watch church television at home. If you're thinking it, you're dead wrong. Once I took a woman to get her ashes and as I was pushing her wheelchair down the aisle, a nasty lady told her to hurry up cause SHE didn't have all day. Grrr.

[Johnny]

A movie theater can be a tough call. I'd in no way make a comment to the audience beforehand. That would be embarassing and not an example of how to treat a person with dignity and respect. But you'd better believe I'd fight being kicked out of the theater ( if not at the time, I'd calmly put the perpetrators in their place at another time).

If you were working for me and you subjected one of my disabled clients to a public shouting match in a movie theatre with the potential to escalate towards greater conflict, I'd have you terminated as soon as possible.

Your employer's not paying moviegoers to take care of him and protect him from public harm, he's paying you.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

No, complaining in itself would not require anything, it is a decision for management. Is the complainer justifed in the complaint? is the movie going experience of others being ruined by this individual? can we allow such behaviour to go on indefinitely? what are my priorities here, to please this one individual or please the rest of my paying customers?

You do not need any ridiculous bureaucratic measures like you suggest. Plus, it is not a public cinema, unless I am mistaken it is a private company, there is no obligation for them to allow anybody into their premises, just as a bouncer can throw troublemakers out of a bar.
That would favor vocal troublemakers with a pet peeve against some minorities. The owner is advertising that everyone can come and see a movie. His customers can do that and know that others will do so too. It's too late to refuse admission of specific people if it they are normally admitted. Otherwise, it should be made clear at the entrance that loud retard and pets are best given in custody there. The complainers have not hired the entire cinema, nor bought off the right of the other customers to make noise. Retards, like it or not, are a part of society and as such you can expect them to visit a movie theatre.
And if someone is disturbing the showing, yes you can throw him or her out. But only then.

[waxwing]

If you were working for me and you subjected one of my disabled clients to a public shouting match in a movie theatre with the potential to escalate towards greater conflict, I'd have you terminated as soon as possible.

Your employer's not paying moviegoers to take care of him and protect him from public harm, he's paying you.

Excuse me, but did you skip over "calmly"? Yeah, I'm no shouter. Never done it, never would. I'm well respected in my agency for the way I treat clients and for my ability to be calm even in crisis situations.

[Johnny]

Excuse me, but did you skip over "calmly"? Yeah, I'm no shouter. Never done it, never would.

You said "fight". You didn't mention anything about the sound being off.

[waxwing]

You said "fight". You didn't mention anything about the sound being off.\

I said "fight being kicked out." As an advocate, I have to fight for and against a lot of things, and volume must generally be kept low for best results.

edit - Pretty sure you also missed the whole part about "modeling appropriate behavior in the community."

[Johnny]

\

I said "fight being kicked out." As an advocate, I have to fight for and against a lot of things, and volume must generally be kept low for best results.

edit - Pretty sure you also missed the whole part about "modeling appropriate behavior in the community." Duh.

My lack of awareness, even my intelligence, is beside the point. You confuse me. Are you being paid to take care of handicapped individuals, or argue with them and imply they are inattentive, maybe even stupid?

[waxwing]

My lack of awareness, even my intelligence, is beside the point. You confuse me. Are you being paid to take care of handicapped individuals, or argue with them and imply they are inattentive, maybe even stupid?
Argue with whom? You sure know how to misinterpret.
(What happened to you, by the way?)

[Master O]

So waxwing, nothing seems inappropriate about bringing a disruptive (the disruption doesn't have to be intentional for it to count) person to an event where it is understood that "Silence is Golden" and that if noise is made it should definitely not impair the other attendees' ability to hear the dialogue of the screening.

[waxwing]

So waxwing, nothing seems inappropriate about bringing a disruptive (the disruption doesn't have to be intentional for it to count) person to an event where it is understood that "Silence is Golden" and that if noise is made it should definitely not impair the other attendees' ability to hear the dialogue of the screening.
I already said that a crowded movie theater may not be the best choice, but that it's a complicated problem -- allowing for freedom and normalization for people with disabilites while increasing community understanding. It would largely depend on the particular person and place, so I won't make up my mind just on the basis of "person with disabilites" and "movie theater" and "disruption."

[Johnny]

Argue with whom? You sure know how to misinterpret.
(What happened to you, by the way?)

I think we all misinterpret one another to some extent. How to account for that, myself I have great difficulty there. Plus, I'm sort of exploiting your desire to challenge stereotype and considering your responses.

Nothing happened to me that I'm aware of. I was just introducing the possibility that "normal" people can be handicapped to some extent too. A very close friend of mine suffered from a brain tumor that grew the size of an orange over 4 years, but it wasn't until that last year that he was finally diagnosed. I am very glad to say he has recovered, but he experienced psychological and physical changes throughout the ordeal. They were very gradual.

That it was so gradual helps me, I think, to still see him as the same person. We are still very good friends.

[Heather Harrison]

This is a tough issue. When I read the first parts of this thread, I found myself wanting to side with the people who complained about the kid, thinking back to many experiences with annoying audience members in movies. But then, it is a movie that is supposed to have funny moments, and it is likely to be a rather crummy movie anyway, so how badly can some loud, annoying laughter ruin it anyway? This is probably a situation in which one would have to be there to see how bad it was.

I am sympathetic to the need to get disabled people out in public as much as possible, but at the same time if one person (disabled or otherwise) causes major disruption to an experience for a large audience of people, perhaps there are certain places where that person should not go. It depends on the venue. At movie theaters, the audience isn't exactly expected to be quiet and respectful, so some amount of audience noise will generally occur. However, at a classical music concert, the audience is expected to be absolutely silent; any distracting behavior can ruin the experience for people. The concert hall where I often go bans children under a certain age, and I would imagine that they would quickly eject someone who is making a lot of noise, whether that person is disabled or not. I would support them fully on this, whereas I am a bit ambivalent in the movie theater case; it would take a lot more disruption there before I would be in favor of throwing someone out. It depends entirely on the cultural expectation of the amount of audience noise tolerated for the particular venue. At a sporting event there would likely be no problem; at a movie theater there could be a problem, but some level of noise would be tolerable; while at a classical music concert there would definitely be a problem - no noise is tolerated.

Yes, it is important for disabled people to experience as normal a life as possible and to get out in public wherever possible, but their rights must be balanced against the rights of others to have a good experience in these public places. A balance must be found, and judgments must be made on a case-by-case basis.

So basically, I can't form an opinion on the incident at the start of the thread because I wasn't there; this one may well fall into the gray area. I just can't imagine something like the current Pink Panther movie being ruined by this, because from what I hear (I haven't seen it), it was ruined when it was made. Perhaps this would be more of a problem had the movie been more serious.

Heather

[Crazy]

I wasn't at the theater to experience this so called "disruptive laughter", however, if it was, in fact, disruptive in an extreme matter, it shouldn't matter whether the person has a handicap or not. Equal treatment is equal treatment, for better or for worse. If it was something that would have gotten a "normal" person kicked out of the theater, then it should get this teen kicked out as well. If a person is disable, or not able to do something, then they will be precluded from doing things that require those abilities. However, if this all happened because a few assholes couldn't handle this kid laughing at something they didn't find funny, or laughing louder than what they deem acceptable even though it's withing reasonable levels, then I believe the management made the wrong choice, and gave in to the pressures of a few selfish, intolerant pricks. As far as thier decision goes, even though throwing someone out of a theater for weak reasons may cause said patron to spread bad word about the theater, NOT throwing someone out when there is good reason to will cause backlash from many patrons. Finding that balance can be difficult.

[Lee]

That would favor vocal troublemakers with a pet peeve against some minorities.Minorities like "disruptive teenagers" or "disruptive people with mental disabilities," it's funny that you take the moral relatavism route when it suits you, but in this situation, where it is clearly a case of "subjective values/tastes/opinions whatever" you feel your standards trump other peoples.


The owner is advertising that everyone can come and see a movie. His customers can do that and know that others will do so too. It's too late to refuse admission of specific people if it they are normally admitted.No it isn't, no company could realistically list all of the things that they do not allow on their property in an advertisement, do you propose a disclaimer on the end of any advertisment "no heroin, no large herbivores, no naked ramblers, no smoking, no dancing in front of the screen, no firearms etc. etc." Completely absurd, nobody would read it anyway.

No company is obligated to serve any customer, only if it is in the interests of the company or a legally binding contract should they have to admit people or provide the service.


The complainers have not hired the entire cinema, nor bought off the right of the other customers to make noise. Retards, like it or not, are a part of society and as such you can expect them to visit a movie theatre.Yes, and you can expect a movie theatre to refuse to serve customers.


And if someone is disturbing the showing, yes you can throw him or her out. But only then.Exactly, for people with disabilities to be considered equal the same rules that apply to everyone else should be applied to them, if making a lot of disruptive noise is the criteria for somone to be "kicked out," then that rule should be applied indiscriminantly unless that person wishes to pay the movie theatre extra to compensate and the management decides to accept, such as providing a private showing.

It's unfortunate, but in order to equalise the results, someone has to end up paying the costs, since it can't be justified to force others to foot the bill with their money, people with disabilities will just have to accept and try to deal with the fact that they will never be able to do everything that others can without paying some price. This is simply a fact of life, nobody can avoid these consequences, no matter how lofty their ideals and intentions.

If the particular person in question was not really being a nuisance, others did not find him a disturbance and the management made a bad choice, then the management made a bad choice, it is not up to any third party to legally enforce what they consider to be a better choice. Companies that make bad choices go out of business, people who make bad choices lose their jobs or at least learn from their errors, but it is the movie theatre's right to eject anyone from the premises if they wish.

[mgb]

You wouldn't demand that a wheelchair bound person be allowed to go hiking, since they would slow down and ruin the experience for everyone else.


I'm pretty sure the kid had eyes and ears allowing him to see the movie.

Good analogy.

[Lee]

I'm pretty sure the kid had eyes and ears allowing him to see the movie.

Good analogy.My point is that the presence of a wheelchair bound person kind of ruins the point of a hike for everyone else, since it becomes labourous and slow. The presence of someone who laughs incessently over the dialogue, disturbing everyone else, ruins the movie for everyone else.

Whether he had eyes and whether he had wheels is beside my point.

I am presuming the other audience really did find the person in question an annoyance, I do not know for sure, it depends on the specific circumstances, in either case the movie theatre still had the right to kick him out.

[mgb]

It's fun watching the idea of "equality" get twisted around here.

I agree with waxwing. And deaddove adequately covered the economic aspects of why the theatre was wrong to do what they did.

People are selfish assholes.

[mgb]

My point is that the presence of a wheelchair bound person kind of ruins the point of a hike for everyone else, since it becomes labourous and slow. The presence of someone who laughs incessently over the dialogue, disturbing everyone else, ruins the movie for everyone else.

Whether he had eyes and whether he had wheels is beside my point.

I am presuming the other audience really did find the person in question an annoyance, I do not know for sure, it depends on the specific circumstances, in either case the movie theatre still had the right to kick him out.

Well, lets put this in context since all mountains aren't the same size and all movies aren't equal.

What would you call the Mount Everest of dialogue as far as films go? Let's just say, Before Sunrise (I liked the first one better, so much more innocent) because a lot of people know it and it's all talk.

Now, let's put the Pink Panther as far as dialogue and quality go into mountain context. I'm going to put about as high as the goddamned ramp to get into the movie theatre.

Sure it's a little harder to get up the ramp with a person in a wheelchair, I mean the stairs are a lot better, but do you know why you do it? Do you know why you wait? So people don't think you are a complete asshole. You do it because sometimes people need you to wait because it's the right thing to do. It's not PC bullshit, it's common courtesy.

[Lee]

Well, lets put this in context since all mountains aren't the same size and all movies aren't equal.

What would you call the Mount Everest of dialogue as far as films go? Let's just say, Before Sunrise (I liked the first one better, so much more innocent) because a lot of people know it and it's all talk.

Now, let's put the Pink Panther as far as dialogue and quality go into mountain context. I'm going to put about as high as the goddamned ramp to get into the movie theatre.Okay, I'll just break down the analogy into the abstract principle.

If a person wants to join in an activity, whereby as a consequence they ruin that same activity for others, then you cannot possibly claim that it is equality, whether you think they are justified in being annoyed is beside the point.

Your perverted vision of equality comes with the impossible goal of equal results for everyone, the problem is that people have conflicting desires, there is necessarily a give and take, only equality in processes i.e. the systems under which people are judged can be a realistic vision of equality.

You can't expect everyone in the cinema to enjoy the movie when anothers enjoyment comes at the direct expense of theirs, that isn't equality.


Sure it's a little harder to get up the ramp with a person in a wheelchair, I mean the stairs are a lot better, but do you know why you do it? Do you know why you wait? So people don't think you are a complete asshole. You do it because sometimes people need you to wait because it's the right thing to do. It's not PC bullshit, it's common courtesy.The thing is, I am not heartless, when I see someone who has a disability, I want to help them if possible and would seek to treat them as much like everyone else as I could, even if I had to incur some costs, it's called empathy.

The thing is, we do not live in a society full of people who feel the same, some do and some don't, so you have to have a system that can be fair to everyone, regardless on the level of agreement. You are just peeved that people do not act the way that you prefer, but instead of offering practical solutions to living in a society full of people with different feelings, attitudes, ideas and priorities, you just get pissed and call everyone an asshole, suggesting that they should be forced to accept your standards.

[Snowflake]

You are just peeved that people do not act the way that you prefer, but instead of offering practical solutions to living in a society full of people with different feelings, attitudes, ideas and priorities, you just get pissed and call everyone an asshole, suggesting that they should be forced to accept your standards.

Heh.

[The Don]

It's important to note that we are discussing a movie theater outing. Going to see the Pink Panther is a leisure activity that you share with a group of people. There is a mutual understanding between everyone there to not distract from anyone else's viewing experience. Even the theater reminds you that you should "stay quiet", "silence your cellphones", and "buy their snacks" in the premovie clips. You are not paying an absurd premium to go to the movies (although some would argue that their price are a touch high) so you are not entitled to rights above and beyond being able to seeing the movie and a reasonable lack of distractions from watching the movie. If you feel that you are unable to enjoy the movie because of someone, you have the right to complain but they also a entitled to defend their right to be there.

Despite the whether someone gets thrown out of a theater, retarded or not, the matter is trivial as no one's human rights were violated. All that will have occurred was someone being denied a leisure activity for not being able to conduct themselve in accordance with the expectations of the other people there, despite how extreme. Last I recall, we live in a democracy [here in America] and we aren't guaranteed a level playing field, damned be anyone's feelings.

Johnny: This is not a question or waxwing's job integrity. And you are missing her point.

[mgb]

Okay, I'll just break down the analogy into the abstract principle.

If a person wants to join in an activity, whereby as a consequence they ruin that same activity for others, then you cannot possibly claim that it is equality, whether you think they are justified in being annoyed is beside the point.

Your perverted vision of equality comes with the impossible goal of equal results for everyone, the problem is that people have conflicting desires, there is necessarily a give and take, only equality in processes i.e. the systems under which people are judged can be a realistic vision of equality.

You can't expect everyone in the cinema to enjoy the movie when anothers enjoyment comes at the direct expense of theirs, that isn't equality.

The thing is, I am not heartless, when I see someone who has a disability, I want to help them if possible and would seek to treat them as much like everyone else as I could, even if I had to incur some costs, it's called empathy.

The thing is, we do not live in a society full of people who feel the same, some do and some don't, so you have to have a system that can be fair to everyone, regardless on the level of agreement. You are just peeved that people do not act the way that you prefer, but instead of offering practical solutions to living in a society full of people with different feelings, attitudes, ideas and priorities, you just get pissed and call everyone an asshole, suggesting that they should be forced to accept your standards.


You see though, you are going as far as to call the activity "ruined" because of the presence of someone who is slower than the group (in the case of the hiking trip) because of a disability. In some ways, it could actually be enhanced by waiting for an helping that person. People might get a sense of satisfaction they didn't think they would get by aiding that person in getting to the top of the mountain.

Are some people going to be against that? Sure. But to be honest, they are just as disabled as the person in the wheel chair, just emotionally and they'll spend their lives getting what they deserve.

Seriously, I hope the people that complained about the kid laughing too much end up having to live a year in his shoes for whatever reason. The complete lack of empathy is sickening.

[waxwing]

Lee, the problem with what you're saying is that you're forgetting how difficult it can be for people with disabilites to go out in the first place. In my group home, for example, there are six clients. We can't usually get everybody out more than a couple times a month, sometimes less if staffing is a real issue (They do attend work programs during the day, but I'm talking about recreational activities, here). In other homes I've worked in where the people are not wheelchair bound, it's significantly easier but still not as easy as it is for you or me to go out. Most of them look forward to going out, whether it be to a restaurant, a movie, or to WalMart to buy new underwear. Even a trip to the post office can be cause for excitement. I might not have realized before I was the one accompanying them, but for the most part when I've seen acts of blatant disrespect, it's been aimed at something no worse than what people do all the time in public places without being blatantly disrespected. The vast majority of people are afraid of people with developmental disabilites. They don't know how to act. They don't want to be disturbed by them because it makes them uncomfortable. I can think of countless examples of rudeness I've encountered. Each time except for maybe one or two, I'm almost certain the person being rude wouldn't have had the same reaction to a small child being loud nearby, or a group of teenagers being "rowdy." It's hard for me to explain these things because they are experiences and much of my understanding is intuitive. But, believe me, an unintentional disruption caused at a public place by someone whose going out is a luxury is nothing like an intentional disruption by somebody who could drive himself to the theater every weekend if he wanted to. It'd be nice to think the people in that theater were righteously outraged, but I really doubt they were. From what I've seen, it's more likely they were afraid of what they didn't understand, and so reacted out of that fear/discomfort.

In addition, on a related note, a child staring at what they don't understand and asking his mother "Why is she acting that way?" is preferable to an adult looking away. At least the kid has a chance of understanding in the future. I think we're often taught to avert our eyes out of respect. The whole "don't stare" mentality. I don't think that's always best.

I feel sorry for those who will never recognize what can be experienced by being the one to step back and hike with the person with disabilites. Fuck laughing too loud. Walking too slowly. Whatever. The most genuine people I know are the ones with disabilites. Try considering it a privilege to hear somebody laughing really loudly out of sheer happiness, or to take the hand of the person unable to make the hike. Go on a hike another day if you're so concerned about making record time.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Minorities like "disruptive teenagers" or "disruptive people with mental disabilities," it's funny that you take the moral relatavism route when it suits you, but in this situation, where it is clearly a case of "subjective values/tastes/opinions whatever" you feel your standards trump other peoples.
I think I make a difference between inclusion and exclusion. You need strong arguments, not merely an opinion to exclude someone.
Whose opinion, by the way? The disabled kid didn't have a problem, the theatre owner didn't either since he sold a ticket. The complainers should leave since they weren't happy with the provided service on second thoughts, and the owner can advertise next time he doesn't allow retards, if he finds that opportune.
Of course, if it was just excessively loud and not only retarded laughter it's no more than normal that the kid was sent outside.


No it isn't, no company could realistically list all of the things that they do not allow on their property in an advertisement, do you propose a disclaimer on the end of any advertisment "no heroin, no large herbivores, no naked ramblers, no smoking, no dancing in front of the screen, no firearms etc. etc." Completely absurd, nobody would read it anyway.
No company is obligated to serve any customer, only if it is in the interests of the company or a legally binding contract should they have to admit people or provide the service.There is just one rule: don't disrupt the service we provide. This covers the dancing bit and the zebu pets.
Anything beyond that should be advertised. This is the case with smoking: it's clearly stated. Naked rambling is illegal AFAIK. Carrying heroin or weapons doesn't disrupt the show, so I don't see why that is a problem (except for being illegal). Where carrying weapons is legal and people don't like it, the weapon carrier should only be sent away when he was threatening someone.


Yes, and you can expect a movie theatre to refuse to serve customers.That's the point: they didn't. It was fine for the theatre, but the customers didn't agree. It is to be preferred that they settle their disagreement among themselves before asking anyone to be thrown out.


