Ask the Girl in the Wheelchair

[umkay]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

There are people out there who believe that anyone in a wheelchair wound up that way because they deserved it in some twisted way. It's not even that rare to encounter such a person.

So I take it you've encountered several of these awful people?

To be fair, I'm not on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from this type of jerk: I don't think that no one, no matter what they did, ever deserves to end up in a wheelchair. I think adults who drive drunk and endanger/hurt others, then crash their cars and paralyze themselves, have responsibility for their injury. And I think if you get shot and paralyzed while trying to rob someone in their home in the middle of the night, you pretty much deserve it. Et al.

My pissed off response was specifically directed at anyone who heard my personal story and then responded that I, as a totally sober 8th grader, goofing off with some family members, "deserved" what I got. Thankfully, as I mentioned, I've never met such a horrible person. I'm really shocked that you have. And disturbed.

[umkay]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

No, of course you're not identical - only one of you has a broken neck.

Well, there's the obvious answer. Have I mentioned how grateful I am that I didn't have an identical twin sister instead? How annoying would the comparisons be then?

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Now shake your head slowly and say "... and it was such a shame about that kitten...."

And then he can put his hand on your shoulder and say "But sis, it could have been So. Much. Worse." Consider if it had been the gerbil.

Have I mentioned I have an evil streak?

I love it. But I find myself in the same position as any future hearers of this little dialogue: saying "WTF?? How the...Whaaa...??"

Originally Posted by Broomstick

He currently wants to put a bumper sticker on the car that says "Date a gimp. You get better parking at the movie theater." (It's true.)

I like this guy.

[Napier]

Originally Posted by umkay

Hey Mulva! May I call you Mulva?

In HS, my favorite response was to say that it was a shark attack. Apparently that seemed plausible to naive Southern Californian teenagers, because a lot of them fell for it. For proof, I'd show them the surgical scar on the back of my neck from my spinal fusion, and they'd gasp at the mark that ol' bastard Jaws left on me.

Nowadays, if I'm feeling particularly silly, I might say "Oh, the wheelchair? Yeah, well, I don't technically need it. It's not that I can't walk; it's that I'm lazy."

My other sassy go-to is to act all confused when a person asks what's "wrong" with me or what "happened" to me. Be like, "What do you mean? Do I have something in my teeth?" It's probably wrong for me to get such pleasure from watching AB folks nearly choke on their embarrassment as they either try to explain what they meant or play it off like they actually weren't asking what they actually were asking. But these are the few-and-far-between silver lining moments of living with paralysis--you wouldn't begrudge me them, would you?

He he he he he he.

No, no, go ahead, have fun watching us choke. Great ice breaker.

So, yeah, call me Mulva if you like. Or call me whatever my name is, per your earlier post. Whichever joke is on special is fine with me. Though, as a propellerhead myself, in the interest of technical accuracy I should point out that my real name looks like a common woman's name in print; it doesn't sound like one. The Seinfeld reference only worked partway.

Obscure joke:
What do you call an AB person in your thread?
Mulva. Well, apparently.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by umkay

I don't think that no one, no matter what they did, ever deserves to end up in a wheelchair. I think adults who drive drunk and endanger/hurt others, then crash their cars and paralyze themselves, have responsibility for their injury.

So you are saying that these people deserved to end up in a wheelchair? Because having a degree of responsibility for one's accident and deserving the outcome of that accident are two totally seperate things in my opinion. And you specify "adults" who drive drunk; are those who are 'not yet adults' who drive drunk any less culpable for their actions?









ETA: In most cases, these "they deserved it" people are of the quasi-religious ilk.

[gonzoron]

Originally Posted by umkay

...I guess I'll be much less bemused at that question in the future, and a whole lot more offended.

Well, yeah, given the options of assuming that people either
a) don't know how genetics work, and are just clueless
or
b) know about a really odd and really rare condition and saying you look like you have it.

I'm going to think the vast majority of people fall into a).

