Families of autistic kids sue Disney over queue policy

slithernoggin said:

What I have been taking from Gonch's posts is that his position is that absent the ability to stand in a line, a person should not go to a place where there are lines.

In a general sense, yes. But I didn't take his posts as a blanket statement that autistic people should not go to parks because there are lines there. Rather, that they shouldn't stand in line for something if they have issues standing in line.

I think it's a given that much of a day at an amusement park will likely be spent standing in line, so one who has difficulty standing in lines might want to rethink going to said park should that be the case. In no way did I take from the context that no one with autism should ever go to an amusement park.

Vater said:
Seriously, some people here could be politicians, the way Gonch's words have been completely misunderstood, twisted, and/or taken out of context.

Right because no one here ever selectively quotes a half-dozen times to make their point, right?

Lord Gonchar said:

I don't get what's 'unreasonable' with accepting the idea that people with limitations might be limited in what they can do. It doesn't mean we can't try to improve things, it doesn't mean they have to be excluded from everything, it doesn't mean there can't be lollipops and rainbows, it doesn't mean I'm an emotionless curmudgeon, it doesn't mean anything other that what it is - a realistic assessment of the situation.

This is convenient for you to say, because you're taking both sides of the argument. Disney has tried to improve things, and sue-happy doucehbags aside, most of us agree they've succeeded.

So if you say some people are just limited, and that's that, but it's cool if a company tries to accommodate, then what exactly is it that you're arguing about? How has this gone five pages? Specifically, in this story, do you agree that Disney did the right thing?

I hear there are several universities offering courses on my posts this fall. Gonchology 101.

Here we go:

LostKause said:

Gonch, while I understand where you are coming from, I do find it strange that you are against letting people with Autism to the front of the line when you are not against letting the family with more disposable income be offered to pay to be allowed to cut to the front.

Never said that.

By all means, businesses should do whatever they feel necessary and reasonable to accomodate people of all kinds. However, understand that all places aren't going to be able to accomodate in ways that cover everyone all the time. If you have a condition/disability/whatever that prevents you from doing an activity, that should come with knowing that you may be prevented from doing that activity in life by default.

Although, FOL would be another way one might compensate for their disability and be able to participate.

slithernoggin said:

What I take away from what Gonchar is saying is just that: if you can't wait in line, you can't ride rides. Maybe I'm missing something.

No. That's kind of what I'm saying. Unless, of course, either you or the facility has taken extra measures to accomodate you in a manner satisfactory to your individual needs.

Why would the blind guy to an art museum? I used to work near Chicago's Museum of Contemporary Art; they often had exhibits that could be touched or listened to, not just seen. Why shouldn't the blind guy to an art museum and enjoy the art?

Forgot I was at CoasterBuzz - the most literal place on Earth.

Pretend it's a museum with no exhibits to be touched or listened to.

What I have been taking from Gonch's posts is that his position is that absent the ability to stand in a line, a person should not go to a place where there are lines.

Again, kind of.

If a person is absent the ability to fly they shouldn't fly.

(I think this is where someone questions that statement by missing the point entirely and replying with a laundry list of way you can fly - airplane, hot air balloon, hang glider, strong wind and an umbrella...)

Jeff said:
Right because no one here ever selectively quotes a half-dozen times to make their point, right?

But I don't change people's words or say they said something they didn't. (at least to the best of my ability)

I make many quotes because the discussions are multi-faceted with many participants. It's confusing enough already - without the quotes, it'd be stupid. (even more so than it is now)

This is convenient for you to say, because you're taking both sides of the argument. Disney has tried to improve things, and sue-happy doucehbags aside, most of us agree they've succeeded.

Pretty much anyone who agress that Disney has done the right thing and also that the lawsuit is crap is taking both sides. There's improved access, but based on the lawsuit, it is not all-inclusive. The people suing need to understand they may not be able to visit Disney due to their disabilities.

Or are you guys really suggesting (after telling me no one knows exactly what each guest might need) that Disney has done enough to accomodate these people and they're full of crap?

So if you say some people are just limited, and that's that, but it's cool if a company tries to accommodate, then what exactly is it that you're arguing about?

The shades of grey, I guess. The degree to which one should expect to be able to participate if they have disabilities. The finer points. The details. I dunno, I'm not the one that keeps telling me I'm wrong.

How has this gone five pages?

Because sparring with Gonch is a spectator sport.

Specifically, in this story, do you agree that Disney did the right thing?

I think they've done more than enough.

Lord Gonchar said:

Forgot I was at CoasterBuzz - the most literal place on Earth.

Pretend it's a museum with no exhibits to be touched or listened to.

Well, I'm hard-wired to be literal. Can't speak for Coasterbuzz at large, but that's just how I am.

Why should I pretend there's a museum with no exhibits to be touched or listened to when 87% of the museums I've been to do have such exhibits?

You shouldn't. You should sue Gonch to make him come up with an analogy that you would understand.

Seriously? You're realize that 13% of museums you've been to fit his category yet you refuse to allow those you've personally experienced be part of the equation.

That isn't you being incapable of something, it's you refusing to acknowledge something.

Seriously? The vast majority of museums don't fit his criteria means that he's right?

My first thought was that museums have paintings, and paintings can't really be appreciated without seeing them.

I dunno, perhaps "going to a silent film" would be a better analogy. Or would your counter-argument be that there might be blind people who really dig ragtime piano?

1. You're still taking the comment MUCH too literally. It's analogy. A blind guy doesn't go where sight is necessary for enjoyment of the venue.

2. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that I said ART museum - which is meant to imply paintings, sculptures and a generally hands-off experience. It's not a literally-worded comment.

Your difficulty with my phrasing and verbiage in my examples/analogies is an all too perfect example given the topic at hand.

Seems like it kinda came all the way around there for a second, like the proverbial snake eating its own tail.

Like an episode of Upright Citizens brigade....perfect.