Exactly, for people with disabilities to be considered equal the same rules that apply to everyone else should be applied to them, if making a lot of disruptive noise is the criteria for somone to be "kicked out," then that rule should be applied indiscriminantly unless that person wishes to pay the movie theatre extra to compensate and the management decides to accept, such as providing a private showing.
It's unfortunate, but in order to equalise the results, someone has to end up paying the costs, since it can't be justified to force others to foot the bill with their money, people with disabilities will just have to accept and try to deal with the fact that they will never be able to do everything that others can without paying some price. This is simply a fact of life, nobody can avoid these consequences, no matter how lofty their ideals and intentions.Sure, that's what I'm saying: behave or go, no exceptions for whoever. But if you behave you can stay, whatever the other customers think - they didn't pay for a private showing either.


If the particular person in question was not really being a nuisance, others did not find him a disturbance and the management made a bad choice, then the management made a bad choice, it is not up to any third party to legally enforce what they consider to be a better choice. Companies that make bad choices go out of business, people who make bad choices lose their jobs or at least learn from their errors, but it is the movie theatre's right to eject anyone from the premises if they wish.I think you underestimate the way such attitude becomes common practice. If that particular bunch of loudmouths find they are succesful when trying to get other people out of the theatre, they will repeat it, the behaviour spreads and before you know, Apartheid is the result. Thatt's a slippery-slope argument and it will probably not go that far in most cases, but allowing this contributes to intolerance and will unbalance a free society in favor of the egocentric, to the disadvantage of the disadvantaged.

[Lee]

You see though, you are going as far as to call the activity "ruined" because of the presence of someone who is slower than the group (in the case of the hiking trip) because of a disability. In some ways, it could actually be enhanced by waiting for an helping that person. People might get a sense of satisfaction they didn't think they would get by aiding that person in getting to the top of the mountain. It could, but maybe people are in a pissy mood, or just assholes who do not care about accomodating people with disabilities, maybe the person with disabilities is simply an asshole and some of the other hikers don't want to wait around.

Besides, it's beside the point again, in my hypothetical scenario, the activity was ruined, it's a matter of degrees, in some cases the activity will no be ruined, either because the annoyance is only minor or particular people are more accomodating.

In the case of the cinema, I do not know exactly where it would fall along that spectrum. In either case the cimena has the right to kick the person out, if it was the wrong decision then hopefully somebody got in trouble for it.


Are some people going to be against that? Sure. But to be honest, they are just as disabled as the person in the wheel chair, just emotionally and they'll spend their lives getting what they deserve. No they won't, plenty of assholes live really nice lives, it can be a real asset in some cases.


Seriously, I hope the people that complained about the kid laughing too much end up having to live a year in his shoes for whatever reason. The complete lack of empathy is sickening.Maybe it is, but unless you have a magic pill that can make them more empathic, then we are stuck living in a society with such people, who have the same rights as you and I. The trick is finding a way of allowing these differences to coexist, even if we all get on each others nerves occasionally... tolerance is the only attitude to take.

[raincrow007]

It's not exactly on topic, but this thread reminds me of all of the debate and discussion involving the new purgatory/flamewar/dumpster area.

[Ivy]

I must admit, sometimes I'm not sure how to react to someone with a disability. I don't want to avert my eyes because I imagine that would feel pretty awful if everyone refused to even look at you. I want to look people right in the eye and smile, but I also imagine if everyone is looking at you and smiling it could feel like they're patronizing you. "You poor dear. I smile my benevolence down upon you, now bask in its warm, glowing, warming glow!" I'm sure that I come across as uncomfortable because I'm trying to treat people normally, and the trying part is probably obvious.

This is a personal flaw I need to work on.

[Ivy]

It could, but maybe people are in a pissy mood, or just assholes who do not care about accomodating people with disabilities, maybe the person with disabilities is simply an asshole and some of the other hikers don't want to wait around.

Maybe I'm not reading you correctly, but just in case: why should those people be catered to? Not exactly the same, but I had an experience somewhat like this recently, actually. I nursed my 1 year old baby in a coffee shop, and some women sitting nearby made some comments about how yucky it is to nurse in public. Did I accomodate them? Fuck that. I fed my baby. I frankly do not care if they felt their coffee shop experience was ruined because they had to watch a baby nurse. I'd feel the same way if some jerks felt that their moviegoing experience was ruined because my hypothetical disabled kid laughed too loudly.

[Lee]

From what I've seen, it's more likely they were afraid of what they didn't understand, and so reacted out of that fear/discomfort.That may have been the case. As I have already stated, we do not know the specifics of this situation, which is why I have used te word "if" a lot, because how I believe the situation should be resolved is contigent upon specifics I do not know about, though irrespective, we have to recognise the theatre's right to do as they did, mistake or otherwise.

I recognise that people with disabilities have very difficult lives, but unless they are willing to pay extra or others are willing to accomodate them out of decency, the I cannot justify any law that forces private businesses and individuals to accept them, or incur the extra costs involved in providing them with services. A private company has the right to deny them service if they choose, or to eject them from a cinema for making too much noise.

It's unfortunate, it would be nice if people would simply be willing to accomodate them, but sadly, people are not like that and we have to respect their wishes and rights, there is no reason why the demands of a disabled person should trump those of an asshole.


In addition, on a related note, a child staring at what they don't understand and asking his mother "Why is she acting that way?" is preferable to an adult looking away. At least the kid has a chance of understanding in the future. I think we're often taught to avert our eyes our of respect. The whole "don't stare" mentality. I don't think that's always best.It's really unfortunate, but to an extent, people with disabilities will always suffer for it, we can never eliminate that, there will always be assholes and disabilities will always prevent some people from doing everything that other people can do.... hell! talent, height, age and gender also prevent us from doing everything others can do, people with disabilities simply have more constraints than the rest of us.

[Lee]

Maybe I'm not reading you correctly, but just in case: why should those people be catered to? Not exactly the same, but I had an experience somewhat like this recently, actually. I nursed my 1 year old baby in a coffee shop, and some women sitting nearby made some comments about how yucky it is to nurse in public. Did I accomodate them? Fuck that. I fed my baby. I frankly do not care if they felt their coffee shop experience was ruined because they had to watch a baby nurse. I'd feel the same way if some jerks felt that their moviegoing experience was ruined because my hypothetical disabled kid laughed too loudly.Yes, but whether anything is done about it depends on the owner of the coffeeshop or theatre, it is their property and they are under no obligation to allow you to be there or trade with you.

I have never once said that complaints by customers should automatically be upheld, but in this case the woman complaining seems to believe that her and her son have some God given right to break the rules (making too much noise) and that a private company has to do what she says on their property. She doesn't have any ground to stand on.

[Lee]

I feel sorry for those who will never recognize what can be experienced by being the one to step back and hike with the person with disabilites. Fuck laughing too loud. Walking too slowly. Whatever. The most genuine people I know are the ones with disabilites. Try considering it a privilege to hear somebody laughing really loudly out of sheer happiness, or to take the hand of the person unable to make the hike. Go on a hike another day if you're so concerned about making record time.Great, but now we are back to the problem, different people care about different things and have different priorities in life, simply complaining about it acheives nothing and government intervention to force these behaviours is immoral and hypocritical.

Life is full of imperfections, there are costs and benefits to everything and no everyone can have their desires equally satisfied, we have to try and find some way of coexisting and not just complaining about each others priorities. You cannot justify why any disabled persons good experience should trump the good experience of another, we can complain that they chouldn't feel annoyed by it, but that ultimately does not acheive anything, other than creating a dividing line, them and us, right and wrong.

[Johnny]

Johnny: This is not a question or waxwing's job integrity. And you are missing her point.

As long as I never have to go to the movie theatre with you, The Don, you can dismiss whatever I have to offer here.

[waxwing]

I recognise that people with disabilities have very difficult lives, but unless they are willing to pay extra or others are willing to accomodate them out of decency, the I cannot justify any law that forces private businesses and individuals to accept them, or incur the extra costs involved in providing them with services. A private company has the right to deny them service if they choose, or to eject them from a cinema for making too much noise.
Willing to pay extra or accomodate them out of decency? What about how often we're forced to accomodate assholes. Isn't this distintion clear -- that there is an issue here of intentional versus unintentional. "You are an asshole" suggests that a person could control his negative behavior, but did not. So, you hypothetically suggest (I know you were not actually saying that they should pay more) that the disabled population pays more so assholes can keep right on being assholes. Hm.



It's unfortunate, it would be nice if people would simply be willing to accomodate them, but sadly, people are not like that and we have to respect their wishes and rights, there is no reason why the demands of a disabled person should trump those of an asshole. Sure, it isn't simple to accomodate them at times. It takes a willingness to understand and be exposed to unfamiliar human behavior. You're right that people are not always like that, but you are wrong in this one thing: that WE HAVE TO RESPECT THEIR WISHES AND RIGHTS. To some extent, you are right that business owners must respect their rights. But honestly, I think the real issues here is how people in the general public act. I certainly don't have to respect the wishes of an asshole. It is more often the issue that his rights and wishes would trump those of a disabled person, not vise versa.

[mgb]

It could, but maybe people are in a pissy mood, or just assholes who do not care about accomodating people with disabilities, maybe the person with disabilities is simply an asshole and some of the other hikers don't want to wait around.

Besides, it's beside the point again, in my hypothetical scenario, the activity was ruined, it's a matter of degrees, in some cases the activity will no be ruined, either because the annoyance is only minor or particular people are more accomodating.

In the case of the cinema, I do not know exactly where it would fall along that spectrum. In either case the cimena has the right to kick the person out, if it was the wrong decision then hopefully somebody got in trouble for it.

No they won't, plenty of assholes live really nice lives, it can be a real asset in some cases.

Maybe it is, but unless you have a magic pill that can make them more empathic, then we are stuck living in a society with such people, who have the same rights as you and I. The trick is finding a way of allowing these differences to coexist, even if we all get on each others nerves occasionally... tolerance is the only attitude to take.


You see, we aren't stuck in that type of society though, no completely. Certainly throwing your hands in the air and saying, "That's how it is," does nothing to change society.

It doesn't take a magic pill to create empathy, it take experience. It means lack of empathy comes from ignorance. If we go back to the start of this thread pooja said she didn't really care that the kid got kicked out. What if she had a friend, nephew, cousin, brother or sister that was disabled? She probably would have been posting this article out of rage than out of marvel at how silly people are. Maybe if pooja, and a lot of others for that matter, volunteered with the physically and mentally disabled they'd have a new found respect for them and wouldn't be so quick to publically dismiss them as irrelevant to society.

It was clearly the wrong thing for the theatre to do. Do you know how I know? Because it made the papers. Stuff like that doesn't make the papers because it was the right thing to do.

[mgb]

there are costs and benefits to everything


it is their property and they are under no obligation to allow you to be there or trade with you.

You keep throwing the economic ideas around, but it doesn't seem like you have a really decent grasp of what they actually mean.

[Claverhouse]

It's not exactly on topic, but this thread reminds me of all of the debate and discussion involving the new purgatory/flamewar/dumpster area.

Funny, it reminded me that I considered this thread valuable enough to go there...


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[waxwing]

Funny, it reminded me that I considered this thread valuable enough to go there...


Claverhouse :ph34r:
What's that supposed to mean?

[wildcat]

why do you insist on discriminating against people who have no sense of humor?
Why do you insist on discriminating against people who insist on discriminating against people who have no sense of humour?

[mgb]

Someone needs to setup an Apsperger's forum.

INTP Aspies.

www.forumer.com

[Master O]

so I won't make up my mind just on the basis of "person with disabilites" and "movie theater" and "disruption."
Well I wouldn't either, outright. I would explain as best I could to the individual what behavior is desirable and then I would give them a chance. But if things got out of hand, I wouldn't need to be escorted out - I would voluntarily get up and and think nice try.

If I didn't think that I or the individual could handle an early departure, then we wouldn't go in the first place.

This is not Little League. Not everyone always gets to play. Trying to provide them with the most normal life possible is honorable and worthwhile, but being in denial about what all is or is not possible is only going to frustrate them and possibly be detrimental in the long run.

Not to mention the fact that the rest of society should not be made out to be the villain because of a disabled person's bad lot in life. We're not mean because we want silence while watching a movie, nor are we unreasonable to expect it when watching a movie we drove to and paid for.

[waxwing]

Great, but now we are back to the problem, different people care about different things and have different priorities in life, simply complaining about it acheives nothing and government intervention to force these behaviours is immoral and hypocritical.

Life is full of imperfections, there are costs and benefits to everything and no everyone can have their desires equally satisfied, we have to try and find some way of coexisting and not just complaining about each others priorities. You cannot justify why any disabled persons good experience should trump the good experience of another, we can complain that they chouldn't feel annoyed by it, but that ultimately does not acheive anything, other than creating a dividing line, them and us, right and wrong.
And this is largely my issue with your entire line of reasoning throughout this thread. You say that "we can complain that they shouldn't feel annoyed by it, but that ultimately does not achieve anything...." I agree that complaining in itself doesn't achieve anything, but I'm not just complaining. I'm trying to understand and, if need be, overstep the dividing lines you mention. I find your argument to be exactly what you accuused mine of being. You basically seem to be saying that this is the way society is, we can't change it, and that complaining about it will do nothing. I say, yes, this is the way it is, but while we may not be able to change everything, we can change attitudes through experience. We don't have to perpetuate acts of intolerance by remaining ignorant. Furthermore, mgbradsh is right on target when he says "It doesn't take a magic pill to create empathy, it takes experience." People (often here at INTPC) seem to excuse a lack of empathy as if it's something that can only be possessed by a superhuman or an NF. Empathy just means being at your most human, and being okay enough with other people's humanity to want to understand why they are a certain way. I may not be okay with acts of intolerance, but I admit I still want to understand why people act that way. Understanding must happen from both sides. Who to accomodate and how to accomodate them, under those conditions, becomes extremely complicated, yet somehow a little simpler in essence.

[mgb]

Well I wouldn't either, outright. I would explain as best I could to the individual what behavior is desirable and then I would give them a chance. But if things got out of hand, I wouldn't need to be escorted out - I would voluntarily get up and and think nice try.

If I didn't think that I or the individual could handle an early departure, then we wouldn't go in the first place.

This is not Little League. Not everyone always gets to play. Trying to provide them with the most normal life possible is honorable and worthwhile, but being in denial about what all is or is not possible is only going to frustrate them and possibly be detrimental in the long run.

Not to mention the fact that the rest of society should not be made out to be the villain because of a disabled person's bad lot in life. We're not mean because we want silence while watching a movie, nor are we unreasonable to expect it when watching a movie we drove to and paid for.

Did you just say "This isn't little league" when refering to watching "The Pink Panther".

You're right, that's some pretty serious shit we are talking about here. If people don't take that movie more seriously, where is going to end? Soon they'll be laughing at comics, maybe even SNL, I mean, things could really get out of hand if we don't put our foot down somewhere.

[wildcat]

Maybe I'm not reading you correctly, but just in case: why should those people be catered to? Not exactly the same, but I had an experience somewhat like this recently, actually. I nursed my 1 year old baby in a coffee shop, and some women sitting nearby made some comments about how yucky it is to nurse in public. Did I accomodate them? Fuck that. I fed my baby. I frankly do not care if they felt their coffee shop experience was ruined because they had to watch a baby nurse. I'd feel the same way if some jerks felt that their moviegoing experience was ruined because my hypothetical disabled kid laughed too loudly.
I prize your partisan spirit. Good show, Ivy.

[Master O]

Mgbradsh,

that was the weakest attempt at satire i've read...

[mgb]

Mgbradsh,

that was the weakest attempt at satire i've read...

You mean you weren't being satirical? I thought we were working together. You were serious about the little league comment?

Wow. I'm really embarrassed here. Totally misread that. My bad.

[waxwing]

Well I wouldn't either, outright. I would explain as best I could to the individual what behavior is desirable and then I would give them a chance. But if things got out of hand, I wouldn't need to be escorted out - I would voluntarily get up and and think nice try.
Okay, fine, and what experience do you have working with someone with disabilites? (Just asking, not assuming you have none).



If I didn't think that I or the individual could handle an early departure, then we wouldn't go in the first place.
Good for you, but it's not always that simple to determine ahead of time. We all are subject to being human, and to acting unpredictably.



This is not Little League. Not everyone always gets to play. Trying to provide them with the most normal life possible is honorable and worthwhile, but being in denial about what all is or is not possible is only going to frustrate them and possibly be detrimental in the long run.
What is not Little League? Life? Listen, I'm not in denial. I have very detailed ideas of outings that are and are not good choices for each person I work with, and each list is unique. Does that mean that I should let people be intolerant just because one day my friend wanted to try out the movie theater instead of the mall, and ended up laughing loudly in response to trying something new and unfamiliar? Puhlease.



Not to mention the fact that the rest of society should not be made out to be the villain because of a disabled person's bad lot in life. We're not mean because we want silence while watching a movie, nor are we unreasonable to expect it when watching a movie we drove to and paid for.
You want your silence during the movie, but then want to be able to scream uncensored during other activites where noise is allowed. Again, you're forgetting that the person with disabilites waited a long time to get to go to the movie and that, in most cases, (s)he too is spending his or her own money. Whether or not it's provided by a guardian is really irrelevant here. The point is that both "you" and the person with disabilites came with the hope of seeing and enjoying a movie. I'd say your need for absolute silence is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.

[Master O]

You mean you weren't being satirical? I thought we were working together. You were serious about the little league comment?

Wow. I'm really embarrassed here. Totally misread that. My bad.
Now I'm embarrassed. I misunderstood you and assumed a defensive posture - I thought you were slighting me as if I were blowing this out of proportion.

I just meant that this 'every last thing should be equal' stance does not make sense. I believe in live and let live, but not when accomodations must be made and promises broken for one person at the expense of many just for some entertainment.

[wildcat]

As long as I never have to go to the movie theatre with you, The Don, you can dismiss whatever I have to offer here.
And what have you offered, apart from zealous intolerance and prejudice? Embark your timeship, clone soldier.

[mgb]

Now I'm embarrassed. I misunderstood you and assumed a defensive posture - I thought you were slighting me as if I were blowing this out of proportion.

I just meant that this 'every last thing should be equal' stance does not make sense. I believe in live and let live, but not when accomodations must be made and promises broken for one person at the expense of many just for some entertainment.

Yeah, you had every right to assume the defensive posture. I was just screwing with you on the second post where I said I was embarrassed. Now I'm laughing, and it's at your expense, and I feel bad about that.

It's not really about things being equal. It's about society. It's about people living together and trying to understand each other in the best ways we can. If the shoe was on the other foot, if it was your kid laughing too hard in the theatre, you'd have a different stance. I know life isn't fair, it's not equal, no one here is saying it is, but words like sympathy and empathy didn't come from nowhere.

[SensEye]

I suppose I would have had to be there to judge the level of disruption.

A library near my office sponsors a series of noon hour concerts. Attendance is usually in the 30-80 people range. These seem to be a favorite event for folks in waxwing’s line of work and quite often a few mentally handicapped people and their handlers will attend. On occasion they can get disruptive. I find it annoying but they’ve certainly never been asked to leave, nor would I want them to be.

The handicapped individual’s tend to get disruptive in 3 ways. Sometimes the musicians will try to get the crowd going (hand clapping or what have you). The handicapped think this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and can get a little carried away and not know when to quit. It’s hard to get annoyed at this exhibition of unbridled enthusiasm even if they distract from the music with their racket. Sometimes they just get bored and start horsing around. This is a bit more annoying but I must say their handlers are very effective at getting them back in line. I think anyone who has the mental capacity to potentially enjoy a movie or concert has some concept of good and bad behavior. The final way they can get disruptive is the odd time they appear to get antagonized about something or other and pitch a fit. This is very annoying but for the most part their handlers seem to conclude the outing is a write off and pack them up and hustle them out. So the problem gets solved that way.

This incident seems to be a case of enthusiasm gone overboard so I would be unlikely to complain. It’s unclear if the mother was trying to exercise some control or not. A complete lack may have influenced my tolerance level.

[Crazy]

Do you know how I know? Because it made the papers. Stuff like that doesn't make the papers because it was the right thing to do.I disagree with this statement. The papers print whatever they think will sell. They don't care what's right or wrong, unless it helps thier agenda. Newspapers, magazines, and other such venues are in the business of sensationalism. Something making the papers rarely has anything to do with its "wrongness".