[Dignan]

Originally Posted by umkay

Real quick: I find this kinda funny. "Hey, you're in a wheelchair! So that means you watch that show about people in wheelchairs, huh??" I get this kind of stuff all the time. Harmless, but sorta ridiculous.

That's true, and when she asked me if I'd seen it, I didn't know what it was at first. She told me about it, and the pieces came together pretty quick. I eventually took it as a compliment (she suggested I should start my own series about guys). It was a change from the usual "My (cousin/grandma/uncle/a guy from high school) was in a wheelchair ..." or "I was in a wheelchair for three months, so ..." And I don't really mind. I wouldn't have found out about the show otherwise.

However, her description of her injury was puzzling to me. She said that she was classified as a C4/5 complete, but a) she told her aunt she could feel her foot in her boot, which automatically makes her incomplete (if she wasn't joking), and b) she just seems to have way too much wrist function to be a C4/5. She looks to me like a C5/6 incomplete. Also, when she described herself as being "paralyzed from the neck down," obviously I took issue with that. Girlfriend uses a manual wheelchair, toasts her own wineglass, and can do her own makeup, none of which I can do, as a girl who is truly paralyzed from the neck down. I can't even shrug my shoulders. But then, I'm not too offended, because she seems just as uninformed about paras: Dignan, I thought of you when she told the photog that paraplegics were "paralyzed from the waist down."

I know what you're saying. I used to go into a pretty good amount of detail of how/where I was paralyzed. I'm not really paralyzed from the chest, because it's slightly lower, but I'm not paralyzed from the waist either, because it's higher than that. To make things easier, I'll go saying I'm paralyzed from the stomach down, or say "about here" and point to the top of my stomach. It isn't the most accurate description, but is close enough, without going into detail. The 30 seconds for an explanation on a TV show doesn't allow the same detail as a thread.

About "feeling her foot", I don't think she meant she could feel her foot. Since you and I are at different levels, I don't know if you have the same sensation as I do. Here's what I mean by that: I cannot feel my legs (or anywhere below my injury really). If my foot fall off my wheelchair, or if my cushion is deflated, I don't really feel it, but I get a sense that something is wrong or different. It doesn't "feel" the way it is "supposed" to feel. I think that is what she meant.

I described in an earlier post, but that actually wasn't CGI. James Cameron had a cast made of a real para's legs, then made dummy legs from it. The fake legs sat on the chair, and Sam's real legs were tucked underneath (okay, and concealed, undoubtedly with a little CGI help). Crazy, right?

Thanks. I missed that part, but went back and found it. That explains why it was so convincing!

[umkay]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

So you are saying that these people deserved to end up in a wheelchair? Because having a degree of responsibility for one's accident and deserving the outcome of that accident are two totally seperate things in my opinion. And you specify "adults" who drive drunk; are those who are 'not yet adults' who drive drunk any less culpable for their actions?

Well, first, I need to make sure it's clear that, whether or not I think someone "deserved" an SCI for doing something criminal, I would never tell them that in person. Well, unless they had gotten paralyzed while doing something truly horrific like trying to kill a child. I don't find that's a helpful thing ("you deserved it") to say to someone, whether or not it's true.

I say this because it has just occurred to me that I have no idea how your car accident happened, and I may in fact be speaking to someone who drove drunk and crashed his car. If that's what happened to you, I'm sorry you got hurt that way and that I bungled my way into this conversation. But since I'm here, I think I should explain what I mean:

It's a very tricky thing to define where simple "cause and effect" gives way to "just desserts." But I do believe we live in a logical world, and it's a little bit of magical thinking to interrupt the logical flow of events that starts with choosing to drive a car while intoxicated and ends in the driver and/or innocent bystanders getting hurt.

