Re: Elevators and exclusions | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Brian Bartholomew (bbstat.ufl.edu) | |
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 01:11:22 -0700 (PDT) |
> I don't think anyone would suggest the able-bodied are inherently > privileged. Privilege, as you point out, relates to how social > systems do or do not advantage certain classes (e.g., special laws > for the nobility). If there is accessibility built into the > community, then there are no privileged classes in that regard. If > the community has limited accessibility, then the able-bodied are > privileged by that deficiency through no fault of their own. I do not wish to confuse the effects of legal systems and social systems. Complying with the law is not optional. Complying with community cultural expectations that have not risen to the strictness of enforcement as laws *is* optional. My claim was that privileges were granted only by laws. Aspects of an environment uncontrolled by law, such as a permitted lack of elevators, could not confer privilege. If you want to talk about how architectural features disadvantage various groups, without reference to whether the feature is mandated or prohibited by law, then perhaps we should use a different word besides "privilege". Brian
- Re: $19K elevator, (continued)
- Re: $19K elevator Lise Beals, May 12 2008
-
Re: Elevators and exclusions Brian Bartholomew, May 9 2008
-
Re: Elevators and exclusions John Faust, May 9 2008
- accessibility, privilege, survey, dialogue and other misc. thoughts laura, May 9 2008
- Re: Elevators and exclusions Brian Bartholomew, May 10 2008
-
Re: Elevators and exclusions John Faust, May 9 2008
- Privilege (was Re: Elevators and exclusions) Catya Belfer-Shevett, May 10 2008
- Re: Elevators and exclusions melanie griffin, May 10 2008
- Re: Elevators and exclusions Randy Sailer, May 12 2008
- Re: Elevators and exclusions Randy Sailer, May 20 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.