Is the theater right or wrong? I don't know. I don't have enough facts to decide. What I do know is the theater has rules, and all patrons are required to follow said rules, disabled or not. If this teen did, in fact, break the rules, then the theater is justified in ousting them. If the teen did NOT break the rules, then the theater is wrong in thier decision. However, as much as I don't like it, the theater can remove any patrons from thier premisis they wish, for whatever reason they wish. If they start doing so foolishly, they will suffer the backlash.

Disabled people have rights, and should be treated as human beings, just like every other human being on earth. Conversly, they should not be treated any better than any other human being, simply because of thier disability. I believe a human being should be helped when they are down, because as humans, we should help each other. However, no human should be coddled. If any human, disabled or not, is not willing or capable of conforming to the requirements of an activity, they should not take part in that activity, and if they try, they should be prepared to either be removed, or fail at it, whatever the case may be. If they can find a way to change the situation somehow so that they can participate, that's great. If not, then I'm sorry, life is not fair. I would personally do what I can to help people reach thier goals, whether that goal is climbing a mountain, or being able to sit in a movie theater and watch a movie without being kicked out. I feel bad for those that can't reach thier goals, no matter how hard they try.

There are a few things that all of us must remember. We do not live in a utopian society. Not everyone cares, and they don't have to either. We cannot MAKE people change thier attitudes or perceptions. If a disability didn't cause problems or restrict the individual in some way, it wouldn't be a disability. We are the only ones we can count on to get the things that we want. We are the ones that have to accept our hardships, understand our limitations, and work to overcome both, we can't expect sympathy from the world.

One other thing, in this thread, some have said (jokingly or not, it's hard to tell with some of the posts) something along the lines that the complaints are uncalled for, because the movie was a shitty movie anyway. I see this as bad logic. Just because you don't like the movie, or heard bad reviews, does not mean that all people that see that movie feel the same. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that enjoyed the movie. I have no opinion on the movie, as I have not seen it nor have I heard much about it. To all who seriously thing this, please consider that other peoples opinions are different from yours, and they have no less of a right to enjoy whatever they find enjoyable, within the confines of the law, of course.

Someone mentioned something about common courtesy. In my experience, common courtesy is about as widespread as common sense. Neither should be assumed to be present in the populations as a whole, or any individual in particular. The lack of either from any person or group of persons should not come as that great a shock to anyone.

People do fear the disabled, as it reminds them that humans are frail, weak creatures, and makes them question thier own strength.

My apologies for the long post. I still don't feel like I've communicated my position that well, which is one of my own shortcomings.

[Claverhouse]

What's that supposed to mean?

That perhaps the responses here have not been entirely uplifting nor charitable: so much so that Purgatory seems good enough...


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[mgb]

I disagree with this statement.

I'll be honest. I only read this part.

The story obviously had "legs", enough so that it found a wider syndication. We could sit here and debate other news stories gaining wider acceptance, but all in all, you'll probably find that most of the contraversy in the newspapers comes from someone doing something wrong.

I doubt the story had legs because people were applauding the theatre for doing what was right.

[mgb]

One other thing, in this thread, some have said (jokingly or not, it's hard to tell with some of the posts) something along the lines that the complaints are uncalled for, because the movie was a shitty movie anyway. I see this as bad logic. Just because you don't like the movie, or heard bad reviews, does not mean that all people that see that movie feel the same. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that enjoyed the movie. I have no opinion on the movie, as I have not seen it nor have I heard much about it. To all who seriously thing this, please consider that other peoples opinions are different from yours, and they have no less of a right to enjoy whatever they find enjoyable, within the confines of the law, of course.



I read this part too.

Calling all movies equal under the eyes of the law is just as faulty a logic as making fun of the Pink Panther.

You're right opinions are subjective about movies. But so are opinions about people.

[Master O]

Okay, fine, and what experience do you have working with someone with disabilites? (Just asking, not assuming you have none).I don't have experience working with them. It's not for me. I am not in the remotest sense a social worker type. But I have spent time with one or two disabled people and it was a decent experience - for me and for them.



Does that mean that I should let people be intolerant just because one day my friend wanted to try out the movie theater instead of the mall, and ended up laughing a loudly in response to trying something new and unfamiliar? Puhlease.Were they intolerant of him or of the disruption? I think of the disruption. I have no problem with disabled people at all. I do have a problem when somebody (no matter who they are) disrupts my movie going experience. I have asked a woman with her crying baby to step out. I have told a guy who practically dwarfed me (and I'm not a small guy) to be quiet. I just want to enjoy the movie.



You want your silence during the movie, but then want to be able to scream uncensored during other activites where noise is allowed. Absolutely. I want to enjoy the experience as is appropriate to the event. There is dialogue in a movie that must be heard in order to follow the story and be immersed. Other activities are improved by yelling and celebrating and loud laughter.


The point is that both "you" and the person with disabilites came with the hope of seeing and enjoying a movie. I'd say your need for absolute silence is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.Yes, my need for silence is minor when compared with a debilitating illness or condition. What does that have to with the issue at hand? His disability pales next to someone who is a parapalegic, or a burn victim, or was born deaf and blind. An appeal to pity is just a form of manipulation and is irrelevent here.

What is relevent is that the rules of attending a movie are understood in advance of purchasing the ticket. But just in case one forgets, there is a reminder before the movie starts. Knowing in advance what is expected and what is promised in the agreement between customer and establishment, and then crying foul when you've violated those understandings is far more intolerant of others' rights than what you put forth.

I am not unaccomodating of disabled people and I actually get annoyed when things are made unnecessarily difficult for them, but there are limits in this world. I am limited as well as them in what I can do or where I can go. I wasn't being flippant before when I mentioned what I miss out on because I don't have bottomless pockets of money. There are so many people that miss out on truly beautiful and marvelous experiences because they cannot afford them. It's unfortunate and I don't like it, but I understand that it's just the way it goes. You apparently are an activist in some manner - why not organize special screenings at local theaters and such or other special events that leave everybody happy?

A movie theater is a place specifically designed to provide a comfortable, quiet, optimized movie going experience. They pay millions to make them and we pay millions to have the best experience we can. It is absolutely the right (and the right thing to do) to put an end to anything that disrupts that experience.

[Magajy]

Being nice should be a two way thing. Poeple shouldn't make excessive demands on others. It is a sad story though, I must admit I cant see an easy solution. I cant blame any of the two parties, cos they all made some regrettable demands....

[Crazy]

I'll be honest. I only read this part.

The story obviously had "legs", enough so that it found a wider syndication. We could sit here and debate other news stories gaining wider acceptance, but all in all, you'll probably find that most of the contraversy in the newspapers comes from someone doing something wrong.

I doubt the story had legs because people were applauding the theatre for doing what was right.Yes, the story was good enough to make the paper, however, just from what we've seen in this thread, it can be seen that the controversy over whether the theaters actions where right or wrong is what is spurring this thread, and I believe is why it has "legs" in the media.

[Ivy]

Yes, but whether anything is done about it depends on the owner of the coffeeshop or theatre, it is their property and they are under no obligation to allow you to be there or trade with you.

I have never once said that complaints by customers should automatically be upheld, but in this case the woman complaining seems to believe that her and her son have some God given right to break the rules (making too much noise) and that a private company has to do what she says on their property. She doesn't have any ground to stand on.

Oh, actually they ARE under an obligation to allow me to be there, because it's written into the law, anywhere I'm otherwise authorized to be. They can no sooner ask me to leave for nursing than they can ask a black person to leave for being black. The disabled kid at the movie theater is no different-- asking him to leave for laughing too loudly (in some people's opinion) is along the same lines, IMO.

[booyalab]

Oh, actually they ARE under an obligation to allow me to be there, because it's written into the law, anywhere I'm otherwise authorized to be. They can no sooner ask me to leave for nursing than they can ask a black person to leave for being black. The disabled kid at the movie theater is no different-- asking him to leave for laughing too loudly (in some people's opinion) is along the same lines, IMO.
the only reason they wouldn't ask someone to leave for being black or nursing is that not enough people would complain.

[waxwing]

EnglshIvy, glad you brought this discussion back to the point that the boy was laughing in the theater, not having some outburst of aggression towards other customers.



"Here's a child that was laughing at a comedy," she said. "His way of expressing delight and joy at this movie was laughing, but because his communication technique got in the way of someone else's space, he had to leave."

Actually breaks my heart. I know that kind of laugh she means, and I adore it. Sometimes I wish mine were more uncontrollable so I could express how elated I feel, or how vulnerable I am, or how much I like somebody (different from the language/expression inhibition with AS, I realize). I walk into work and hear siren like outburts because people are happy to see me. It's pretty beautiful. Yeah, yeah, telll me my feelings are irrelevent. Frankly, I'm tired of reason/logic in this thread. I'm tired of people justifying the boy's removal from the theater. If he had attacked another customer, I could understand, and I doubt we'd be reading about it in the paper. If he'd had significant seizure activity, then hopefully he would have been removed by his mother for his safety. But he was laughing. One of the most basic expressions of human emotion. I say we remove kids who are making out in the theater because they are disrupting the moral integrity or innocent eyes of certain customers. Of course, there are rules in the theater, but this is one of those topics that calls for a human response. Seasoned, not cold, logic.

[Johnny]

And what have you offered, apart from zealous intolerance and prejudice? Embark your timeship, clone soldier.

Glad you asked, wildcat...and in my answer I do not accuse you of an inability to apprehend the obvious.

Who, in the article, asks this teen to share his experience there? No one.
Who here asks this teen to speak for the effects of this particular neurological disorder upon him personally? No one.

This poor kid suffered the derision of other moviegoers for an entire hour...and then his mother's continued protests after leaving the theatre. Why? Because the mother has an itch to scratch.

O.K. let's talk a little about AS:
http://www.angelman.org/angel/index.php?id=75
Study and Details
Findings

Smith et al., 1996 37 Ages 3-34 years, all had deletions
Teenager and adults were all dependent on assistance with feeding, toileting and dressing.

Moncla et al., 1999 38 Ages 15-36 years; compared deletion to non-deletion cases.
Vast majority with deletions were dependent on assistance for feeding, toileting and dressing; majority of non-deletion cases did not need assistance for dressing and feeding.

Clayton-Smith, 2001 39 Adults 20-53 years; not in institutions and 82% had deletions.
85% could perform simple task such as holding a utensil. 50% helped to undress themselves. 57% remained dry during the day (clock-trained) and 11% overnight.

Sandanam et al., 1997 40 Adult 24-36 years, all in institutions and all had deletions.
All were dependent for activities of daily living.


So how severe is AS for this kid? Does he suffer from the version where there is chromosome segment deletion or from the mutation of that chromosome segment? Nobody's asking these questions...because these questions don't really matter. Both versions significantly impact a person's life anyway.

What matters (of course) is that you would never, ever subject your character to accusations of stripping away the rights of handicapped individuals for your personal comfort.

You leave that dirty work to the clone soldiers don't you. :P

[MacGuffin]

I am certainly more willing to accomodate handicapped persons out in public, but there is a limit. Once you reach that limit the activity ceases to become enjoyable and suddenly you are in service to the handicapped person. And unless it is my job, I do not care for that.

I don't know whether the other people in the theater were assholes, or whether watching the movie was near impossible because of disruptive laughter. I don't trust the mother's version, as she is probably pretty biased. It takes a lot for people to get up and complain at the movies today, so if more than one person did it, then the laughter probably was too disruptive to allow the handicapped individual to stay and watch the movie. It sucks, but there it is.

[wildcat]

Glad you asked, wildcat...and in my answer I do not accuse you of an inability to apprehend the obvious.

Who, in the article, asks this teen to share his experience there? No one.
Who here asks this teen to speak for the effects of this particular neurological disorder upon him personally? No one.

This poor kid suffered the derision of other moviegoers for an entire hour...and then his mother's continued protests after leaving the theatre. Why? Because the mother has an itch to scratch.

O.K. let's talk a little about AS:
http://www.angelman.org/angel/index.php?id=75
Study and Details
Findings

Smith et al., 1996 37 Ages 3-34 years, all had deletions
Teenager and adults were all dependent on assistance with feeding, toileting and dressing.

Moncla et al., 1999 38 Ages 15-36 years; compared deletion to non-deletion cases.
Vast majority with deletions were dependent on assistance for feeding, toileting and dressing; majority of non-deletion cases did not need assistance for dressing and feeding.

Clayton-Smith, 2001 39 Adults 20-53 years; not in institutions and 82% had deletions.
85% could perform simple task such as holding a utensil. 50% helped to undress themselves. 57% remained dry during the day (clock-trained) and 11% overnight.

Sandanam et al., 1997 40 Adult 24-36 years, all in institutions and all had deletions.
All were dependent for activities of daily living.


So how severe is AS for this kid? Does he suffer from the version where there is chromosome segment deletion or from the mutation of that chromosome segment? Nobody's asking these questions...because these questions don't really matter. Both versions significantly impact a person's life anyway.

What matters (of course) is that you would never, ever subject your character to accusations of stripping away the rights of handicapped individuals for your personal comfort.

You leave that dirty work to the clone soldiers don't you. :P
Thanks for the link, Johnny. It is nice you sometime embark your timeship and come to see how we live here in the 21st Century. I can understand you get bored there in the Middle Ages, what with all those witches flying upon the brooches and all the poisoning of wells by some rotten individuals. And your advice is always most welcome. I see your are worried perceiving some unwelcome excesses of our age. Those shameless handicapped children daring to step out of their front doors. Appearing in cafes and movie houses. Poor Wolfie. He had tried to gas them alright, but something happened to his hand and then he died.
But what a luck it is we have the clone soldiers. Their bravery puts all of us in shame. Send my regards to the Pope.

[ApeTheDog]

Are there basic human rights - such as the right to laugh as hard as you want?

I want there to be, and I act as though there are. If there are, then this guy has the right to laugh as hard as he wants, and all should leave him alone. It is a basic human right - and we know he is not doing what he does on purpose.

To others, there are no such basic human rights, and kindness is not a natural thing - rather something given to other people when we want to, and it is convenient to us. A cynical view, to which I also sometimes find myself having to subscribe - against my will - if only to be able to understand how other people see things, and to not be taken advantage of.

But I prefer the former way of seeing things. I just wish I could see things that way all the time.

[wildcat]

Are there basic human rights - such as the right to laugh as hard as you want?

I want there to be, and I act as though there are. If there are, then this guy has the right to laugh as hard as he wants, and all should leave him alone. It is a basic human right - and we know he is not doing what he does on purpose.

To others, there are no such basic human rights, and kindness is not a natural thing - rather something given to other people when we want to, and it is convenient to us. A cynical view, to which I also sometimes find myself having to subscribe - against my will - if only to be able to understand how other people see things, and to not be taken advantage of.

But I prefer the former way of seeing things. I just wish I could see things that way all the time.
Wolfie did not.

[Lee]

Whose opinion, by the way? The disabled kid didn't have a problem, the theatre owner didn't either since he sold a ticket. The complainers should leave since they weren't happy with the provided service on second thoughts, and the owner can advertise next time he doesn't allow retards, if he finds that opportune.
Of course, if it was just excessively loud and not only retarded laughter it's no more than normal that the kid was sent outside.The theatre owner/manager did not sell the ticket under the knowledge of how the person would behave, otherwise he wouldn't have then been asked to leave! That is the point, the person paid for an ordinary ticket, under the expectation that they would not disturb other customers, the disturbance was obviously seen as a deal-breaker, where the price paid for the ticket did not cover the costs of providing the service. I assume the terms of the agreement were on the ticket or receipt, which allowed the theatre to "kick people out" if they choose.

Your argument can be turned on its head anyway, since all the other customers paid for a ticket to see a movie without unnecessary disruptions! again you assume that one persons want should trump everyone elses, presuming that the other customers really were being disturbed, then the manager can make the decision of who's demand trumps who's, because it is their property, their service and right to make that choice, not some third-party who thinks their concerns trump everyone elses.


There is just one rule: don't disrupt the service we provide. This covers the dancing bit and the zebu pets.
Anything beyond that should be advertised. This is the case with smoking: it's clearly stated. Naked rambling is illegal AFAIK. Carrying heroin or weapons doesn't disrupt the show, so I don't see why that is a problem (except for being illegal). Where carrying weapons is legal and people don't like it, the weapon carrier should only be sent away when he was threatening someone.Okay, now you have just

That's the point: they didn't. It was fine for the theatre, but the customers didn't agree. It is to be preferred that they settle their disagreement among themselves before asking anyone to be thrown out.


I think you underestimate the way such attitude becomes common practice. If that particular bunch of loudmouths find they are succesful when trying to get other people out of the theatre, they will repeat it, the behaviour spreads and before you know, Apartheid is the result. Thatt's a slippery-slope argument and it will probably not go that far in most cases, but allowing this contributes to intolerance and will unbalance a free society in favor of the egocentric, to the disadvantage of the disadvantaged.Completely counterfactual, allowing people to make trade and private property laws have been a more powerful force in ending unjust discrimination than any well-meaning political movements.

Ironically, where free-market policies were stongest in South Africa during Apartheid, were precisely the same places where discrimination was at its lowest, because free-market economics forces people to respond to feedback, unable to carry on pretending that black people were inherently inferior. Many white employers completely flouted Apartheid laws during this time.

The basic dynamics I am trying to describe are of free choice, the ability of each individual to trade amongst one another, theatre managers have to weigh up the many goals of their clients, sometimes that requires they make choices like the one people seem to so disagree with.

[Crazy]

Actually breaks my heart. I know that kind of laugh she means, and I adore it. Sometimes I wish mine were more uncontrollable so I could express how elated I feel, or how vulnerable I am, or how much I like somebody (different from the language/expression inhibition with AS, I realize). I walk into work and hear siren like outburts because people are happy to see me. It's pretty beautiful. Yeah, yeah, telll me my feelings are irrelevent. Frankly, I'm tired of reason/logic in this thread. I'm tired of people justifying the boy's removal from the theater. If he had attacked another customer, I could understand, and I doubt we'd be reading about it in the paper. If he'd had significant seizure activity, then hopefully he would have been removed by his mother for his safety. But he was laughing. One of the most basic expressions of human emotion. I say we remove kids who are making out in the theater because they are disrupting the moral integrity or innocent eyes of certain customers. Of course, there are rules in the theater, but this is one of those topics that calls for a human response. Seasoned, not cold, logic.My honest, human reaction is one of disgust toward the theater and the patrons that complained. He's just a boy having a good time. He's laughing. The movie was a comedy. The intent of the film was to make people laugh. I'm sure the boy doesn't even know that he's being loud, or exceedingly giddy to the point where it may be disruptive or inappropriate. My heart goes out to that boy, who was put through all this just because he wanted to laugh and have a good time. He doesn't understand. I'm sure the whole ordeal was very confusing and dissapointing for him.

[Lee]

And this is largely my issue with your entire line of reasoning throughout this thread. You say that "we can complain that they shouldn't feel annoyed by it, but that ultimately does not achieve anything...."No, I am not opposed to you being annoyed by it, I think I stated that I am annoyed by it somewhere. However, I cannot justify any "solution" which includes forcing others to pick up the bill, we can complain and genuinely be annoyed, hopefully we can influence enough people so that things get a little better, but it has to be a free choice... you can't force people to better conform to your standards of nice.


I'm trying to understand and, if need be, overstep the dividing lines you mention. I find your argument to be exactly what you accuused mine of being. You basically seem to be saying that this is the way society is, we can't change it, and that complaining about it will do nothing.It is not that nothing can be changed, and things are far from the way I would like them to be, but ideologies which promise solutions to these problems are no solutions at all, we have to try and structure society in a way that makes the best of things we can, including reconciling various opinions and priorities. When we do not reconcile these differences they lead to conflict, one group trying to force others to conform through law:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" - :jesus:

Unless you want someone to pass laws to make you conform to their standards, then you cannot justify the same on them.


I say, yes, this is the way it is, but while we may not be able to change everything, we can change attitudes through experience. We don't have to perpetuate acts of intolerance by remaining ignorant. Furthermore, mgbradsh is right on target when he says "It doesn't take a magic pill to create empathy, it takes experience." People (often here at INTPC) seem to excuse a lack of empathy as if it's something that can only be possessed by a superhuman or an NF. Empathy just means being at your most human, and being okay enough with other people's humanity to want to understand why they are a certain way. I may not be okay with acts of intolerance, but I admit I still want to understand why people act that way. Understanding must happen from both sides. Who to accomodate and how to accomodate them, under those conditions, becomes extremely complicated, yet somehow a little simpler in essence.Again, I do not believe the facts make this situation likely. Any political and economic organisation of society has to take into account how things actually work, to me the evidence throughout history, genetics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience etc. all show that some people will just be assholes.