But let's start with the simple stuff. If an adult, who has the intellectual capacity, emotional maturity, and, frankly, the moral responsibility to know better than to drive drunk does so, that is a bad decision. They are opening themselves up to all sorts of consequences, from the relatively mild (getting a DUI), to the seriously life-altering (killing or maiming themselves or others). It's not punitive--it's just the way the world works. Fighting it is as useless and unwise as cursing gravity.

But it gets more complicated when we start talking about what people "deserve" for bad or even criminal behavior. I know the reality of life in a wheelchair, and there are few people I would ever wish it on (but not none). Do I think that it's "fair" for someone who makes one bad choice, maybe drives drunk for the very first time, to pay for that the rest of their life, by being paralyzed? Probably not. But needless to say, what I think is irrelevant, since I have no control over the outcome. And what's done is done.

That being the case, I think it would be very mature for a person in that situation to take a reasonable amount of responsibility for what happened to them. Say, "The accident that paralyzed me was nobody's fault but my own. Life in a wheelchair seems like a pretty harsh punishment to me, but since I could have just as easily put someone else in a wheelchair with my poor choice, I suppose it's better that it was me." Does the person have to spend the rest of their life in mourning for that choice, or apologizing for it, or flogging themselves for it? No way. It's over. Move on. But I also don't think it's appropriate for them to curse the gods and have a pity party about it, abdicating all responsibility for it. (BTW, I believe in varying degrees of culpability in just about everything, seeing severity of guilt on a continuum between white lies and genocide).

For myself, I've already mentioned in this thread that I don't blame anybody but myself for my accident. I paralyzed myself. However, I wasn't doing anything illegal (unless you count hanging around at the resort after-hours, though employees often did this, and we were with an employee, and I seriously doubt we would have been arrested for it). And I was a child, not even in high school yet (no, I don't think minors bear the same responsibility for their actions as adults do, and our justice system by and large agrees with me). I also wasn't endangering anyone but myself, and I don't think many people would make an obvious connection between snowboarding and breaking your neck. So do I think it was my "fault?" Sure, I'm comfortable saying that. But do I think it "served me right," or that I "deserved" the severe disability that resulted? No. As I said, that would be some seriously draconian justice.

Again, sorry if I stepped into a pile here unknowingly. But I'll be glad if you tell me I didn't.

[BMalion]

I've always said that the problem with a "pity-party" is that few people show up, and nobody brings presents.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by umkay

But let's start with the simple stuff. If an adult, who has the intellectual capacity, emotional maturity, and, frankly, the moral responsibility to know better than to drive drunk does so, that is a bad decision. They are opening themselves up to all sorts of consequences, from the relatively mild (getting a DUI), to the seriously life-altering (killing or maiming themselves or others). It's not punitive--it's just the way the world works. Fighting it is as useless and unwise as cursing gravity.

(my bold)

So I think we agree that a world of difference exists between saying a person holds a degree of responsibility for their circumstances; and saying that person deserves to be in those circumstances.

I'm curious, what is your definition of "adult"? You repeatedly make this distinction between yourself as a 14 year old just horsing around and what an 'adult' has the capacity to recognize, the responsibility to uphold, etc. Let's take the DUI, for example. At what age does drunk driving become an "adult" action? And why? Does a teenager possess the same intellectual capacity, emotional maturity and moral responsibility of someone decades older?


I ruptured my aorta in a car accident when I was 20 years old, after I had consumed a moderate amount of alcohol that night at a friend's house. I wasn't paralyzed as a direct result of the accident itself but rather as a result of the emergency surgery necessitated by my aortic injury. Now, the surgery was needed to save my life, so I am, of course, eternally grateful for the prompt action. However, just because it saved my life, does that mean that I am not allowed to inquire as to whether or not everything that could have, even should have, been done in order to save my legs as well as my life was done?

Well for the first year or so, I had no idea of any of this. It was my parents and a few doctor-relatives who were discussing this possibility over my head (no pun intended). Well, it soon came to be that a malpractice suit was in the works. Without going into all the stupid details, it basically said that steps that should have been taken to keep my circulation in tact never were. Long story short; after a loooong three years, the hospital settled before the suit went to trial.

