View Single Post
Old 06-03-2009, 04:05 PM   #93
zerospinboson
"Assume a can opener..."
zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zerospinboson ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
zerospinboson's Avatar
 
Posts: 755
Karma: 1942109
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Local Cluster
Device: iLiad v2, DR1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce View Post
What you were responding to was the notion that legislation requiring publishers to allow access to books for the visually impaired was cost-prohibitive. My point was that legislation requiring businesses to allow access to the disabled did not seem to be so; the costs were absorbed.
You do realise the difference between a one-time investment and a cost that is incurred every time you publish a book, right? And how one is substantially higher than the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce View Post
Dismissing them as red herrings doesn't make them so. If you can't show how the logic you're advocating applies to one situation and not the other then you're just reciting talking points with little understanding of the reasons behind them.
No, the burden of proof is on the person positing, not on the person discrediting. That only starts once something is accepted as fact.
Anyway, I'll bite:
Quote:
Saying poor people need to pay the same amount for the same work as rich people is possibly discrimination as well, and in any case not just by the same logic.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "discrimination" is a term that is not legally&Medically circumscribed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce View Post
I thought I responded to every relevant point you made that warranted a response.
Really? Not even the bit about how "fair" refers to the fact that you get a limited time monopoly, and not to the fair in the sense of "any price I want". As you probably already realise, a price of 10000$ is not "fair", as it won't sell any copies; OTOH, it's unproblematic, because noone is forced to buy it. However, once you start selling your book at a price point at which it becomes a good seller, you're being "unfair" by saying that only non-blinds can read it, unless they pay the alternative price.
As long as you're not being read, I doubt the blind people will care that it's not available, though.

Quote:
Unless the point was "how dare you oppose anything that could help disabled people, you horrible, horrible person you" in which case I and Barack Obama both seem to be in the same position.
Why are you so hard trying to make a straw man out of me?
As you said so eloquently before, "I don't see how you got anything like that from what I wrote, unless colored by your own prejudices.".

Last edited by zerospinboson; 06-03-2009 at 04:09 PM.
zerospinboson is offline   Reply With Quote