Am I being pessimistic? no, I am being realistic, you have to work with the world as it actually works, not as how you would like to work. I do not think that any amount of education or experience will trigger this empathy off in everyone, the sheer logistics of trying to give this experience to everyone is mind-boggling anyway. People are selfish, especially when they have paid money to do something, they are not always going to wish to help others less fortunate than themselves.

You have to leave people free to make their own choices and they are not always going to act as you want them to, the agreement between the parties in the orginal article and the necessary existence of property rights fully justifies the management's decision in my eyes, now whether it was the correct decision from the hteatre's point of view is a different matter. The only two alternatives is to hope everyone will suddenly learn to have more empathy (incredibly unrealistic) or use governemtn to force others hand, which cannot be justified ethically.

It's not that I do not think anything can be done, but in order to keep a just and fair society, whatever is done must be done within that framework (though neither America or Britain quite encapsulates the just and fair society I speak of, they are close enough).

[Lee]

Oh, actually they ARE under an obligation to allow me to be there, because it's written into the law, anywhere I'm otherwise authorized to be.It's written into the law that the owner of a coffee shop cannot deny you entrance to the establishment he or she owns? if that is truly the case then I disagree with whatever law that is, since it is not a public place, it is a private establishment.


They can no sooner ask me to leave for nursing than they can ask a black person to leave for being black. The disabled kid at the movie theater is no different-- asking him to leave for laughing too loudly (in some people's opinion) is along the same lines, IMO.let's imagine you were running around the coffee shop drinking other peoples coffee, is the owner of the coffee shop not allowed to throw you out of his establishment?

That is a far more appropriate comparison if we assume that disturbance was ruining the movie for others, a viewing experience they had already paid for. Was the movie really being ruined for others? did the other customers notice or care in the theatre? I don't know.

[mgb]

It's written into the law that the owner of a coffee shop cannot deny you entrance to the establishment he or she owns? if that is truly the case then I disagree with whatever law that is, since it is not a public place, it is a private establishment.

let's imagine you were running around the coffee shop drinking other peoples coffee, is the owner of the coffee shop not allowed to throw you out of his establishment?

That is a far more appropriate comparison if we assume that disturbance was ruining the movie for others, a viewing experience they had already paid for. Was the movie really being ruined for others? did the other customers notice or care in the theatre? I don't know.

Yeah, I heard coffee shops nation wide were starting to hire bouncers to keep unquestionable patrons out.

Get real Lee. You are taking the "economics" part of this too far and disassociating it from the actual reality of how businesses run.

[Johnny]

Those shameless handicapped children daring to step out of their front doors. Appearing in cafes and movie houses. Poor Wolfie. He had tried to gas them alright, but something happened to his hand and then he died.

Has Benedict XVI passed into Heaven so soon, wildcat? Or do you mean to have me wake him up for you?

Anyway, you misunderstand me...and sadly, I think that your Wolfie is more clever than you give him credit for.

In demanding that handicapped individuals experience the challenges of normal life, we only set them up for failure with greater intensity. What will this mother do next, send him out the door with a 10 dollar bill for a couple of hours and then rail against society for not letting him sit in his own feces without protest?

Poor Wolfie my ass...

[Lee]

You keep throwing the economic ideas around, but it doesn't seem like you have a really decent grasp of what they actually mean.Since all your arguments blithely ignore the economic incentives driving these behaviours and the economic consequences they produce, I think it is you who seems to not grasp these concepts.

You cannot ignore the economic ramifications of any policy, since whenever the rules are changed, the incentives change with them, no matter how well-intentioned a policy is, it can cause far more problems further down the line by ignoring economic consequences and how they regulate the incentives driving behaviour. Classic examples a price controls, subsidies for ailing industries and protectionism from foreign trade.

Any decision that would force the theatre to allow a disruptive customer to pay the same price as everyone else and be provided the service, has consequences on the behaviour of everyone else, changing theatre policies, ticket revenues, which has knock on consequences of how many workers are hired, what movies are shown etc. Subsidising the viewing habits of a disruptive customer without extra payment would simply do what all subsidies do, drive down quality or drive up prices for everyone else.

[Lee]

Yeah, I heard coffee shops nation wide were starting to hire bouncers to keep unquestionable patrons out.

Get real Lee. You are taking the "economics" part of this too far and disassociating it from the actual reality of how businesses run.I'm using an extreme example to illustrate the point. The reality of how a business is run has everything to do with economics, your failure to see the causal connections helps explain many of your political views.

Life is an economy, all of it, always.

[mgb]

Since all your arguments blithely ignore the economic incentives driving these behaviours and the economic consequences they produce, I think it is you who seems to not grasp these concepts.

You cannot ignore the economic ramifications of any policy, since whenever the rules are changed, the incentives change with them, no matter how well-intentioned a policy is, it can cause far more problems further down the line by ignoring economic consequences and how they regulate the incentives driving behaviour. Classic examples a price controls, subsidies for ailing industries and protectionism from foreign trade.

Any decision that would force the theatre to allow a disruptive customer to pay the same price as everyone else and be provided the service, has consequences on the behaviour of everyone else, changing theatre policies, ticket revenues, which has knock on consequences of how many workers are hired, what movies are shown etc. Subsidising the viewing habits of a disruptive customer without extra payment would simply do what all subsidies do, drive down quality or drive up prices for everyone else.

Yeah, you're right Lee. I have no clue how a business works. I've never worked in retail, or owned a company. Hell for that matter, I've never had to get a business permit or abide by any law that anyone has ever made with regards to rights.

[Lee]

Yeah, you're right Lee. I have no clue how a business works. I've never worked in retail, or owned a company. Hell for that matter, I've never had to get a business permit or abide by any law that anyone has ever made with regards to rights.It shows.

[mgb]

I'm using an extreme example to illustrate the point. The reality of how a business is run has everything to do with economics, your failure to see the causal connections helps explain many of your political views.

Life is an economy, all of it, always.

Your failure to understand people on an emotional level or how that can have a causal effect on a person's life and or business probably explains your political views. As well as how unsufferable your pedanticism can be and how grossly over supplied that particular commidity actually is from you.

[Lee]

Your failure to understand people on an emotional level or how that can have a causal effect on a person's life and or business probably explains your political views. As well as how unsufferable your pedanticism can be and how grossly over supplied that particular commidity actually is from you.Nice response :)

As it happens, I really do take into consideration the emotional level, which is a level I spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing over. However, I am convinced that understanding how emotions actually work is far more important that wishing that people felt a different way about this or that, using the former we can make our views reflect how things really work, trying to reconcile the fact that people have mutually exclusive desires and so have emotional conflict. Using the latter, we simply get ever more disenchanted with humanity, lamenting over its flaws, ever tempted to try and "fix" others who do not agree, this is the path to conflict, war and oppression. I know which one I prefer.

[domokun]

Right. Well... remember that he's not a child, he's nineteen. People probably look at him and see a nineteen year-old. If it was a child who was laughing loudly though the movie, they would have been more tolerant of it, I bet. This is not an excuse for them at all, because it sucks pretty much no matter how you slice it. When people see an adult with mental disabilities, they are very uncomfortable (and intolerant) of it. There's dissonance there in part because of what we expect adults to act like and what we allow children to do.
I think he would have gotten away with it if he was:

1) A child, abandoned preferably (in which case it would be big news)
2) An old woman
3) A sexy 20 something blonde female in skimpy clothes
4) A man on life support


Its hard to get away with this kind of thing if:

{ insert politically incorrect subject description }

[Serotonin]

Eck.

The implementation of free-market economic philosophy was an improvement on socialism, not an antidote.

Or if you like, it is a socially-approved sanction for private companies to discriminate who their clientele will be.

The problem is, human nature encompasses the behaviours of both unprejudiced compassion and completely utilitarian self-interest. Sometimes even within one individual. Some will gravitate more towards one style in their interaction with others, and others will towards the other.
On first glance, the unprejudiced compassion seems the natural state of humanity. So did Marx and Engels. However, the horrors of communism have borne out their misjudgement of the human condition. You can't force people to think and act a certain way. The system is easily subverted by victim-playing and sociopathic behaviour, "wolves in sheep's clothing" and so on.
So the war will keep being fought between the partisans. I will stay indoors and have a cup of tea, home and cuppa brought to me by either my friendly socialist government or by my careful-but-couldn't-give-too-much-thought-really choice from my capitalist supermarket.

[wildcat]

Has Benedict XVI passed into Heaven so soon, wildcat? Or do you mean to have me wake him up for you?

Anyway, you misunderstand me...and sadly, I think that your Wolfie is more clever than you give him credit for.

In demanding that handicapped individuals experience the challenges of normal life, we only set them up for failure with greater intensity. What will this mother do next, send him out the door with a 10 dollar bill for a couple of hours and then rail against society for not letting him sit in his own feces without protest?

Poor Wolfie my ass...
Holy Benedictus and a legion of angels! Is Wolfie your hero now? That boy in the movie house had every right to be there. He had paid for his ticket and expected to see the movie and to laugh. That is what you are supposed to do in the movies. To laugh. The other people did not complain about the boy because he laughed. They complained because the boy was handicapped. Their moral self indulgence was hurt. And the fact that the boy so evidently was enjoying himself became the last straw in their justified moral outrage.
I have seen these good people. If an institution for the handicapped people is about to be erected in their neighbourhood they (in their moral outrage) collect signatures of those residents who cannot abide to live in the same vicinage that harbours inferior individuals. Inferior to them.
It is the same thing in this thread. The people who have written in this thread are full of MORAL outrage. They are not cold or uncaring as Ape thinks. They are very caring. They are very caring about themselves. They are very MORAL. I admire them so much.
It is a good thing you are vigilant Johnny and that you keep your eyes open. Look carefully around you. Some day people who are inferior may try to move into your neighbourhood. Then you must start collecting signatures so that you can hand them to the Mayor of Camino City. How I admire your spirit. You are like Mr McPherson, if you know what I mean.

[Johnny]

Some day people who are inferior may try to move into your neighbourhood.

Thanks wildcat I appreciate the warning. But fear not my good friend, my reputation is as an immense glass house...no one would ever degrade themselves to the extent that they would move next door to me willingly...not even the most earnest of angels.


the rest deserve me

[wildcat]

Thanks wildcat I appreciate the warning. But fear not my good friend, my reputation is as an immense glass house...no one would ever degrade themselves to the extent that they would move next door to me willingly...not even the most earnest of angels.


the rest deserve me
There is my boy.

[Lee]

The implementation of free-market economic philosophy was an improvement on socialism, not an antidote.I think people are always looking for perfect solutions and politicians forever promising them. There are none, there are only trade-offs between alternative options, costs can't be avoided and we have to all live in the same world.

Free-market economic philosophy (which ultimately cannot be seperated from liberterian ethical philosphy, in my view, both tightly woven together, products of the enlightenment) is very important, because it listnes to feedback and is responsive to what works and doesn't, IOW, a free market economy learns to work better, like the little bugs in crude natural selection simulators.

Other political organisations attmept to avoid feedback, to wrapped up in ideological visions of what should be, irrespective of how things actually work. Thus the problems build up but are swept under the rug, the appearence of structure is maintained until it spectacularly falls apart at the seams and we all get to view the ugly insides e.g. communist Russia.

Becaise of this, I think that free-market economics and libertarian ethics are actually the best way of doing things, even if we use a haphazard implementation now, it doesn't matter, because each part is responsive to feedback, so the system is capable of forever ironing out its own flaws.


Or if you like, it is a socially-approved sanction for private companies to discriminate who their clientele will be...

The problem is, human nature encompasses the behaviours of both unprejudiced compassion and completely utilitarian self-interest. Sometimes even within one individual. Some will gravitate more towards one style in their interaction with others, and others will towards the other....

You can't force people to think and act a certain way. The system is easily subverted by victim-playing and sociopathic behaviour, "wolves in sheep's clothing" and so on. ...

So the war will keep being fought between the partisans.:)

[waxwing]

No, I am not opposed to you being annoyed by it, I think I stated that I am annoyed by it somewhere. However, I cannot justify any "solution" which includes forcing others to pick up the bill, we can complain and genuinely be annoyed, hopefully we can influence enough people so that things get a little better, but it has to be a free choice... you can't force people to better conform to your standards of nice.

It is not that nothing can be changed, and things are far from the way I would like them to be, but ideologies which promise solutions to these problems are no solutions at all, we have to try and structure society in a way that makes the best of things we can, including reconciling various opinions and priorities. When we do not reconcile these differences they lead to conflict, one group trying to force others to conform through law:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" - :jesus:

Unless you want someone to pass laws to make you conform to their standards, then you cannot justify the same on them.

Again, I do not believe the facts make this situation likely. Any political and economic organisation of society has to take into account how things actually work, to me the evidence throughout history, genetics, evolutionary biology, neuroscience etc. all show that some people will just be assholes.

Am I being pessimistic? no, I am being realistic, you have to work with the world as it actually works, not as how you would like to work. I do not think that any amount of education or experience will trigger this empathy off in everyone, the sheer logistics of trying to give this experience to everyone is mind-boggling anyway. People are selfish, especially when they have paid money to do something, they are not always going to wish to help others less fortunate than themselves.

You have to leave people free to make their own choices and they are not always going to act as you want them to, the agreement between the parties in the orginal article and the necessary existence of property rights fully justifies the management's decision in my eyes, now whether it was the correct decision from the hteatre's point of view is a different matter. The only two alternatives is to hope everyone will suddenly learn to have more empathy (incredibly unrealistic) or use governemtn to force others hand, which cannot be justified ethically.

It's not that I do not think anything can be done, but in order to keep a just and fair society, whatever is done must be done within that framework (though neither America or Britain quite encapsulates the just and fair society I speak of, they are close enough).You seem to suggest that I'm being idealistic. Idealistic because I believe in the power of experience to change attitudes? In this particular area of my life, I am proactive, so I'm not sure how you conclude that I'm being unrealistic.

I must admit I've no interest in economics as it relates to this story. I find that element boring. I think it becomes an excuse for not being willing to understand the human relationships at work because it's more convenient to theorize about something remote.

Finally, the last thing I need to be told is that "people won't always act how I want them to." It's a tired consolation. I knew this instictually since I was a kid. Been through some life.

[Lee]

You seem to suggest that I'm being idealistic. Idealistic because I believe in the power of experience to change attitudes?Idealistic if you think you can change everybody's mind, idealistic if you believe everyone can be convinced to pay a cost in order to help those less fortunate, idealistic if you think the logistics of actually teaching everybody through experience is even possible.


In this particular area of my life, I am proactive, so I'm not sure how you conclude that I'm being unrealistic.To be honest, I simply object to the methods which you might employ or support in pursuit of this goal. Because I do not think you or others have a hope in hell of actually pulling it off, there is always that tendency within such causes to turn to government to try and force through changes, this is an understandble consequence of frustration with humanity and its seeming ignorance, but nonetheless, I believe such policies to be immoral and potentially dangerous.


I must admit I've no interest in economics as it relates to this story. I find that element boring. I think it becomes an excuse for not being willing to understand the human relationships at work because it's more convenient to theorize about something remote.No no no no! :)

Economics has everything to do with human relationships! everything!

The biologist studies organisms, deduces their functions, how they evolved, how they work and what can go wrong, yet he/she knows that on a basic level, there are atoms which give these biological systems there properties, these atoms attract, repel, diffuse, bond into all kinds of wonderful forms which as an emergent consequence create beings like us.

In the same way, the atomic particles of an economy are people, what makes an economy tick are the attractions, preferences, movement and feelings of those particles, IOW, real human relationships underlie all economic activity.

Unlike chemistry, with the economy we have control over the rules, any change to the rules has knock on consequences throughout the system (imagine if you could toggle physical laws and see what happens to our biochemical processes!). There is no econmic demand that was not first a human desire.

The economy has everything in the world to do with human relationships, proper economic structuring and framework of laws can be the difference between eruptions of violence and peaceful prosperity.


Finally, the last thing I need to be told is that "people won't always act how I want them to." It's a tired consolation. I knew this instictually since I was a kid. Been through some life.Well, I didn't mean to patronize you, but you were complaining about how other people felt about things, suggesting the solution was to fix them, although they probably do not think they need fixing. I see this as an inherently dangerous way to approach the problem, for the reasons already explained.

[Serotonin]

Lee's and waxwing's ideological clash is very close to the nub of ambivalence I feel about relating to other humans.

To play the game, or to reject the notion that life is a game, and yet have to watch, and be affected by the very real emotional consequences of the actions of the gamers.

I manically switch between both ideologies, depending on mood. The philosophical equivalent of a reversibly transgendered person. Thus I find myself incapable of committing to a stance on this thread.

Edit: for example, I too find economics stultifyingly boring, yet appreciate that that puts me in a minority.

[mgb]

Edit: for example, I too find economics stultifyingly boring, yet appreciate that that puts me in a minority.

I'm not sure you are.

[Pooja]

I manically switch between both ideologies, depending on mood. The philosophical equivalent of a reversibly transgendered person. Thus I find myself incapable of committing to a stance on this thread.
.

I love the way you put that, and completely agree. :worthy:

[Lee]

Edit: for example, I too find economics stultifyingly boring, yet appreciate that that puts me in a minority.You see, I just don't think about economics like that, to me philosophy, politics, economics, psychology, evolutionary biology all bleed into one, I do not think of economics as some dry numbers game, but an integral part of human interaction, economics just emerges out of those interactions, those human relationships.

Trying to understand what it is about our psychology that makes our society (economic and political) end up the way it is just fascinates me. I can't understand how anybody can be interested in psychology and/or politics and not be interested in economics!


I love the way you put that, and completely agree. :worthy:No! agree with me!!! :)

[Serotonin]

I'm not sure you are.

In the West, at least, I think I am, and I'll try to outline the reasons why:

The vast majority of people want to live comfortably. They want prosperity and opportunity and happiness. More than intellectual fulfillment, more than seeing their country be morally progressive, more than maintaining healthy human relationships. Not that they can't have all these things, but financial reasons more often than not trump the latter ones when there is a clash. It's certainly not true for you or I, or even the majority on INTPc, but it's true for society at large.
The only way to establish this, in the West, is through wealth. 54% of the adults in my country own shares. Housing and property prices, more than anything else, dictate living standards for people these days. People spend more time working and running their businesses than they do with their families, partners and friends combined.

All this time spent on fiscal concerns couldn't happen if people found economics "stultifyingly boring".

Edit: I am interested when ecos influence things I am interesting in, such as social trends, but from a personal-economics point of view e.g. watching stocks, investment, business models my brain tends to go into a funk.

[mgb]

In the West, at least, I think I am, and I'll try to outline the reasons why:

The vast majority of people want to live comfortably. They want prosperity and opportunity and happiness. More than intellectual fulfillment, more than seeing their country be morally progressive, more than maintaining healthy human relationships. Not that they can't have all these things, but financial reasons more often than not trump the latter ones when there is a clash. It's certainly not true for you or I, or even the majority on INTPc, but it's true for society at large.
The only way to establish this, in the West, is through wealth. 54% of the adults in my country own shares. Housing and property prices, more than anything else, dictate living standards for people these days. People spend more time working and running their businesses than they do with their families, partners and friends combined.

All this time spent on fiscal concerns couldn't happen if people found economics "stultifyingly boring".

Edit: I am interested when ecos influence things I am interesting in, such as social trends, but from a personal-economics point of view e.g. watching stocks, investment, business models my brain tends to go into a funk.


And I'll tell you why I think you are wrong. Last week when I was out taking pictures, I pulled past this driveway and got my car stuck in some snow. I wasn't too worried about it. When I got back I couldn't get it unstuck. Tried the floormats, tried pushing it, nothing. This guy was driving by with a grater and chained my car up to his grater and pulled it out. He didn't want anything in return, just seemed happy to do it.