I had no issue with settling. I didn't want to go to trial and I wasn't looking for some big payday. At that point, I just wanted everything to be over. It had been a very emotional time; those three years. So I' settled with the hospital that saved my life but also paralyzed me. After an accident from which I was solely responsible for the outcome. It's not so cut-and-dry, ethically; imo. I never skirt responsibility for what happened to me. But I would never say, because I made a foolish, immature, impulsive decision when I was a kid (you're a kid at 14, I'm one at 20), that I deserve to be paralyzed for the rest of my life.

[umkay]

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

I ruptured my aorta in a car accident when I was 20 years old, after I had consumed a moderate amount of alcohol that night at a friend's house.

Aw, fack. I knew it. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

So I think we agree that a world of difference exists between saying a person holds a degree of responsibility for their circumstances; and saying that person deserves to be in those circumstances.

Sure. I agree with that. Mostly because people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And pretty much everyone lives in a glass house, morally.

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

I'm curious, what is your definition of "adult"? You repeatedly make this distinction between yourself as a 14 year old just horsing around and what an 'adult' has the capacity to recognize, the responsibility to uphold, etc.
...
I would never say, because I made a foolish, immature, impulsive decision when I was a kid (you're a kid at 14, I'm one at 20), that I deserve to be paralyzed for the rest of my life.

Are you saying that a 14 year old (and barely, at that) has the exact same capacity and responsibility, legally and morally, as a 20 year old man? A man who can drive, vote, join the military, sign a legal contract, and get married, among other things? I hope not.

Look, I totally agree that with age, (usually) comes wisdom. When I'm 50, I'd hope to be wiser than I am now at 26. And when I'm 80, I'd hope to be wiser still. But does that mean that I can retroactively declare myself not to have been an adult or responsible at 26, and again at 50? What if I live to 100? Then would 80 just have been a relatively immature phase during which no one could hold me accountable for my actions? We risk obliterating the meaningfulness of adulthood if we constantly scoot it back depending on our own subjective perspective at various points in our lives. Which is fine when composing a memoir; legally speaking, it gets a little squirrelly, to say the least.

Think of this: Had you been sober that night, and another intoxicated 20 year old had plowed into you and caused your injury, would you have tut-tutted his actions, approving the court's decision to treat him as a minor and give him a slap on the wrist that would have been sealed from public view anyway? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you'd want him held accountable, and would be really insulted by the implication that he wasn't adult enough to deserve punishment for his poor choices.

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

Let's take the DUI, for example. At what age does drunk driving become an "adult" action? And why? Does a teenager possess the same intellectual capacity, emotional maturity and moral responsibility of someone decades older?

Drunk driving at any age is foolish and illegal. However, the consequences are far more severe for someone over 18. And 18 year olds bear the responsibility of knowing and accepting this fact.

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

However, just because it saved my life, does that mean that I am not allowed to inquire as to whether or not everything that could have, even should have, been done in order to save my legs as well as my life was done?
...
Well, it soon came to be that a malpractice suit was in the works. Without going into all the stupid details, it basically said that steps that should have been taken to keep my circulation in tact never were. Long story short; after a loooong three years, the hospital settled before the suit went to trial.

I have no issue with any of this. You made a mistake, and you paid for it. Was it perfect justice? Depends who you ask, I suppose (which probably makes it a dumb question to ask). If you ask me, I would say "no," being paralyzed for the rest of your life is not a "fair" punishment. But I do think you are culpable for what happened to you, which sounds like something you agree with.

And the doctor made a mistake, so he or she needs to take the responsibility for that mistake. I suspect you wouldn't appreciate the defense that he or she was too young, that a more seasoned doctor would have done a better job, so it wasn't his or her fault?

And I will say that, IMHO, though you and the doctor each bear responsibility for your injury, yours is different, qualitatively. You were involved in at least 2 criminal activities when you got hurt, whereas (presumably) the doctor just made an unfortunate human error.

