Originally Posted by
Caretaker
The 'sob story' reference was in relation to a hypothetical 'powered exoskeleton' and the type of arguments that would be used.
No, no outcry from me because he wasn't 'calling someone's post about a tour' a sob story. Try reading what people actually post.
Try seeing that what someone writes has meaning. I believe someone else also recognized the insult contained in the comment
Onbike, post 157 for reference
The problem is this is not a hypothetical discussion and it actually affects real people. It's different when you experience the fallout of the words being bandied about.
One day an aunt of ours was talking in the kitchen and said something about "those dirty indians". She then looked at my wife, who is half Cree, and said "of course I don't mean you dear".
People say stuff, and sometimes those words sound wrong when they are applied. Just like excluding someone because they did not do something under their own power sounds ok until you apply it to the Hoyt's example. In that case, all the potential worry about what if and could be's didn't materialize because people saw that no harm would come from being inclusive. Just as the Cathy Rogers story didn't make bicycle touring fall apart either.
Let me ask you a question: Who is this imaginary person who has a hypothetical story about a disability? Wouldn't any potential "sob" story be based on an actual real persons story and thus, wouldn't one actually be calling a disabled persons story "a sob story"?
And don't get me started on hypothetical exoskeletons. You do know they are developing them right now for people who have had spine cord injuries right? When they do work out the kinks will they be excluded if they want to post in the walking forums? Who's the champion and defender of self powered walking that will suggest that?
Today's hypothetical and tomorrows actual are only separated by a fold in time.