I think for the most part, people want to help people. I come across it again and again. I don't know why, maybe people are just helpful, maybe they believe in karma, maybe someone in the church tells them they should. I can't say for sure.

I think the problem is that not everyone is like that and some people want to take advantage of those people and it makes people cynical. So when people don't do something they feel guilty. Then they feel like they need to justify why they won't help someone out. Really, it's just because they are an asshole but no one thinks they are an asshole.

People with special needs are probably treated better now than ever. It doesn't mean they are treated the way they should be, just better. They have special schools, integration into regular classrooms, jobs, friends, independant living, support from the government. All of this under a "market system".

Doesn't mean the assholes are gone though.

[cjs55]

It's just common sense not to bring someone who will cause complaints to a movie. Just like you generally shouldn't bring babies or small kids to movies either. I really doubt this occured simply because he was handicapped (although I could be wrong). This is probably the fault of the mother trying to enforce normal activity, to make her son 'normal' in her own mind (this, I do feel sorry for). But I doubt her kid would be too broken up if he saw the DVD instead of the movie in the theatre (although I suppose I could be wrong about that as well..).

Not being a humanist or egalitarian I don't feel that we should accomadate handicapped people beyond general kindness, (which would involve not bringing them to a place where they may really piss people off, which will be akward for everyone involed.) It's not cruelty to not bring your son to a movie. It's cruelty to bring him and make a scene. People usually wish to watch the movies they pay for without excessive distraction, and if your son is so loud or inappropriately laughing that he will draw complaints it's common sense not to bring him. It's not a moral issue, it's a pragmatic one.

(Wildcat is certainly right, I concede that. Still, I don't really buy this holier-than-thou empathy stuff either.)

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Lee:
Free choice-ideologies depend on basic, equal rights for every person. Free market depends on rights for consumers. In a market society you only have as much rights as you have money, and that undermines the very freedom of persons. Disliked groups or minorities will then always be second-rate citizens because they cannot have as much consumer power as the majority. That doesn't mean they get to go to the movies for free, but they should be able to go and pay for it like anyone else.
It's hypocritical to pretend persons have rights while they don't have the means to exercise them.

And yes, if the kid was too noisy it was right to send him outside. But you cannot justify that by referring to the whims of other customers, because of the reason above.

[SuperSirElephant]

It's true that the free-market system is not always going protect the rights of the minority. In this case, however, it simply depends on how much noise the guy was making. If the officials found it necessary to ask that he leave, then one would assume that he was being disruptive. Of course, what it means for someone to be "disruptive" is subjective, but there is definitely a limit.

[Lee]

Lee:
Free choice-ideologies depend on basic, equal rights for every person. Free market depends on rights for consumers. In a market society you only have as much rights as you have money, and that undermines the very freedom of persons. Disliked groups or minorities will then always be second-rate citizens because they cannot have as much consumer power as the majority. That doesn't mean they get to go to the movies for free, but they should be able to go and pay for it like anyone else.
It's hypocritical to pretend persons have rights while they don't have the means to exercise them.I completely disagree.

You seem to think that "equal rights" means equal capacity to do things, equal rights does not mean that each person should own a private jet if anyone else does, it does not mean that everyone should be able to own a mansion because someone else does, it does not mean that everyone should be a scientist just because someone else is.

That is not equal rights, equal rights means that people are treated equally under the same rules, or the same rules are applied indisciminantly to all, rich or poor, black or white, male or female. This does not guaruntee equal results, like if you gave a math test to 50 children, you would get some people perform much better than others, they were treated fairly, were treated as equals but different results came as a consequence.

Money does not give you rights, it gives you options, there is a very important difference. You cannot have a free society where everyone has the same money, since the moment they begin making choices they will either win or lose, some people will make the right choices and make more money, others will lose it. A free society has to allow people to face the consequences of their mistakes, losing money reduces options and how many other free people are willing to trade with you, wealthy people also open up more options for everyone else and their wealth is redistributed through free - positive sum - trade. All of this can go on whilst everyone is being treated equally by the same rules, as the old saying goes "nobody is above the law."

"Disliked groups" and "minorities" prosper in a free market system, usually because they are far more willing to work hard, despite racism or prejudice e.g. The Chinese is Indonesia, or Indians in the UK. In a free market system, you cannot make decisions from false premises and hope to succeed in the long term, the belief that blacks are inherently inferior is completely counterfactual, so any competitor who does not believe can get the edge, by having access to a broad range of skill and potential another does not. This is why particularly competitive sectors during Aparthied completely flouted the Aparthied laws, this is why many blacks during segregation were actually earning wages equal to their white counterparts in some parts of the US.

The fact that minority groups have less consumer power does not take away their rights, you seem to think that everyone else should spend time and resources catering to their demand just as much as the majority, companies that occupy profitable niches will fill the peculiar demands of minority groups. Resources have to be directed toward where most people want them, that means that most companies will set about acquiring and manufacturing commodities to trade with the majority, this allows the demands of the populace to direct time, energy and resources towards the uses that people actually want, to try and force companies to sell a broad range of products that nobody wants to buy is a massive waste of resources, a loss in profits, a loss in jobs, a loss in the overall prosperity of a society in order to satisfy some warped vision of equality that you have.

The greatest force that pushes toward equality is economics, because in a free market you can't continue to hold blanket prejudiced beliefs like "women can't handle business" or "blacks are all stupid" or "the jews are untrustworthy," you will face the consequences of not acting on situation as it actually is and not taking advantage of the skills available. Does this happen immediately? no, does often take time? yes. However, all cases of mass discrimination and victimization of a minority group have been politically enforced, not economically enforced by a free market! Nazi Germany, Aparthied, Segregation in the USA, Chinese in Indonesia, Christians in the "Islamic World."

When economic structure is dictated politically by powerful individuals we have warlords, kings, theocracy, communism, plutocracy etc. A free market is the cure for these problems, the same rules can be applied equally to all, nobody is allowed to infringe on another persons rights (no matter how many options their wealth gives them) and wherever there is demand or skill available, there is incentive to satisfy or make use of it.

Your belief that a free market and equality are in contradiction is born out of your own impossible standard of equality, which basically amounts to equal results and abilities for everyone, despite, skill, motivation, attitude, luck or even geographic location! etc. the problem is that we do not live in a world where that is possible, so rather than bemoan the lack of "equality" in the world, maybe you should think about what equality can actually mean. The standards I use are not contradictory, and they have been behind the most successful nations of mordern times, countries which embrace the standards I talk about are successful, their populations prosperous, with a minimum of racial tension, moinorities are treated as equals under the law and no state funded racial discrimination exists (if anything, it exists in favour of minorities, with policies like Affirmative Action).


And yes, if the kid was too noisy it was right to send him outside. But you cannot justify that by referring to the whims of other customers, because of the reason above.No, I can justify it on the grounds of the property rights of the theatre owner and management that represent him. The management can justify it on the grounds that he was disturbing other customers, the same would apply to a group of troublesome teens.

[SuperSirElephant]

The greatest force that pushes toward equality is economics, because in a free market you can't continue to hold blanket prejudiced beliefs like "women can't handle business" or "blacks are all stupid" or "the jews are untrustworthy," you will face the consequences of not acting on situation as it actually is and not taking advantage of the skills available.

What if the consumers are prejudiced? In that case the market would cater to the majority, and could discriminate against the minority. Racial segregation, for instance, is not just a result of politics. It can result from society, or from the majority of consumers. If most customers don't want to be around black people, then it would be bad business for a restaurant serve black people. How could segregation have been enforced on such a large scale if it was not for the willful participation of society and the free market.

[mgb]

Lee, I hope you find out the easy way how wrong you are, instead of the hard way.

[Lee]

What if the consumers are prejudiced? In that case the market would cater to the majority, and could discriminate against the minority. Racial segregation, for instance, is not just a result of politics. It can result from society, or from the majority of consumers. If most customers don't want to be around black people, then it would be bad business for a restaurant serve black people. How could segregation have been enforced on such a large scale if it was not for the willful participation of society and the free market.Because ultimately customers want the lowest prices, the free-market dispels unjustifed racial prejudice. People quickly learn to not be racist when the guy selling them their bread is African, the guy selling them their newspaper is Indian and the guy selling them their food is Chinese.

Racist beliefs are resilient, but when companies and consumers have to pay the costs, those that are not so discriminatory will be making and buying things cheaper. By closing off a whole percentage of the population, companies that cater to such racist policies are doomed to fail, the only way they can persist is when political pressure can force laws to prolong racist policies, or a location may have such a tiny minority - or no minority at all - that they can persist without any real drawback.

But regardless, your fear about prejudiced consumers simply doesn't live up to the evidence, because those racist beliefs are never strong enough in everybody to prevent the gradual change, people value their own prosperity more than subjugating a minority, so when they can drop one for the other, they eventually do.

This isn't just theory, this is what actually has happened all over what we now call "the western world," countries that embrace these princples quickly eradicate institutionalised prejudice of any particular group. Countries where these values are not taken are notorious for holding very nationalistic, tribal and prejudiced views.

[Lee]

Lee, I hope you find out the easy way how wrong you are, instead of the hard way.Thank you for your input, but mgbradsh, simply stating that I am wrong does not make me so, considering the incredible success the values I describe have had, I do not think I am wrong. However, thank you for your relevent criticism, counter-evidence and workable alternative.

[digesthisickness]

lee... if what i've witnessed on this forum is any indication of what your endurance would be like in other areas of your life...

some girl is going to be very happy, very sore, or both :)

[mgb]

Thank you for your input, but mgbradsh, simply stating that I am wrong does not make me so, considering the incredible success the values I describe have had, I do not think I am wrong. However, thank you for your relevent criticism, counter-evidence and workable alternative.

Oh, I don't really care if you think you are right, no one here, no matter what they do will be able to convince you that you are wrong. Just the way it is.

Maybe you'll do some volunteering or something and put yourself on the other side of the "economic" fence where the grass is a little browner.

Shit happens to people, the get in car accidents, they get in house fires, the get shot and stabbed. Bad scarring isn't always the only result. There are diseases which eat away at someone's ability to live. Some people end up having kids with disabilities. Some people have nieces, nephews, cousins, aunts and uncles with disabilities. It's just the way life works. Maybe you do right now and haven't told anyone and you still hold onto your ideals as strong as ever, who really knows?

At the end of the day, there's philosophy on the internet and then there is real life where sometimes you just don't have "workable alternatives" to the situations life gives you.

But what do I know about life or disabilities? You seem to have it all down pat.

[booyalab]

lee... if what i've witnessed on this forum is any indication of what your endurance would be like in other areas of your life...

some girl is going to be very happy, very sore, or both :)

wow, you're a perv

[digesthisickness]

wow, you're a perv

only sometimes

[SuperSirElephant]

You're arguing that free market would gradually root out prejudice. That may be the case now that I think about it, but I'm not entirely convinced. For instance, a lot of these non-western countries in which prejudice is more prevalent have a very different history. They are often relatively new countries, such as Iraq, in which the country's boundaries were drawn up superficially. Identities subsequently clash, and the larger "national" identity does not have as much weight as more local identities. The United States got over this in time, but, like I said, these aforementioned countries are relatively young.

Nevertheless, even if the free market could gradually come to protect minorities, it will not always protect minorities before that time. That is why there are laws to ensure that minority rights are protected.

[Lee]

Oh, I don't really care if you think you are right, no one here, no matter what they do will be able to convince you that you are wrong. Just the way it is.That's not true, I have been convinced to change my mind before over an internet forum, more than once. Any failure to change my mind is the other persons failure to provide a convincing counter-argument, not a reflection of my pig-headedness.

The views I have over this very issue originally came about trough debating with someone online, they got the better of me, they won the argument, so I decided to read up on what they were talking about, my current views are a reflection of that.

I honestly only care about being right, not winning the argument, to be proven wrong is far more valuable than simply being right all of the time. Winning an argument is helpful because it allows you to refine your argument, but you do not really learn anything new, losing an argument is far more valuable.


Maybe you'll do some volunteering or something and put yourself on the other side of the "economic" fence where the grass is a little browner.

Shit happens to people, the get in car accidents, they get in house fires, the get shot and stabbed. Bad scarring isn't always the only result. There are diseases which eat away at someone's ability to live. Some people end up having kids with disabilities. Some people have nieces, nephews, cousins, aunts and uncles with disabilities. It's just the way life works. Maybe you do right now and haven't told anyone and you still hold onto your ideals as strong as ever, who really knows?

At the end of the day, there's philosophy on the internet and then there is real life where sometimes you just don't have "workable alternatives" to the situations life gives you.Okay, all of what you said is a perfectly acceptable part of what I describe. Within a free market economy, we still can have empathy, give to charity, help others, but it has to be our free choice to do so.

While I can personally incur costs to be kind to others, I cannot expect everyone else to and I certainly cannot force them to.


But what do I know about life or disabilities? You seem to have it all down pat.You seem to have missed the point.

You seem to think kindness and a free market are mutually exclusive, Americans give a greater percentage of their income to charities than any other nation.

[Ivy]

No, I can justify it on the grounds of the property rights of the theatre owner and management that represent him. The management can justify it on the grounds that he was disturbing other customers, the same would apply to a group of troublesome teens.

The difference, obviously, is that troublesome teens are being malicious. The disabled kid is not. This is sort of a T/F lever (applying an impersonal standard without regard to the human factor, vs. considering the circumstances of the people involved).

[cjs55]

I sorta agree with Lee (but in an odd way). One of the main reasons gender and racial egalitarianism have taken root so strongly in America is because they make more people into valid consumers. Capitalists like consumers, because the more consumers there are, the more power those running the system have. (and it's then about manipulating them into consuming more, of course.) It's not necessarily that the system works in favor of these things because capatalism and ideology can run hand in hand. Right now, they generally don't though (capatalism is the only ideology).

[Lee]

The difference, obviously, is that troublesome teens are being malicious. The disabled kid is not. This is sort of a T/F lever (applying an impersonal standard without regard to the human factor, vs. considering the circumstances of the people involved).Oh, but I can flip that argument.

I am taking into consideration all the other theatre goers feelings, who have paid to see a movie and are having that experience ruined. Now if they are willing to pay that price in order to be nice to the kid making a noise, then that is there decision. I presume this was not the case and the motivation behind the management's decison to evict that particular customer (a right I assume they have under the terms and conditions of the ticket purchase).

You are proposing those feelings are irrelevent and that they should have their priorities sacrificed in favour of this kids priorities, this is not a T/F difference, I am not ignoring feelings at all, I am proposing the only ethical solution that can reconcile these different feelings, priorities and rights.

Furthermore, your argument seems to be that he should not have been "kicked out" because his disability is not his fault, his disability may not be his fault, but should amother with a crying baby be asked to leave? how about a mentally disturbed patient who decides to get up and urinate on the chairs? It isn't the fault of these people, they can't help it, right?

What about the disruptive teenagers, are there attempts to be malicious their fault? maybe they have had difficult lives, abusive parents, maybe they are not being malicious but simply do not understand the proper code of conduct under those circumstances.

Still, it doesn't matter whether the kid was being malicious or not, just as you have the right to throw a person out of your home because you are in a stroppy mood, a theatre owner can throw out a customer if it is allowed under the terms and conditions of the ticket purchase (which is essentially a legally binding contract). Regardless of whether I or you think it was the right, it is certainly right that owners have rights over their property and who they allow on it. Property rights are the foundation of how our society works, they must be respected, even when people are just being assholes.

[Ivy]

Still, it doesn't matter whether the kid was being malicious or not, just as you have the right to throw a person out of your home because you are in a stroppy mood, a theatre owner can throw out a customer if it is allowed under the terms and conditions of the ticket purchase (which is essentially a legally binding contract). Regardless of whether I or you think it was the right, it is certainly right that owners have rights over their property and who they allow on it. Property rights are the foundation of how our society works, they must be respected, even when people are just being assholes.

A movie theater is not a home. Business owners do not have carte blanche to kick people out of their establishments for any reason they like. The law protects people from discrimination. I don't know what the law is on this particular issue (he wasn't asked to leave simply for being disabled, at least not on the surface) but evidently it's a grey enough area that the ACLU is willing to take the case.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

You seem to think that "equal rights" means equal capacity to do things, equal rights does not mean that each person should own a private jet if anyone else does, it does not mean that everyone should be able to own a mansion because someone else does, it does not mean that everyone should be a scientist just because someone else is.No, read what I said: he doesn't get a free ticket, he can buy a ticket just like anyone else.


Money does not give you rights, it gives you options, there is a very important difference. You cannot have a free society where everyone has the same money, since the moment they begin making choices they will either win or lose, some people will make the right choices and make more money, others will lose it. A free society has to allow people to face the consequences of their mistakes, losing money reduces options and how many other free people are willing to trade with you, wealthy people also open up more options for everyone else and their wealth is redistributed through free - positive sum - trade. All of this can go on whilst everyone is being treated equally by the same rules, as the old saying goes "nobody is above the law."Free people, exactly. How free do you think someone is with a family to accept a job? Or to quit if his boss wants to pay him less? It is no longer an option in these times to go to the woods and be autarchic. If you want to start a business, you need permission from the bank, if you want a job idem.
To make people free, they should have access to basic food, shelter, security. And don't worry, they will be quite willing to work for luxuries. Those lazy bastards ;)


The greatest force that pushes toward equality is economics, because in a free market you can't continue to hold blanket prejudiced beliefs like "women can't handle business" or "blacks are all stupid" or "the jews are untrustworthy," [..]That's quite possible, on the condition that you are a majority. Here young Moroccan men are often not allowed into discotheques; they are refused by employers, "because the customers will not like it", reinforcing the notion that their presence is odd, and that they are lazy troublemakers.


Your belief that a free market and equality are in contradiction is born out of your own impossible standard of equality, which basically amounts to equal results and abilities for everyone, despite, skill, motivation, attitude, luck or even geographic location! etc. [...] prosperous, with a minimum of racial tension, moinorities are treated as equals under the law and no state funded racial discrimination exists (if anything, it exists in favour of minorities, with policies like Affirmative Action).My standard of equality is that everybody should be able to exercise his/her rights. If discriminative sentiments make that impossible, throught market forces or otherwise, a correction is recommendable.


When economic structure is dictated politically by powerful individuals we have warlords, kings, theocracy, communism, plutocracy etc. A free market is the cure for these problems, the same rules can be applied equally to all, nobody is allowed to infringe on another persons rights (no matter how many options their wealth gives them) and wherever there is demand or skill available, there is incentive to satisfy or make use of it.
+
No, I can justify it on the grounds of the property rights of the theatre owner and management that represent him. The management can justify it on the grounds that he was disturbing other customers, the same would apply to a group of troublesome teens.We don't know if he was that annoying.. If he was, and I've said that, and goddammit people with a mental condition can laugh incredibly loud, no problem.
But if he wasn't removed because he made noise, but because other customers couldn't stand a retard that made noise, and were using their economic power to enforce their opinion, violating the rights of the kid... I don't think that is justified.

[Lee]

A movie theater is not a home. Business owners do not have carte blanche to kick people out of their establishments for any reason they like. The law protects people from discrimination. I don't know what the law is on this particular issue (he wasn't asked to leave simply for being disabled, at least not on the surface) but evidently it's a grey enough area that the ACLU is willing to take the case.I don't know what the specific laws are surrounding the case, but you see, if the rule says:

"if a person make too much noise, disturbs other customers and fails to respond to requests to cease, then they should be evicted from the premises"

then it is not discriminatory to apply this rule to the kid in question, whether he has a disability or not, it is a case of equal treatment under the same rules, treating him just like everyone else! what you propose is discriminatory, it discriminates against all the other customers in the theater. If he was behaving just like all the other customers, not making a nuisance and his disability was not disturbing the showing and he was still kicked, then I would believe it right seek lawful compensation and punishment of the offending company, though this depends on the specifics of law in any given circumstance.

Besides, I think the mother was incredibly irresponsible and (assuming he really was causing a big problem) had no empathy for all the other customers who might of had their movie going experienced ruined in order to satisfy her own priorities... (assuming he really was causing a problem and breaking the rules) the mother comes across as the biggest asshole in all this.

As far as I am aware, businesses do have the right to have anybody removed from their premises, if the person refuses to move then the police have to enforce that individuals property rights. Of course, 99.9% of the time, businesses welcome people in, because they need to make money and want customers, do not confuse this priviledge as a right to be on their property.