Originally Posted by Ambivalid

After an accident from which I was solely responsible for the outcome. It's not so cut-and-dry, ethically; imo. I never skirt responsibility for what happened to me.

As an afterthought: Have you ever thought about how you might feel if you had walked away unscathed, but had paralyzed someone else that night? Do you think they might feel it was fair for you to go to prison for the rest of your life? After all, the disability you caused them was a lifetime thing--why shouldn't your punishment be, too?

I'm sorry that this conversation verged into your personal life, and I would totally respect it if you didn't feel like having it. I'm also sorry if I'm coming off as harsh here. I'm open to hearing your side and possibly having my mind changed as a result.

[Ambivalid]

[quote=umkay;15176123]

Are you saying that a 14 year old (and barely, at that) has the exact same capacity and responsibility, legally and morally, as a 20 year old man? A man who can drive, vote, join the military, sign a legal contract, and get married, among other things? I hope not

.

Not at all; my point is that to pin immaturity and irresponsibility down to any specific age can lead to difficulties.

Look, I totally agree that with age, (usually) comes wisdom. When I'm 50, I'd hope to be wiser than I am now at 26. And when I'm 80, I'd hope to be wiser still. But does that mean that I can retroactively declare myself not to have been an adult or responsible at 26, and again at 50? What if I live to 100? Then would 80 just have been a relatively immature phase during which no one could hold me accountable for my actions? We risk obliterating the meaningfulness of adulthood if we constantly scoot it back depending on our own subjective perspective at various points in our lives. Which is fine when composing a memoir; legally speaking, it gets a little squirrelly, to say the least.

I don't even know what to say to this. I never once said, or tried to say, that my youth at the time of my accident should mitigate any level of responsibility on my part for that accident. Rather I said, or tried to say, that something that happened when I merely was a kid, in all my poor judgment and impulsivity, is surely no reason for me to have deserved that ultimate outcome.

Think of this: Had you been sober that night, and another intoxicated 20 year old had plowed into you and caused your injury, would you have tut-tutted his actions, approving the court's decision to treat him as a minor and give him a slap on the wrist that would have been sealed from public view anyway? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you'd want him held accountable, and would be really insulted by the implication that he wasn't adult enough to deserve punishment for his poor choices

.

Again, I don't know what to say to this. First of all, I hit a tree and hurt no one else-no one else was involved. To speculate in such a way that you are is to drastically alter what actually happened that night. And what do you mean, "the court's decision to treat him as a minor and give him a slap on the wrist"? Where is that coming from? I am flummoxed by this entire paragraph. I ABSOLUTELY never said or implied that I wasn't "adult" enough to deserve punishment for my choices. Where is this coming from?

As an afterthought: Have you ever thought about how you might feel if you had walked away unscathed, but had paralyzed someone else that night? Do you think they might feel it was fair for you to go to prison for the rest of your life? After all, the disability you caused them was a lifetime thing--why shouldn't your punishment be, too?[/

QUOTE]

[Ambivalid]

AHhhhhh! I'm so tired but I wanted to finish that damned post and now I don't even know wth I did. Oops. My bad.

[AClockworkMelon]

What the fuck are you even arguing, Jamie?

[Muffin]

Aaaack! Tree killer!

[drewtwo99]

After reading all of this thread, I think umkay would make one of the best damn laywers/judges in the country.

[Napier]

What a difficult and useful conversation -- huge credit to everyone trying to contribute to it!

Tidy words like "responsibility" and "deserved" suggest that there are clear concepts and truths behind them, but it really isn't that easy, it is much more messy than that.

It would be fair of the universe to arrange things so that we got something like a fine for everything we did that had risk involved. For being 19 and driving drunk, maybe it would be the equivalent of another ten dollars for every 0.1% of blood alcohol times every mile you drove. So, you were over the limit and drove home from the bar? That totals $800, every time you pull that stunt, and yeah you don't get to go to the beach next weekend and have to work a second job instead. For being 14 and trying a flip, when you're with your brothers at a ski place? Well, you know, there's a one in a hundred million chance (if that), so (tap tap tap) that works out to a fine of 86 cents, please, and good luck with the flip. Ah, youth.

