I'm completely perplexed...

Please read this story:
"Blind man sues Wienerschnitzel over run-in with tree."

from The Salt Lake Tribune

Now I'm not even going to share my thoughts on this story, that's up for debate and even I'm internally conflicted, but wait until you read the comments about this story! Now beware I've added my comments on their comments and trust me I sensored a lot of it...Enjoy!

"The guy should have been watching where he was walking."
D: Excellent idea. If these stupid blind people just WATCHED where they were going, everything would be solved!

"Normally I would insult the individual in a humorous way, but he'll never read it so there is no point."
D:...because blind people never read or care about topics pertinent to them, GET A CLUE JERK FACE!

"I thought thats what seeing eye dogs were for. If a blind person wants maximum mobility they need to use one. Otherwise they need to exercise caution and can't be walking around at break neck speed."
D: A dog could have easily missed this too.

"Excuse me, did I miss something? Did the tree jump out in front of the person on the sidewalk? Come on, this is just another attorney trying to get rich off a large company. I hope the judge is smart enough to throw this one out. I'm sorry if the person is blind but they have limitations and should have someone with them , either a person or a dog to guide them where they need to go."
D: Are you joking? Someone or some dog with them at all times!?! You might as well attach us to a leash and wrap us in bubble wrap you idiot!

"While I am sympathetic to the plaintiff's condition, I am fairly certain being blind and walking about town carries a greater risk for him than for the average citizen. Therefore, he must exercise a greater degree of caution when doing so."
D: "The Plaintiff's Condition?" What the....? You should excersize a greater deal of caution when you try to use your brain...

"Men in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Blind men in forests shouldn't jog.

Somebody should take another branch off that tree, and beat him and his lawyer about the head and neck with it."
D: Really? Seriously? Now we're getting violent, what a joke?

"If I was blind, I'm not sure I'd want to eat hot dogs anyway!"
D: Good point. Blind people should not want to eat hot dogs. What the...?

"I think a blind person has much more practice at tripping/falling/bracing for impact than those of with working eyes. They've done it a LOT more."

D: I'm speechless...

Disclaimer: I'm sorry if this was terribly rude (kind of sorry) but I think it's terribly awful to think what these people think about blind people. This is not just lack of education but pure ignorance.  Step up and make your own comment on this story, let them know, that blind people do read and we do care!


Becky said...

I get frustrated when they put 'blind' man as the lead in -- whether he is blind or not is not the issue. The placement of that tree is a ridiculous hazard to anyone whether sighted or not. One reason I really appreciate a guide dog is because of stopping for overhanging challenges such as this one. Wow. A story like this always is a reminder of the education that still we must all do.

Carrie said...

okay having to rewrite~ugh~1st one did not publish~error...anyway,
I found the article troubling with the 1st sentence...All he wanted was a hot dog...and from the descrptive drama was nearly killed...all becasue he is blind. Blind people own, run, manage, eat and work at establishments just like the hot dog place everyday. Cities also commonly have regulations for property owners to keep sidewalks free of all kinds of hazards (snow, ice, overhangs, large cracks, pot holes, etc. etc). The article is so sappily and prejudically written it is difficult to tell...it seems like a hazard that could happen to a person, in this case tall enough, sighted or blind, not paying attention. Did the man try and work with the business and/or the city to get some branches removed or the tree itself? Was he really hurt so badly that he needs some financial compensation? Did he aquire medical attention that cost him and or lose time at work that needs to be compensated? And if it had happened to a sighted person would the incident have rated a tear jerker, sympathetic article in the newspaper? Are some things, such as overhangs that a cane cannot detect, MORE hazardous if you can not see? If so, is the hazard so frequent, such a barrier, so common that it can not be overcome and so lifestyle changes must occur-NO...because blind people are kyaking, mountain climbing, working at thousands of professions, traveling the world over, camping, raising chidren, managing homes and businesses and buying hot dogs everyday without incident. Sometimes accidents happen, to the sighted and to the blind.

Anonymous said...

i understand some of your anger/frustration and agree with most of it, but there's something to be said for taking a joke/sarcasm. It seems some of those comments are just people trying to be funny and doesn't represent real views of blindness. I typically find that people who comment on newspaper stories tend to be fairly out there and kind of crazy.

The Kooky Queen--Rachel said...

No, that wasn't rude of you, it was ignorant of THEM!

Daria said...

I find it funny that the anonymous commenter had to hide behind anonymity. Come on; we won't bite.