The common "kicking out" of customers from bars, clubs and pubs illustrates these rights under circumstances which they are more commonly exercised.

[Pooja]

warning: :offtopic:

Whenever I see a thread I start, "succeed" as this one has, I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Like a proud parent, after watching their child succeed in life... ;)

[domokun]

warning: :offtopic:

Whenever I see a thread I start, "succeed" as this one has, I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Like a proud parent, after watching their child succeed in life... ;)
and more so if the thread was created with "borrowed" content, such as foreign links, news stories, and plagerized jokes, without anything original from you.

You should post on Slashdot. Wait, but they want you to cite your sources. Sorry bad idea.

[joft]

and more so if the thread was created with "borrowed" content, such as foreign links, news stories, and plagerized jokes, without anything original from you.

You should post on Slashdot. Wait, but they want you to cite your sources. Sorry bad idea.
Congratulations! You win The Most Intelligent, Witty, and Cuttingly Honest Person on Earth Award!

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/47/You_win_the_prize.jpg

so you can stop trying now

[domokun]

Congratulations! You win The Most Intelligent, Witty, and Cuttingly Honest Person on Earth Award!

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/47/You_win_the_prize.jpg

Now you can stop trying
Some retards like you don't know when they won.

[Lee]

No, read what I said: he doesn't get a free ticket, he can buy a ticket just like anyone else.But he has no God or government sanctioned right to buy a ticket, a shop keeper is not legally obligated to serve everyone who walks into his store, they are a customer only if the shopkeeper decides he wants to engage in a transaction with them, the same rule applies to the cinema.

Now you might claim that they are obligated to let him watch the movie because he paid for it, they made the mistake and will just have to refuse him next time. Mayb they could do that, but I am assuming the terms and conditions of the transaction give the cinema owners the right to evict the individual in question.


Free people, exactly. How free do you think someone is with a family to accept a job? Or to quit if his boss wants to pay him less? It is no longer an option in these times to go to the woods and be autarchic. If you want to start a business, you need permission from the bank, if you want a job idem.
To make people free, they should have access to basic food, shelter, security. And don't worry, they will be quite willing to work for luxuries. Those lazy bastards ;) Again, all I see is an impossible standard of "freedom," you are proposing that because the actions of others change which choices will be most beneficial to you, that freedom cannot exist, because you cannot be free of the consequences of others choices.

But that is just a shoddy standard of freedom, we will always have a limited selection of choices that could achieve our goals, as long as we live in a universe with other human beings, their choices will influence ours, but that is not an infringement of freedom, that simply reflects a necessary physical fact.

Freedom is freedom from others directly forcing us to change our behaviours for their benefit, making us pay the cost for their benefit. You might claim this is what happens with people who work for companies, right? wrong! nobody is forced at gunpoint to work for others, they are not slaves... they are engaged in a reciprocal exchange with the employer, they echange their time and effort for a paycheck, this choice is because it is more profitable than the alternative.

Now, just because the choices available in a given time and place might not be perfect, does not mean that the person is not free, it is not up to everyone else to provide a person with choices they prefer, as you seem to be suggesting. Of course some of our goals are dependent on the decisions of others, such as the bank funding a new business, but then by your standard, the only way to achieve freedom in sexual relations is for everyone to never turn down anyone else, rape is justified because otherwise we are "restricting freedom" and therefore some warped vision of rights.


That's quite possible, on the condition that you are a majority. Here young Moroccan men are often not allowed into discotheques; they are refused by employers, "because the customers will not like it", reinforcing the notion that their presence is odd, and that they are lazy troublemakers.So, there will always be some cases where discrimination on race or looks is justified, such as when you are looking for a lead star on your new movie about Martin Luther King's life, or when you are hiring a poll dancer, or even a waitress.


My standard of equality is that everybody should be able to exercise his/her rights. If discriminative sentiments make that impossible, throught market forces or otherwise, a correction is recommendable.Again, you simply have impossible standards of rights, where one persons "rights" are not reconcilablewith another persons "right," for example the "right" of the kid in question to watch the movie and the "right" of the theatre owner to kick him out fro making too much noise.

Plus, methods of "correction" typically take the form of government meddling that sacrifices one persons priorities in favour of another, simply because one group has a louder political voice. Ironically, it is often the majority who ends up on the recieving end of a very vocal minority pressure group


We don't know if he was that annoying.. If he was, and I've said that, and goddammit people with a mental condition can laugh incredibly loud, no problem.
But if he wasn't removed because he made noise, but because other customers couldn't stand a retard that made noise, and were using their economic power to enforce their opinion, violating the rights of the kid... I don't think that is justified.But they were not violating his rights! he has no God or government given right to be there! it is part of a volunatry exchange, one the theatre management can terminate based on the terms and conditions of the ticket purchase.

The reason your "rights" are impossible is because they lead to contradictions, in this case the "right" of the kid to enjoy the movie is in contradiction to the property "rights" of the theatre owner, and if the kid has the "right" to enjoy the movie, then everyone else in the cinema has the "right" to enjoy the movie (to avoid inequality of rights), now we have all these rights all in contradiction to one another.

Of course, this isn't really a problem, because the kid in question does not and cannot have the rights you are applying to him.

[Pooja]

and more so if the thread was created with "borrowed" content, such as foreign links, news stories, and plagerized jokes, without anything original from you.

You should post on Slashdot. Wait, but they want you to cite your sources. Sorry bad idea.

Obviously, I didn't write that, because as I said, my ethics professor showed us the article (to make a point), and then put it up on his class webpage. He did not include the source. :bigguns: But I'll excuse you because you're obviously [mentally] disabled, and I wouldn't want to treat you in an unfair manner.
I know that you'll probably come up with something witty and mature (and of course, original) to respond back with like, "nu uh, you are"... so from now on, I'm ignoring you.

[domokun]

Obviously, I didn't write that, because as I said, my ethics professor showed us the article (to make a point), and then put it up on his class webpage. He did not include the source. :bigguns:
In that case he should be proud of your efforts.

[wildcat]

Oh, but I can flip that argument.

I am taking into consideration all the other theatre goers feelings, who have paid to see a movie and are having that experience ruined. Now if they are willing to pay that price in order to be nice to the kid making a noise, then that is there decision. I presume this was not the case and the motivation behind the management's decison to evict that particular customer (a right I assume they have under the terms and conditions of the ticket purchase).

You are proposing those feelings are irrelevent and that they should have their priorities sacrificed in favour of this kids priorities, this is not a T/F difference, I am not ignoring feelings at all, I am proposing the only ethical solution that can reconcile these different feelings, priorities and rights.

Furthermore, your argument seems to be that he should not have been "kicked out" because his disability is not his fault, his disability may not be his fault, but should amother with a crying baby be asked to leave? how about a mentally disturbed patient who decides to get up and urinate on the chairs? It isn't the fault of these people, they can't help it, right?

What about the disruptive teenagers, are there attempts to be malicious their fault? maybe they have had difficult lives, abusive parents, maybe they are not being malicious but simply do not understand the proper code of conduct under those circumstances.

Still, it doesn't matter whether the kid was being malicious or not, just as you have the right to throw a person out of your home because you are in a stroppy mood, a theatre owner can throw out a customer if it is allowed under the terms and conditions of the ticket purchase (which is essentially a legally binding contract). Regardless of whether I or you think it was the right, it is certainly right that owners have rights over their property and who they allow on it. Property rights are the foundation of how our society works, they must be respected, even when people are just being assholes.
One of the curses of democracy is that a parcel of the white trash came rich on the expense of other people. They were taught to read and now their descendants write posts in forums. This is their undeniable right of course.

[waxwing]

Idealistic if you think you can change everybody's mind, idealistic if you believe everyone can be convinced to pay a cost in order to help those less fortunate, idealistic if you think the logistics of actually teaching everybody through experience is even possible.
But when did I ever say I thought I could do these things? I've very aware that I cannot, yet that doesn't mean I should simply accept negativity as it exists.


Well, I didn't mean to patronize you, but you were complaining about how other people felt about things, suggesting the solution was to fix them, although they probably do not think they need fixing. I see this as an inherently dangerous way to approach the problem, for the reasons already explained.
I never complained. Maybe you should re-read my posts and tell me where exactly I complained about how other people feel. I do not try to manipulate others' emotions as I hate having my own manipulated. I am simply presenting an empirically based argument here, one which I admit is potentially weak due to a very large intuitive component present in my processing of my experiences. You also are mistaken in you assertion that I am suggesting to fix problems of which other people are not aware, or about which they share no concern. You've underestimate and misinterpreted my approach because you refuse to see my empirical data as relevent. You do, however, claim that because of economic principles, we cannot change attitudes. Yet I'm afraid you are stuck in a huge contradiction. With your treatise on "human" economincs, you differentiate between pure chemistry and human chemistry, saying:


Unlike chemistry, with the economy we have control over the rules. Any change to the rules has knock on consequences throughout the system (imagine if you could toggle physical laws and see what happens to our biochemical processes!) There is no economic demand that was not first a human desire.

So, we have control over the rules. The rules define the system, yet they can be changed. How? You said it: by human desire. Where does human desire come from? I'd argue that it comes from (and evolves from) experience. Think of what I'm saying in terms of memetics. No, I certainly cannot teach people to care about things I care about by waving the proverbial magic wand. I'd be stupid to think so. But, attitudes can be passed on over time. They can evolve in an individual person's makeup, so why couldn't they evolve on a grander scale as well? This individual --> cultural evolution then in turn spawns modification of rules of "the system."

I'm simply arguing for a more plastic methodology than you are. I'm bored with economics as you originally discussed it in this thread. Now, with your addition of "human" economics, how could I say you are wrong? I think our disagreement is more a matter of how we intend to implement the model. I will ascribe to your model of human economics, yet I will argue against your usage of it to defend and perpetuate intolerance.

[Lee]

One of the curses of democracy is that a parcel of the white trash came rich on the expense of other people.That depends where along the democratic development you decide to look, it has been true in the past that person/group A has benefited at the expense person or group B, but by and large democracy has allowed trade to flourish. Trade is when person/group A provides service/commodity to person/group B, a mutually beneficial transaction, adding wealth, rather than simply moving it around.

This situation has been characteristic of democracy and ever more so as democracy led to free market economics, equal rights were fully introduced and nobody was above the law. Indeed, mutually beneficial transactions have to have been characterictic of the last 10,000 years, otherwise development could not have happened if energy were simply being shifted around, the net consequence is a gradual increase of wealth amongst populations through mutually beneficial transactions.


They were taught to read and now their descendants write posts in forums. This is their undeniable right of course.No it isn't, nobody has any "undeniable right" to post on an internet forum, this is Heero's forum and he can completely ban me on a whim, I have no legal rights here.

[Serotonin]

And I'll tell you why I think you are wrong. Last week when I was out taking pictures, I pulled past this driveway and got my car stuck in some snow. I wasn't too worried about it. When I got back I couldn't get it unstuck. Tried the floormats, tried pushing it, nothing. This guy was driving by with a grater and chained my car up to his grater and pulled it out. He didn't want anything in return, just seemed happy to do it.

I think for the most part, people want to help people. I come across it again and again. I don't know why, maybe people are just helpful, maybe they believe in karma, maybe someone in the church tells them they should. I can't say for sure.

I think the problem is that not everyone is like that and some people want to take advantage of those people and it makes people cynical. So when people don't do something they feel guilty. Then they feel like they need to justify why they won't help someone out. Really, it's just because they are an asshole but no one thinks they are an asshole.

People with special needs are probably treated better now than ever. It doesn't mean they are treated the way they should be, just better. They have special schools, integration into regular classrooms, jobs, friends, independant living, support from the government. All of this under a "market system".

Doesn't mean the assholes are gone though.

Canadians.... seem nice. At least maybe in the Calgary area. Along with, say, New Zealand and Britain, Ireland, France and Spain, and scandinavia they seem to value social inclusion over free-market economies. More leftist governments, more of a sense of "I'm happy to pay taxes if our society improves".

The U.S., Australia, south-east asia, Germany, Italy, Russia, India, China, Japan, South Africa (trying to think of more industrialised nations here) seem more brutal and pragmatic, and think more in economic rather than social terms, and warm to free-market economies more. Their current governments all seem to be on the conservative side currently (and we can count China's communist autocracy as being pretty hidebound).

So I guess it's a matter of where you live and what your cultural preference is. For me, I see economics occupying the thoughts and motivations of my own country, as well as the most powerful country in the world, the U.S. China may overtake it, but it too is now receiving the fruits of the free-market economy, and the Chinese, well, I hope this isn't too racist, are a relatively cold-blooded bunch. So are we, so are Americans.

Of course, I identify more with the social-welfare side of things, but I guess I'm living in the wrong country. :p

[Lee]

But when did I ever say I thought I could do these things? I've very aware that I cannot, yet that doesn't mean I should simply accept negativity as it exists.It was an implicit goal, you made complaints meaning that you were dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, which is fair enough. However, you spoke of educating people through "experience," your attitude tended to suggest that these were your goals, even if you realise you will never be able to achieve them


I never complained. Maybe you should re-read my posts and tell me where exactly I complained about how other people feel.Yeah you were, you were complaining about others being disrespectful to those with physical or mental disabilities, that's understandable, you should complain! they are being assholes most of the time


You also are mistaken in you assertion that I am suggesting to fix problems of which other people are not aware, or about which they share no concern. You've underestimate and misinterpreted my approach because you refuse to see my empirical data as relevent.I read your posts, I read about your experiences, but they do not change anything in what I have said, I took them into account fully.


You do, however, claim that because of economic principles, we cannot change attitudes.No, I do think there are things that can be done, you accuse me of not reading what you have said, but I quote myself:


It's not that I do not think anything can be done, but in order to keep a just and fair society, whatever is done must be done within that framework (though neither America or Britain quite encapsulates the just and fair society I speak of, they are close enough).

So, we have control over the rules. The rules define the system, yet they can be changed. How? You said it: by human desire. Where does human desire come from? I'd argue that it comes from (and evolves from) experience. Think of what I'm saying in terms of memetics. No, I certainly cannot teach people to care about things I care about by waving the proverbial magic wand. I'd be stupid to think so. But, attitudes can be passed on over time. They can evolve in an individual person's makeup, so why couldn't they evolve on a grander scale as well? This individual --> cultural evolution then in turn spawns modification of rules of "the system."The biology-atoms to economy-people comparison was quite loose, I simply used it to describe the rough relationship between the two.

You are right, we can change the rules, this is one of my points, you seem to believe I am simply arguing in favour of how things are, you couldn't be more wrong, I am arguing for a methodology. The methodology comes from ethics, no matter how imperfect a situation is, we cannot justify and end by the means. We all have rights, we all have to live in the same world and costs cannot be avoided.

One problem is that human nature is fairly consistent, people do not just learn through experience but are highly constrained by how the mind is innately structured, indeed we learn only where we have innate mechanisms to do so! you cannot arbitrarily tinker with "memes" and hope to achieve any great change, indeed it is incredibly presumptuous to believe we could even if we wanted to, how could any human adequately manipulate millions of people, there is chaos within the system, far too many variables to possibly take into account... it'd be like trying to predict the trajectory of every single drop of water from a rushing waterfall.

However, a method with a proven track record of satisfying peoples demands, respecting rights, providing physically and mentally disabled people with real lives worth living (after all, it wasn't that long ago that life would have been far worse for such people). We have come a long way, yet none of us can predict what will happen in the future, we also cannot break from ethical standards and individual rights in pursuit of any goal, no matter how noble it seems (recent history is littered with the horrendous consequences of that kind of politics).


I'm simply arguing for a more plastic methodology than you are. I'm bored with economics as you originally discussed it in this thread. Now, with your addition of "human" economics, how could I say you are wrong? I think our disagreement is more a matter of how we intend to implement the model. I will ascribe to your model of human economics, yet I will argue against your usage of it to defend and perpetuate intolerance.I have never ever suggested that intolerence should be perpetuated! I do not exactly like it when people are intolerent toward anybody with physical or mental disabilities, I would always encourage people to recognise their rights and treat them respectfully.

I think you see society as more plastic than I, of course, I think you are wrong and I believe the evidence backs me up, but to be honest, my point in this entire thread is about the method, not the results. Regardless of whether society is a little more or a little less plastic (and still workable!) the method, which is essentially a set of ethical rules should be applied consistently.

There is no large disagreement here, since I do not think you would advocate the proactive givernment schemes that basically amount to forcing one group to conform to anothers standards, IOW, using political force to take away rights. It's simply the temptation that is ever present, especially for someone who does the job that you do. It is often so wrapped up in rhetoric and good intentions that the unethical actions taken and damaging consequences are not seen or ignored.

My position is not one of hopeless pessimism, I do not think that people are right to be disrespectful to disabled people, but I do believe that it is there right not to care, ultimately there right not to care is more important than whether they are respectful or not.

[wildcat]

That depends where along the democratic development you decide to look, it has been true in the past that person/group A has benefited at the expense person or group B, but by and large democracy has allowed trade to flourish. Trade is when person/group A provides service/commodity to person/group B, a mutually beneficial transaction, adding wealth, rather than simply moving it around.

This situation has been characteristic of democracy and ever more so as democracy led to free market economics, equal rights were fully introduced and nobody was above the law. Indeed, mutually beneficial transactions have to have been characterictic of the last 10,000 years, otherwise development could not have happened if energy were simply being shifted around, the net consequence is a gradual increase of wealth amongst populations through mutually beneficial transactions.

No it isn't, nobody has any "undeniable right" to post on an internet forum, this is Heero's forum and he can completely ban me on a whim, I have no legal rights here.
You cannot explain Christians to a dinosaur and you cannot explain Lee to wildcats.
Middle class morality is an unknown concept in the jungle.

[mgb]

I'm starting to think Lee is some sort of long-winded free-market bot sent here to win arguments using attrition as his only tactic.

[kafkaesque]

I concede to Lee and others arguing that the theater management and the complaining customers were completely within their rights to do what they did.
They were not wrong per se, but they are nonetheless petty and small. I do not feel bad that their vacuous entertainments were disrupted.
A little more humanity and less sense-of-entitlement could have given them some perspective on the situation.

[Eileen]

I concede to Lee and others arguing that the theater management and the complaining customers were completely within their rights to do what they did.
They were not wrong per se, but they are nonetheless petty and small. I do not feel bad that their vacuous entertainments were disrupted.
A little more humanity and less sense-of-entitlement could have given them some perspective on the situation.

*nods*
This pretty much sums up my view on the matter.

[Ivy]

I concede to Lee and others arguing that the theater management and the complaining customers were completely within their rights to do what they did.
They were not wrong per se, but they are nonetheless petty and small. I do not feel bad that their vacuous entertainments were disrupted.
A little more humanity and less sense-of-entitlement could have given them some perspective on the situation.

That's it, in a nutshell. Perhaps they weren't wrong on paper (although, if not, I'd be tempted to change the paper) but honestly, get a grip.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

[...]Now you might claim that they are obligated to let him watch the movie because he paid for it, they made the mistake and will just have to refuse him next time. [...]I think that is the solution for everything that is not explicitly and legally forbidden. The owner still can control with whom to deal and there will be no hidden conditions in the deal.


[...]But that is just a shoddy standard of freedom, we will always have a limited selection of choices that could achieve our goals, as long as we live in a universe with other human beings, their choices will influence ours, but that is not an infringement of freedom, that simply reflects a necessary physical fact.And supplying minimal material standards to everyone gives them the necessary means to overcome the most fundamental physical limitations on their freedoms. Our ability as a society to do so is limited and optional, of course. Nevertheless, I think it is wise to supply material means if we seriously want individuals to have rights. We are wealthy enough to do so.

What is the difference between being threatened with a gun by your employer or with starvation? Many people do not have the choice to say no to a bad job offer, even though there is wealth enough. You say, so what - I say, let's compensate. Why? Because that way, they will be able to improve their lives and society's wealth, rather than subsist and nothing more.


Of course some of our goals are dependent on the decisions of others, such as the bank funding a new business, but then by your standard, the only way to achieve freedom in sexual relations is for everyone to never turn down anyone else, rape is justified because otherwise we are "restricting freedom" and therefore some warped vision of rights.That still doesn't justify the bank/employer using the sorry situation of others to claim all profit from a deal. At least, if you want society as a whole to benefit and not only the financial top.


