That is how this story should have gone down.
Er... you know that Segway was actually a spin-off technology from the iBot, which was basically a Segway wheelchair with a second pair of wheels it could use in places that were too unstable for Segway-like operation (read: sand at a beach), when the user wanted to lower the chair down to normal seating height (to sit at a table/desk or converse), or even to climb stairs.
Actually, I was not aware of that. Thank you for informing me about it.
You know, I really hate lmgtfy. It implies that there are such things as stupid questions, which is something that I try to not believe in. And why should anyone ask anything of anyone else, when non-judgmental google is just a mouse-click away? It's not like someone might want to contribute to a semi-realtime conversation with other actual humans, right?
I was genuinely curious what kinds of disabilities a segway would help with. I mean, if you can stand and lean, that implies that you can walk, does it not? And if you can walk, what do you need a seqway for? What part of your disability is it compensating for at that point?
Now? I don't know. But the attitude that I read in your post? I wouldn't be surprised if those kinds of attitudes are part of the reason some people "go ape shit over someone who has an actual disability".
I thought that's what those scooters were for.
Yeah, it's a disability. Deal with it.
Whether or not it is a disability, I just cannot imagine an obese person using a segway. Wouldn't they prefer an option that did not require them to stand?
Did I do a good job pointing out what a terrible, terrible idea that is? Or do I need to go with something more ridiculous?
I think you need to go with something less ridiculous, not more. You need to look at the reason clarkkent09 does not want such a law, which is it would preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future. Public masturbation and carrying around a shoulder-fired grenade launcher in public I suspect are both currently illegal by themselves, and I don't see why adding "while operating a motor vehicle" would change that. So lets try something that, by itself, is not illegal. The consumption of alcohol.
If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while completely plastered than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?
She would not know, she did not make it.
Why does she need to have made the dish in order to know what is in it? She just needs to know who to ask. And in my experience, regarding peanut allergies and cherry allergies, if they don't know off the top of their head, they've always known who to ask.
But I agree that the whole "not really zero, it's just low enough that we're allowed to call it zero" thing is bullshit.
Another person doesn't like spinach, and wants to remove spinach from the planet, such that no one can eat it, not even those that do like spinach.
Not all things deserve tolerance. And me not tolerating that other person's feelings does not make me "just as big of a douchbag".
whether a person sees the movie or not doesn't effect his bottom line.
"Wow, look at how well Ender's Game did! We should get the rights for more of this guy's books!"
"Wow, look at what a flop Ender's Game was. Guess we won't be doing any more with this guy's books."