So, there will always be some cases where discrimination on race or looks is justified, such as when you are looking for a lead star on your new movie about Martin Luther King's life, or when you are hiring a poll dancer, or even a waitress.If specifically and publicly stated beforehand, why not? But not to chicken out of a deal one agreed to, due to pressure from the richer group.


Again, you simply have impossible standards of rights, where one persons "rights" are not reconcilablewith another persons "right," for example the "right" of the kid in question to watch the movie and the "right" of the theatre owner to kick him out fro making too much noise.For the third time, if was too loud, ok.


But they were not violating his rights! he has no God or government given right to be there! it is part of a volunatry exchange, one the theatre management can terminate based on the terms and conditions of the ticket purchase... and not the coincidental objections of a larger customer base.

[Eileen]

You know, with all our technologies, you'd think that there could have been a way besides kicking the kid out to resolve the situation anyway. Headphones designed for the hard of hearing might have helped those whose movie experience was disturbed by the kid's glee.

I'm surprised--though maybe I've missed it--that people haven't really pulled out the equality versus equity card. I know that a movie theatre is very different from a school, but one thing that everyone does well to recognize is that treating everyone equally all of the time just doesn't work, because people have different needs. Giving people what they need (so that they can reach a level of assisted or unassisted condition in which they can be treated equally) is equity. Unless that gap between have and have-not is bridged, there's no sense in pretending to treat people equally. That's how schools are supposed to act; I don't expect private profitable institutions to behave exactly like schools, but it seems to me that it can at least be taken into account.

[wildcat]

That's it, in a nutshell. Perhaps they weren't wrong on paper (although, if not, I'd be tempted to change the paper) but honestly, get a grip.
Who cares what is wrong or not wrong on paper? This is a political matter. Democracy is adoration of the masses by the masses. The dictatorship of the ignorant. Majority rule leads to conformism and intolerance.

[waxwing]

It seems that I've not adequately expressed my approach, so I will attempt to do so here.

The problem with advocating for disabled people is not that I fail to understand society's expectations or the need to recognize the rights of others. Rather, the dilemma is that we are often dealing with two or more contradictory aims, and therefore, contradictory means of reaching those aims.

I deal with this on a daily basis. Would I take my client who regularly removes all his clothing to a beach (non-nude)? No. Even if he really enjoyed swimming, I would not. Why? He needs to learn natural consequences for undressing in public; he needs to realize that the general public doesn't see his behavior as cute, but as indecent exposure. Until he learns that taking of his clothes is not appropriate outside of bathing, toileting, or dressing, he cannot attend those public events where he would be inclined to do that. The difficulty lies in teaching those natural consequences to someone who doesn't naturally comprehend why he should not take off all his clothes. "It upsets people" doesn't cut it. "It's not appropriate" also doesn't. It's complicated and often a drawn-out process whereby the individual gradually, through experience, learns his boundaries in the public arena.

Now, would I take my autistic client who screams so loudly that she often frightens people to a dinner theater? No, I'd take her somewhere more appropriate for her cognitive/behavioral functioning, some place she'd equally enjoy. A similar scenario actually came up about a year ago at a staff meeting. My manager suggested that we take all six of our individuals to a dinner theater for a special night out. I was the only one who said no. In a situation like that, we run the risk of letting our so-called advocacy backfire. We very likely end up damaging community relations rather than improving them, and very possibly cause undue embarrassment and shame for our clients. In addition, another client is deaf and another has no interest in theater (or any entertainment that requires he to be stationary) whatsoever. Seemed like an obvious "no" to me. Instead I suggested that we have a big picnic at the park, invite family and friends, and even cater the event for added "specialness." All were satisfied, and we received much positive feedback from passersby. Questions about who these people were, chidren staring, smiles, some looks of bewilderment, and even a few who came and socialized with us for awhile. Yes, all of these were positive responses.

My examples are derivitates of the same basic principle underlying teaching natural consequences for problem behavior. Naturally, when you hit the chair ten times and then threaten me with your fist out of anger, 1. your hand will hurt and 2. you cause some sort of reaction in me. Anything I do as an advocate in that moment must fall in line with natural consequences (but as staff I cannot be the one to show how the general public might react in anger). Will I tell you that because you did that you cannot have a soda for dinner? No. Doesn't make sense. Not getting soda has nothing to do with your act of aggression. Logical progression is crucial when dealing with the developmentally disabled. May sound obvious, but really it's an ongoing debate in this field -- natural consequences versus "bubblepacked" behavioral plans which sometimes work at eradicating target behavior, but often fail in the long-term.

No doubt, we need a combination of natural consequenes and "bubblepacking." While a person in the general public may quickly learn that if he hits someone, he will get hit back, a person with a disability living in a group home may not be able to learn that within the home. I'm not saying that I'd like for my aggressive clients to get hit back when they hit someone, but I am saying that it's be valuable for them to recognize that behavior X leads to reaction Y and consequence Z. Goal here is to help clients assimilate into the community, not isolate them further.

Lee, the reason I object to your implementation is that you do not consider the side of "the advocated" enough. You may think you are, but in this case, it is necessary to do more than apply general principles to a specific case. That is my whole point about experience -- not that I can teach people through experience, but that it is sometimes necessary to start with a group of specific problems, study them first hand, and then derive general principles. Yours, therefore, are defective because you do not show evidence of understanding the particulars.

It also seems that you presume that advocacy is simply about ensuring "the advocated"'s rights, but here you are wrong again. Most decisions are made based on answers to these and similar questions:

1. Will client enjoy the activity? Might sound simple but language/expression limitations prevent many people with disabilities from telling you. It takes knowledge of and experience with individual.

2. If you think they'd generally enjoy the activity (or if the client is able to tell you that he would in fact enjoy it), then you next have to consider whether his attending would impinge on the rights and wishes of others in attendance. I already mentioned what happened with the suggestion of the dinner theater. This was not a good idea for several reasons, only one of them being that others in the theater may not be able to hear dialogue, and thus, would be wasting their money. My other reasons are the more difficult ones to arrive at, and seem to be the ones that equal stronger advocacy. It's important to realize that a misguided decision can hinder individual growth and taint the public's perception of people with disabilites. Not what we want at all.

3. Can community relations be potentially strengthened as a result of a particular client attending this event? If it is determined that there is greater potential for damaging relations, then I would decide against the outing, and suggest an alternative.

So, until you begin to consider "the advocated" and the role of the advocate a little more, I won't give much credence to your argument. I do not deny the general principles that you discuss, however I do see repercussions and manifestations from a different angle (because it is my job and desire to be an advocate).

To briefly revisit the original news story: Where do I stand? If his getting kicked out was truly a natural consequence for his behavior, then I might accept it. If, however, he suffered unnatural consequences due to his disabilities, then it was blatantly wrong. It's a grey area, and so I will not justify either his getting kicked out or the option of being allowed to stay while others would have been kicked out for similarly laughing too loudly and disturbing others in the theater. Yes, I might fault the mother for making a poor chioce, but I will not presume to know her decision-making process. Twice, I've taken individuals who are very capable of being quiet to the theater, and have had to leave with them partway through. There's nothing we can do about the unpredictability of human behavior. Five times they might do very well, and the sixth they might act inappropriately for the venue.

Seriously, I challenge you to get your hands dirty with real experience before making judgment calls in either direction. And, as a final note, please do not assume that I do my job with only one side in mind. If my goal is to understand and optimize relations in society, then seeing only the side of the advocated would really prove ineffective, even harmful.

[Lee]

There seems to be a rather big misunderstanding, the approach which you take here fits perfectly with the rules I am proposing. I did not propose that nothing could be done, but there are certain standards which I believe should not be broken, the method is more important than the intention.

It seems to me, whether you agree with my reasons or not, you do approach the problem in a manner that I feel is ethical and appropriate. I never really meant to argue some of your points, I guess my language is often more accusative than I intend. Some of our disagreements seemed to be me going off on tangents, and were misinterpreted as I arguing you and missing the point, fair enough, I think there were a few misunderstandings.


To briefly revisit the original news story: Where do I stand? If his getting kicked out was truly a natural consequence for his behavior, then I might accept it. If, however, he suffered unnatural consequences due to his disabilities, then it was blatantly wrong.What do you mean by "unnatural consequences"?


It's a grey area, and so I will not justify either his getting kicked out or the option of being allowed to stay while others would have been kicked out for similarly laughing too loudly and disturbing others in the theater. Yes, I might fault the mother for making a poor chioce, but I will not presume to know her decision-making process. Twice, I've taken individuals who are very capable of being quiet to the theater, and have had to leave with them partway through. There's nothing we can do about the unpredictability of human behavior. Five times they might do very well, and the sixth they might act inappropriately for the venue.There are two slightly different questions here, I think we are adressing the situation slightly differently, hence part of the disagreement.

Basically, there is the question of whether we think people should accomodate those less fortunate than themselves, it's a question of decency and many of us would be quite happy to put up with an inconvenience for someone less fortunate, whatever disability they have. Of course, there are limits, as you pointed out, certain behaviours step over that line where we cannot expect anybody to be tolerant.

Now, we can complain, we can try to encourage others to be more decent, have more empathy, likewise, people in your position (or the mother) should use good judgment to try and avoid situations where there is a strong possibility something like this might happen.

What I was objecting to was not your views (it seems), but more the view held by EnglishyIvy, whereby she believes that (or at least is tempted to) change the laws, remove the rights of the theatre owner and also intending to force others to put up with the kind of dsruptions you are intent on trying to avoid. EnglishIvy's attitude seems to me to be "Other people should be more considerate, and if they are not, then the government should do something to make them more considerate," that is my main objection in this thread, because property rights and free transactions are the foundation of the economy, nevermind the resentment such a policy would stir up in many people.

I may not like the idea of a someone being inconsiderate and disrespectful to people with disabilities, but the individual right to be an asshole is a very important right, as long as they are within their rights to take the actions they did, then I believe it is more important we respect their rights than to satisfy any individuals standards of decency, which need not be held by all.


Seriously, I challenge you to get your hands dirty with real experience before making judgment calls in either directrion. And, as a final note, please do not assume that I do my job with only one side in mind. If my goal is to understand and optimize relations in society, then seeing only the side of the advocated would really prove ineffective, even harmful.I didn't assume, at least I tried not to, I said "people in your position are often tempted," trying not to explicitly put thoughts in your head. I think my posting style simply came across more argumentative than I intended a few times.

If I am now reading you correctly, then I appluad your approach to the issues presented.

[mgb]

If I only had a heart...

http://www.eonet.ne.jp/~robot/MH_SuperGiant.jpg

[Lee]

You should have used a picture of the Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz, it would have been funnier.

[mgb]

You should have used a picture of the Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz, it would have been funnier.

I thought about it. But they just didn't have the technology and special effects back then, turns out it was just a guy in a costume.

You might be a guy in a costume as well, but I haven't seen a human response from you in this thread yet, so plastic toy it was.

[Lee]

I thought about it. But they just didn't have the technology and special effects back then, turns out it was just a guy in a costume.

You might be a guy in a costume as well, but I haven't seen a human response from you in this thread yet, so plastic toy it was.I am not sure why you are getting off on the idea that I do not have a heart, maybe it's because I hold my ethics to higher standards than simply a gut emotional reaction.

You can have all the empathy and good intentions you like, people with your attitude have a history of doing massive amounts of damage whilst pursuing good intentions, precisely because they let their feelings guide their actions unchecked by reason.

In response, I almost posted a picture of the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz, but the difference is that the Scarecrow really did have a brain, he just didn't realise it.

[mgb]

I am not sure why you are getting off on the idea that I do not have a heart, maybe it's because I hold my ethics to higher standards than simply a gut emotional reaction.

You can have all the empathy and good intentions you like, people with your attitude have a history of doing massive amounts of damage whilst pursuing good intentions, precisely because they let their feelings guide their actions unchecked by reason.

In response, I almost posted a picture of the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz, but the difference is that the Scarecrow really did have a brain, he just didn't realise it.

Screw ethical standards and fuck good intentions.

Some kid, was super happy and laughing his ass off at a movie. He probably didn't understand anything that was going on, he just knew his mom was mad and all of a sudden they are getting whisked out of the theatre, probably with an escort and he can't help but feel it's because he did something wrong.

Maybe if someone had taken 5 seconds and thought about how bad that kid was going to feel, compared to the actual joy people were going to feel at his removal, he might have stayed.

And don't give me that "people with your attitude" shit. "People" is what we are talking about here. Humans. Things with feelings. Things that connect us all, something inherent in all of us. If you can't understand that then maybe you are just a robot with no heart.

[digesthisickness]

i think we either have to assume that the only one's that complained were the type that would and that plenty were relieved when it was done so because they didn't want to look like a 'bad guy'.... AND/OR, someone needs to call the damn theatre owner and ask him how loud it was.

reason states, however, that had the kid just been laughing in a nondisruptive manner (like everyone does at a theatre showing a comedy), nothing would've been said at all. but this guy was laughing at parts that weren't even funny. which is the equivalent of someone talking during a movie. i can't hear what's being said when someone's laughing loudly/talking during the movie... can anyone else? i highly doubt it.

i don't care who says i don't have a heart... the truth is, is that if i can't hear what the hell is being said in a movie that i paid for (and my ticket counts just as much as that mother's purchase... also, shitty movie or not, i don't care, i paid for the same ticket that the mother did), then i'm going to be pissed.

anyway, it's the mother i blame. the poor kid was just being him. if she's so damn caring about whether he leads a 'normal' life and how he feels, then she wouldn't have put him in a situation that would guarantee that he would become the center of attention, ridicule and mocking. i think she was selfish as hell in doing so. also, i think she was just daring someone to say something, so she could bitch about it. it's not like she's never met her son... she knew he'd do what he did. am i to believe that he doesn't do the same at home? oh, she knew.

it wasn't her sons feelings that she was putting above every other person's in the world when she did that... it was her own. maybe doing things like this allows her to live with her burden, maybe she gets off on being a martyr... who knows.

do i have a heart? yes, i do. for instance, i wouldn't have done that to my child knowing full well that he's different than other people. (and yes he IS, whether the bleeding hearts like it or not). i'd love him and care how he feels more than she did... and i'd show it.

[Lee]

Screw ethical standards and fuck good intentions.Good place to start, interacting with other human beings should not involve ethical standards or good intentions. And you call me heartless.


Some kid, was super happy and laughing his ass off at a movie. He probably didn't understand anything that was going on, he just knew his mom was mad and all of a sudden they are getting whisked out of the theatre, probably with an escort and he can't help but feel it's because he did something wrong.

Maybe if someone had taken 5 seconds and thought about how bad that kid was going to feel, compared to the actual joy people were going to feel at his removal, he might have stayed.You can't quantify the feelings of those involved, weigh them off against one another and choose the option that you think more appropriate, nevermind the infringement on property rights and the kid's breaking of the terms and conditions of the ticket purshase.


And don't give me that "people with your attitude" shit. "People" is what we are talking about here. Humans. Things with feelings. Things that connect us all, something inherent in all of us. If you can't understand that then maybe you are just a robot with no heart.Sure, that's a convincing argument. Humans are things with feelings, but people have qualitively and quantitively different emotional responses to the same situation, there is absolutely no reason why the customers or the management should feel how you would prefer them to, there is no reason why they should give a shit about your standards of decency. You also provide no reason why we should sacrfice one parties rights for another, because you would prefer it, because I am sure they would not prefer your "solution" and you would never settle for those people using the law to make you behave like them.

Your "solution" is likely to only stir up negative feelings toward people with disabilities and those who look after them, a situation waxwing is adamant to avoid. Simply stating "people are human and have feelings, therefore they should care..." is pointless, because they clearly do not always care. Deal with reality rather than mgbradsh's fantasy land.

Assholes have rights too.

[kafkaesque]

I am not sure why you are getting off on the idea that I do not have a heart, maybe it's because I hold my ethics to higher standards than simply a gut emotional reaction.

You can have all the empathy and good intentions you like, people with your attitude have a history of doing massive amounts of damage whilst pursuing good intentions, precisely because they let their feelings guide their actions unchecked by reason.

In response, I almost posted a picture of the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz, but the difference is that the Scarecrow really did have a brain, he just didn't realise it.

I am pretty sure it was gut reaction unchecked by reason, and not high ethical standards, that compelled the people at the theater to complain to the management.

[mgb]

Good place to start, interacting with other human beings should not involve ethical standards or good intentions. And you call me heartless.

You can't quantify the feelings of those involved, weigh them off against one another and choose the option that you think more appropriate, nevermind the infringement on property rights and the kid's breaking of the terms and conditions of the ticket purshase.

Sure, that's a convincing argument. Humans are things with feelings, but people have qualitively and quantitively different emotional responses to the same situation, there is absolutely no reason why the customers or the management should feel how you would prefer them to, there is no reason why they should give a shit about your standards of decency. You also provide no reason why we should sacrfice one parties rights for another, because you would prefer it, because I am sure they would not prefer you vision and you would never settle for those people using the law to make you behave like them.

Your "solution" is likely to only stir up negative feelings toward people with disabilities and those who look after them, a situation waxwing is adamant to avoid.

Assholes have rights too.


I said screw eithical standards because when you are in the middle of a heated situation, they aren't going to come into play (well subconsiously they might). People aren't going to sit there and go, "Hmm, what do my ethical standards say about this? How about your ethical standards? Maybe we should have some coffee and decide ethically what the best thing to do here is."

Someone my be more predisposed to care about the kid, some less. But right when someone complains, ethics go down the toilet and people start doing what other people want and what a code of conduct says they should do.

[Lee]

I am pretty sure it was gut reaction unchecked by reason, and not high ethical standards, that compelled the people at the theater to complain to the management.Gut reaction isn't always bad, but it can be.

The history of politics is littered with well-meaning, but utterly counter-productive policies, most often motivated out of gut feelings, unchecked by reason. This does not mean that gut emotional responses are always wrong, in this case the product was the satsifaction of those emotions, so the response "this is annoying, I am paying the same price as him, the management shouldn't allow this disruption" is perfectly appropriate, of course, this does not necessitate action on behalf of the management, but the action to kick the person out is well within their rights.

[mgb]

i think we either have to assume that the only one's that complained were the type that would and that plenty were relieved when it was done so because they didn't want to look like a 'bad guy'.... AND/OR, someone needs to call the damn theatre owner and ask him how loud it was.

"Uhh, hi, I'm on this message board and we were debating if it was right to kick that kid out of your theatre, so I just have a couple questions. Do you remember how loud he was, and if not, could you get someone to talk to me who does know how loud he was."




reason states, however, that had the kid just been laughing in a nondisruptive manner (like everyone does at a theatre showing a comedy), nothing would've been said at all. but this guy was laughing at parts that weren't even funny. which is the equivalent of someone talking during a movie. i can't hear what's being said when someone's laughing loudly/talking during the movie... can anyone else? i highly doubt it.

Reason isn't going to state much when you have a bunch of angry people making the decisions.



i don't care who says i don't have a heart... the truth is, is that if i can't hear what the hell is being said in a movie that i paid for (and my ticket counts just as much as that mother's purchase... also, shitty movie or not, i don't care, i paid for the same ticket that the mother did), then i'm going to be pissed.

No one said you don't have a heart. I said Lee doesn't have a heart. Not because he hasn't showed any compassion, and he hasn't, but because his answers are completely devoid of any relatively human emotions about the subject. You for example said that you would be mad if it was you in the theatre. Mad=emotion. Fair enough. Lee says it's because society dictates all the rules and therefore, therefore, therefore. As such, he's either hiding behind an intellectual response because he doesn't know what the right answer is or what the most human thing to do in that situation is, or he's a robot with no heart. I choose robot with no heart.


anyway, it's the mother i blame. the poor kid was just being him. if she's so damn caring about whether he leads a 'normal' life and how he feels, then she wouldn't have put him in a situation that would guarantee that he would become the center of ridicule and mocking. i think she was selfish as hell in doing so. also, i think she was just daring someone to say something, so she could bitch about it. it's not like she's never met her son... she knew he'd do what he did. am i to believe that he doesn't do the same at home? oh, she knew.

So take it out on the damn mother.



it wasn't her sons feelings that she was putting above every other person's in the world when she did that... it was her own. maybe doing things like this allows her to live with her burden, maybe she gets off on being a martyr... who knows. Someone has to put her son's feelings first. Might as well be her.



do i have a heart? yes, i do. for instance, i wouldn't have done that to my child knowing full well that he's different than other people. (and yes he IS, whether the bleeding hearts like it or not). i'd love him and care how he feels more than she did... and i'd show it.

Yes I agree. You do have a heart. We all know the kid is different, that's not really in question. Like someone said before, it's equity at issue, not equility.

[mgb]

Gut reaction isn't always bad, but it can be.

The history of politics is littered with well-meaning, but utterly counter-productive policies, most often motivated out of gut feelings, unchecked by reason.

Don't listen to him. He just wants a council of his robot bretheren to rule the Earth. It's a trap.

[jittus rye]

I believe it is in most movie theaters' policies that everyone is supposed to be quiet even if the movie showing is a comedy.

If that's the only policy, then the theater cannot selectively enforce the policy based on noise level, unless they have some "special" definition of what quiet is.

If the policy is along the lines of don't be "disruptive." Then that changes things a bit. Disruptive by who's standards? One patron's standards? The theater's standards? I'd think it'd work best working from the "theater's standards," whenever there is an actual complaint.

Just because someone doesn't know they are doing something that could cause them to be considered "at fault" and disruptive, doesn't change whether or not that person needs to be penalized for it. It doesn't matter how 'bullshitty' it is. If that's how the policy is setup. There's nothing else that should be done besides follow it.

I don't know why people don't build in exception clauses if that's what they want. Very few rules/laws I know of have 'intent and circumstance' in them. Once while I was in school, a retarded person was directed to invade my person space by a teacher, hugging me. I considered it sexual harrassment because the teacher was concious of the school's policy on such things. It was clearly a violation of the "student handbook."

[mgb]

I believe it is in most movie theaters' policies that everyone is supposed to be quiet even if the movie showing is a comedy.

If that's the only policy, then the theater cannot selectively enforce the policy based on noise level, unless they have some "special" definition of what quiet is.

If the policy is along the lines of don't be "disruptive." Then that changes things a bit. Disruptive by who's standards? One patron's standards? The theater's standards? I'd think it'd work best working from the "theater's standards," whenever there is an actual complaint.

Just because someone doesn't know they are doing something that could cause them to be considered "at fault" and disruptive, doesn't change whether or not that person needs to be penalized for it. It doesn't matter how 'bullshitty' it is. If that's how the policy is setup. There's nothing else that should be done besides follow it.

I don't know why people don't build in exception clauses if that's what they want. Very few rules/laws I know of have 'intent and circumstance' in them. Once while I was in school, a retarded person was directed to invade my person space by a teacher, hugging me. I considered it sexual harrassment because the teacher was concious of the school's policy on such things. It was clearly a violation of the "student handbook."


They should give you a nightstick and a decible reader to patrol theatres and make sure people aren't being "disruptive".

[kafkaesque]

Gut reaction isn't always bad, but it can be.

The history of politics is littered with well-meaning, but utterly counter-productive policies, most often motivated out of gut feelings, unchecked by reason. This does not mean that gut emotional responses are always wrong, in this case the product was the satsifaction of those emotions, so the response "this is annoying, I am paying the same price as him, the management shouldn't allow this disruption" is perfectly appropriate, of course, this does not necessitate action on behalf of the management, but the action to kick the person out is well within their rights.
Instead of the history of politics just consider what was at stake in this situation.

"this is annoying, I am paying the same price as him, the management shouldn't allow this disruption" is a natural response. And the people who have this response in regard to a canned hollywood comedy remake versus the joyful (albeit disruptive) outbursts of a mentally handicapped teen are perfectly within their rights to be petty and small about it.
But they could choose to just let it be and their life would not be the worse for it.

[mgb]

Instead of the history of politics just consider what was at stake in this situation.

"this is annoying, I am paying the same price as him, the management shouldn't allow this disruption" is a natural response. And the people who have this response in regard to a canned hollywood comedy remake versus the joyful (albeit disruptive) outbursts of a mentally handicapped teen are perfectly within their rights to be petty and small about it.
But they could choose to just let it be and their life would not be the worse for it.

So I went to www.rottentomatoes.com and looked up The Pink Panther. Seems like Xander's type of movie, panned by all the critics. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pink_panther/)

Anyways, another response could have been to go to guest services and ask for a ticket to another movie. Given how poor a movie the Pink Panther was (this shouldn't be in dispute at all) they would have happily done it within the first 30 minutes and probably even longer given disruption, I mean if it was bothering someone that much. That way the theatre isn't out any money, people got to see how bad the movie was before they went to another movie and are happy, and the kid got to laugh his ass off for two hours. Everyone's happy accept for the people who made the Pink Panther who lost precious box office dollars which they should never have had in the first place.

[Lee]

Instead of the history of politics just consider what was at stake in this situation.

"this is annoying, I am paying the same price as him, the management shouldn't allow this disruption" is a natural response. And the people who have this response in regard to a canned hollywood comedy remake versus the joyful (albeit disruptive) outbursts of a mentally handicapped teen are perfectly within their rights to be petty and small about it.
But they could choose to just let it be and their life would not be the worse for it.They could do, really it depends on how much of a disturbance was being caused, something neither of us know. I am not saying I like it when people are assholes like that, I would try to convince them to think otherwise before complaining, but how you think they should act is irrelevent, different people have different motivations in life, if you do not want people trying to dictate yours, then you can't dictate theirs, only try to convince, it has to be a free choice.

[mgb]

I am not saying I like it when people are assholes like that

Yay!!!

*claps and screams really loud*

*thinks some people might think it's too loud and stops*

[Nemesis]

Yeah you're right everyone. I can totally see how it's justifiable that people not be understanding. I mean laughing at funny parts? God, what an inconsiderate mother fucker. He should have kept his angelman syndrome under control while he was there.

[waxwing]

Yeah you're right everyone. I can totally see how it's justifiable that people not be understanding. I mean laughing at funny parts? God, what an inconsiderate mother fucker. He should have kept his angelman syndrome under control while he was there.
I really hope that was couched in a healthy amount of sarcasm.

[Nemesis]

I really hope that was couched in a healthy amount of sarcasm.
It was.

[Edit] Whenever I say something like "you're right, everyone" I'm either being jaded or I'm intoxicated.

[wildcat]

i think we either have to assume that the only one's that complained were the type that would and that plenty were relieved when it was done so because they didn't want to look like a 'bad guy'.... AND/OR, someone needs to call the damn theatre owner and ask him how loud it was.

reason states, however, that had the kid just been laughing in a nondisruptive manner (like everyone does at a theatre showing a comedy), nothing would've been said at all. but this guy was laughing at parts that weren't even funny. which is the equivalent of someone talking during a movie. i can't hear what's being said when someone's laughing loudly/talking during the movie... can anyone else? i highly doubt it.

i don't care who says i don't have a heart... the truth is, is that if i can't hear what the hell is being said in a movie that i paid for (and my ticket counts just as much as that mother's purchase... also, shitty movie or not, i don't care, i paid for the same ticket that the mother did), then i'm going to be pissed.

anyway, it's the mother i blame. the poor kid was just being him. if she's so damn caring about whether he leads a 'normal' life and how he feels, then she wouldn't have put him in a situation that would guarantee that he would become the center of attention, ridicule and mocking. i think she was selfish as hell in doing so. also, i think she was just daring someone to say something, so she could bitch about it. it's not like she's never met her son... she knew he'd do what he did. am i to believe that he doesn't do the same at home? oh, she knew.

it wasn't her sons feelings that she was putting above every other person's in the world when she did that... it was her own. maybe doing things like this allows her to live with her burden, maybe she gets off on being a martyr... who knows.

do i have a heart? yes, i do. for instance, i wouldn't have done that to my child knowing full well that he's different than other people. (and yes he IS, whether the bleeding hearts like it or not). i'd love him and care how he feels more than she did... and i'd show it.
I have to make a confession.
I have sinned. My Godfather told me I have to write this confessional.
I asked my Godfather a permission to write a PM. No no, he said, you have to repent IN A PUBLIC CONFESSIONAL.

I have torn my shirt already. As a sign of repentance you know.
Digest this sickness, please forgive me. May I kiss your hand?

So. It is done now.
My Godfather will be so happy. I shall have to tear no more shirts.
I still have to pour some ash over my hair though.
I never leave anything in midway.
I very much suspect I am a perfectionist.

[Eileen]

Yay!!!

*claps and screams really loud*

*thinks some people might think it's too loud and stops*

*snorts*

[digesthisickness]

"Uhh, hi, I'm on this message board and we were debating if it was right to kick that kid out of your theatre, so I just have a couple questions. Do you remember how loud he was, and if not, could you get someone to talk to me who does know how loud he was."

i was making the point that no one knows.... no one but the owner and the people who were in the theatre. (that is as far as loudness... the fact that he was disruptive during parts of the film that weren't funny... well, at least to the rest of us... was stated in the article)


Reason isn't going to state much when you have a bunch of angry people making the decisions.

that's right... angry. and given the fact that people, for the most part, don't just spontaneously become angry, i'd say they had a reason.


No one said you don't have a heart. I said Lee doesn't have a heart. Not because he hasn't showed any compassion, and he hasn't, but because his answers are completely devoid of any relatively human emotions about the subject. You for example said that you would be mad if it was you in the theatre. Mad=emotion. Fair enough. Lee says it's because society dictates all the rules and therefore, therefore, therefore. As such, he's either hiding behind an intellectual response because he doesn't know what the right answer is or what the most human thing to do in that situation is, or he's a robot with no heart. I choose robot with no heart.

ahhh, no one said that i don't have a heart yet. i simply stated that in case. however, as far as you... duly noted, and i appreciate your realizing that i do.


So take it out on the damn mother.

ummm, that's what i was DOING. it's not like i can find her and smack her.


Someone has to put her son's feelings first. Might as well be her.

again... i don't think she was. she, knowing full well that he'd be the center of attention... in a bad way (including due to her actions and words), took him there under what i see as under the guise that she was doing it for him. so many people keep bringing up his 'embarrassment'. i believe that she made it much worse by bitching loudly in the theatre, then going so far as to bitch to the media. (if he's capable of feeling embarrassment, then, fine... i imagine that he's also capable of thinking, "god, mom, just let it GO!")


Yes I agree. You do have a heart. We all know the kid is different, that's not really in question. Like someone said before, it's equity at issue, not equility.

again... i appreciate you saying that. i hope others see it the same way.

[mgb]

that's right... angry. and given the fact that people, for the most part, don't just spontaneously become angry, i'd say they had a reason.


Isn't humor subjective? I mean, I'm sure he thought those parts were hilarious too, doesn't that make them funny then?

I often find myself laughing in movies at parts no one else is. I think it's because people are dumb and don't get why it's funny, but maybe it's me.

[digesthisickness]

Isn't humor subjective? I mean, I'm sure he thought those parts were hilarious too, doesn't that make them funny then?

i'd already edited that part before you brought it up. (i think :)). but anyway, of course he (like everyone else) is going to laugh at parts that others don't. but let's keep in mind that he was doing it in such a way that it made those parts of the movie unhearable. (and being that the mother isn't retarded or impaired.. i believe she knew what to expect) and that would've gotten anyone kicked out or bitched at.

for instance, if you were at my house, and we were watching a comedy, and you kept laughing loudly at shit that wasn't meant to be funny causing me to think, "wtf... what the hell did so-and-so just say?", i'd have said, "mgbradsh, hun, please... could you snicker or something instead? i can't hear when you do that." whether you were in a wheelchair, was bald, was retarded or not. i consider THAT treating people as if they aren't disabled, with the respect that they deserve.

either way, if i've paid to watch a movie, and a guardian (knowing i've done so) chooses to interrupt that experience (hearing AND seeing it... thus making my tickets worthless), then it's the guardian that i'd blame. i expect a disabled person to act like a disabled person; however, i also expect an abled person to act like one, 1. have some damn sense, and 2. not use the disabled person to make themselves look like a saint... which is what i think she was doing by using that poor child to draw attention to herself.


I often find myself laughing in movies at parts no one else is. I think it's because people are dumb and don't get why it's funny, but maybe it's me.

nah... i do the same thing. i just try to take the other people viewing into consideration... like that mother should have

[digesthisickness]

I have to make a confession.
I have sinned. My Godfather told me I have to write this confessional.
I asked my Godfather a permission to write a PM. No no, he said, you have to repent IN A PUBLIC CONFESSIONAL.

I have torn my shirt already. As a sign of repentance you know.
Digest this sickness, please forgive me. May I kiss your hand?

So. It is done now.
My Godfather will be so happy. I shall have to tear no more shirts.
I still have to pour some ash over my hair though.
I never leave anything in midway.
I very much suspect I am a perfectionist.

well, that's confusing as hell. are you insulting me or not? if so, could you do it in such a way that it makes sense? if not... could you do it in such a way that it makes sense?

[waxwing]

that's right... angry. and given the fact that people, for the most part, don't just spontaneously become angry, i'd say they had a reason.

It's too easy to assume that the disabled boy was the one with the spontaneous fit of laughter while the other customers were the ones rightfully angry. Who's to say that the boy didn't have greater reason to laugh (due to his condition) and that the people did in fact become inordinately angry? There's no way to really measure their reasons against his because of the varying cognitive functioning levels. Assuming that the other customers had a more valid reason is sort of egocentric, and also ignores the problem of disparity.

[digesthisickness]

It's too easy to assume that the disabled boy was the one with the spontaneous fit of laughter while the other customers were the ones rightfully angry. Who's to say that the boy didn't have greater reason to laugh (due to his condition) and that the people did in fact become inordinately angry? There's no way to really measure their reasons against his because of the varying cognitive functioning levels.

assuming you're right, this is why i blame the mother. she knew it would anger the numerous other people who went there to not only see the movie, but hear it as well. yet, she chose (without taking how it would effect him into account... obviously) to expose him to this anyway. while he may not have known better... she certainly understood that what she was doing was inconsiderate to the other people who had every reason to assume that they'd be able to get their money's worth.

she... as a loving mother... had the responsibility to come up with an alternative.

my summary: the mother is more of a disability than his obvious one

[wildcat]

well, that's confusing as hell. are you insulting me or not? if so, could you do it in such a way that it makes sense? if not... could you do it in such a way that it makes sense?
Have you been in the badlands of Nebraska? Take a tour. See the sights.
Do you know that in some backward isolate hillbilly premises more than half of the population are regarded as handicapped? And what do you in your stuffed shirt intolerance presume to know about these people? Nothing. How dare you write about them then? Learn first some facts about life. Leave the asphalt. Come back when you are ready.
The same goes for Lee, too.

[digesthisickness]

Have you been in the badlands of Nebraska? Take a tour. See the sights.
Do you know that in some backward isolate hillbilly premises more than half of the population are regarded as handicapped? And what do you in your stuffed shirt intolerance presume to know about these people? Nothing. How dare you write about them then? Learn first some facts about life. Leave the asphalt. Come back when you are ready.
The same goes for Lee, too.

how dare YOU tell me what i do or do NOT know about.

i'd continue further with you, but judging from what i've seen/read so far, i can't think of one good thing about you that makes it worth it.

[mgb]

how dare YOU tell me what i do or do NOT know about.

i'd continue further with you, but judging from what i've seen/read so far, i can't think of one good thing about you that makes it worth it.

So how about you tell us about what you do or do not know.

What's your experience so far with people who have disabilities, physical, mental or both?

[wildcat]

how dare YOU tell me what i do or do NOT know about.

i'd continue further with you, but judging from what i've seen/read so far, i can't think of one good thing about you that makes it worth it.
In my family there have been very many handicapped people. The one good thing about me is that I know the subject of this thread.

[digesthisickness]

In my family there have been very many handicapped people. The one good thing about me is that I know the subject of this thread.

then put it to good use instead of assuming you know shit about other posters that you don't

[Lee]

The same goes for Lee, too.At least mgbradsh has the decency to read my posts and misunderstand them, you seem to have simply not read them. I am not promoting intolerance, I am not intolerant myself. I am talking about the importance of freedom and the rights of all involved, which is why I do not support what others have touted as solutions to the problem, because I do not believe they are solutions at all, certainly not acceptable solutions.

I have explained my case, more than once, so fuck off with your "personal experience of hanicapped people," that does not make you an authority on the matter, especially when it comes to the broader social repurcussions. You haven't exactly made an argument at all, you have just made insinuations from a supposed moral highground.

So you have probably had more experience than me with mentally handicapped people, so what? I know policemen who have far more direct experience with criminals than most political scientists, this does not mean they understand the broader societal patterns and consequences better.

If you have something helpful to say, please say it, because at the moment you are just whining on and casting unsupported accusations at me! :mad:

[digesthisickness]

So how about you tell us about what you do or do not know.

What's your experience so far with people who have disabilities, physical, mental or both?

cancer, sugar diabetes, blindness, deafness, borderline disorder, depression...

i have experience. some that i haven't even listed here.

[wildcat]

At least mgbradsh has the decency to read my posts and misunderstand them, you seem to have simply not read them. I am not promoting intolerance, I am not intolerant myself. I am talking about the importance of freedom and the rights of all involved, which is why I do not support what others have touted as solutions to the problem, because I do not believe they are solutions at all, certainly not acceptable solutions.

I have explained my case, more than once, so fuck off with your "personal experience of hanicapped people," that does not make you an authority on the matter, especially when it comes to the broader social repurcussions. You haven't exactly made an argument at all, you have just made insinuations from a supposed moral highground.

So you have probably had more experience than me with mentally handicapped people, so what? I know policemen who have far more direct experience with criminals than most political scientists, this does not mean they understand the broader societal patterns and consequences better.

If you have something helpful to say, please say it, because at the moment you are just whining on and casting unsupported accusations at me! :mad:
IQ does not measure intelligence. IQ is a social norm created by the exponents of the neurotypical majority. It makes them feel good about themselves. So they can kick neuroatypical people out of a movie house should these dare to laugh in a comic movie.

[Lee]

IQ does not measure intelligence. IQ is a social norm created by the exponents of the neurotypical majority. It makes them feel good about themselves. So they can kick neuroatypical people out of a movie house should these dare to laugh in a comic movie.Yes, you have unmasked the conspiracy behind IQ, to kick neuroatypical people out of theatres.

I like that term "neuroatypical," you know who else are neuroatypical? geniuses who score very highly on IQ tests, they are very neuroatypical.

[wildcat]

Yes, you have unmasked the conspiracy behind IQ, to kick neuroatypical people out of theatres.

I like that term "neuroatypical," you know who else are neuroatypical? geniuses who score very highly on IQ tests, they are very neuroatypical.
Name one genius.

[Lee]

Name one genius.Isaac Newton.

[wildcat]

Isaac Newton.
I thought IQ tests were not developed in Newton´s day. But, as Mgbradsh recently kindly informed us, even wildcats have blank points. Thank you Lee for correcting me.

[Lee]

I thought IQ tests was not developed in Newton´s day.You asked me to name a genius, not a person with a high IQ. Anyway, I think it is a pretty safe bet that if we could administer an IQ to test to Isaac Newton, he would score pretty high.

[wildcat]

You asked me to name a genius, not a person with a high IQ. Anyway, I think it is a pretty safe bet that if we could administer an IQ to test to Isaac Newton, he would score pretty high.
We do not bet. Stand behind your word. Name a 20th Century genius with a high IQ who is a neuroatypical. Tough job, eh?

[Lee]

We do not bet. Stand behind your word. Name a 20th Century genius with a high IQ who is a neuroatypical. Tough job, eh?No, not at all, you obviously missed my point.

"neuro" is a prefix, which means relating to the brain. "atypical" simply means irregular or unusual. So "neuroatypical" means irregular-brain, or unusual-brain. Since intelligence is seated in the brain, a product of neurocomputation, it is safe to say that any person of exceptionally high intelligence is neuroatypical. Very high IQ scores are very unusual, any brain which is capable of such a feat is by defintion neuroatypical.

I am sure the term has been hijacked by those looking for a more politically acceptable description for a particular group of mental deficiencies, but that is not the definition I am working from, indeed it's an entirely misleading use of language which I do not want any part of.