So when I was 19 I did drive home under the influence sometimes, and I never paid any particular price for it (and it is typical of a drinking and driving episode not to cause an accident or hurt anybody or get anybody in trouble). This is a horrible thing, in retrospect, and I am very sorry for it, and think it would be fair to say I am responsible for enormous tragedies that, according to various influences including random chance, just did not occur. If there is some hidden scoreboard on which I earned quadriplegia which, by mistake, got assigned to umkay, what can we possibly say or think about it?

And there are many others in my unhelpful position. This was before MADD and checkpoints, when the attitude was that pretty much all of us drove under the influence occasionally, and if you are too cruel in court or too vigorous pointing your finger at an offender, well, you better hope it isn't you next time. After all, why did bars have parking lots if we were really not going to drink and drive (and note this was before anybody talked about "designated drivers", and when you were allowed to drink in bars at 19). If there were a way to become a person who had never driven under the influence, well, sign me up.

Now, for one thing, I don't drink at all (25 years sober). For another thing, I drive the speed limit, and people crowd behind me and resent my slow driving, and I pull over and let them pass frequently. I imagine how I would feel if a little child darted out into my path and I killed them, and then think how much I would hope that at least I had not been speeding, or on the phone, or fiddling with the radio, or how much worse it would be if I had been doing those things. This is a reasonable thought process and conclusion, but I can report most people are not thinking that way. Most are speeding, and plenty are on the phone. Just last week I heard a large group conversation in which the young majority expressed their shared frustration with the older minority for driving the speed limit, for being slow and in the way. For me this shift has come with growing older and having more experiences; completely for free, and not because of being a good person. I find it hard to hate or resent younger people for having had attitudes different from this at the time their actions, plus the random fate ingredient, turned tragic.

It is certainly good of people who have had tragedy in which they played an integral role to not turn to the comfort of trying to make it entirely somebody else's fault. For those of us who have not had such a tragedy -- imagine how tempting it must be to take comfort in blaming somebody else and making it all their fault.

It is hard to talk about these things, and I wonder if this post will bother anybody or if I have said anything wrongheaded. I hope not. It's messy, though, isn't it?

[MsWhatsit]

Ambivalid, you are lucky as shit that your stupid, irresponsible 20-year-old self didn't kill or injure innocent people. Maybe you should try focusing on that instead of on whether or not you "deserve" the consequences for those actions.

[Lasciel]

I think there's also a difference between Jamie (Ambi) saying that he was irresponsible - a reference to the facts of the choices that were made, and someone saying they were irresponsible because they were young/younger.

It also sucks that the way the law works (because it HAS to) draws such a clear arbitrary line at a certain relatively young age. We do know now that we don't mentally mature until something like 24. I could only imagine the horror that would ensue if people weren't allowed to drive or vote or work as an adult until EIGHT YEARS after they do currently, but that's the way the research is pointing, if the laws would acknowledge that. I think a lot of "young adult" infractions and poor choices are partly a result of the bad mismatch between reality and the way the laws are structured.

I also think there's a enormous difficulty with the relatedness of the words responsibility and irresponsible - the latter has become a matter-of-fact descriptor of "youth" or of someone who is simply making poor choices, while the former bears a pretty heavy weight of culpability and consequence attached to it.

For the record, I don't think that it should be said that people "deserve" anything that happens to them in life - that's too much of a morally-freighted word, and no one can know enough about another person's thought processes to really make that assessment appropriate. I also feel strongly that talk of "deserving what you get" can be used as a way to inflict guilt on people in order to moderate/control their behavior, and I get twitchy about that also.

Despite that, I do agree that it falls upon individuals to be aware of the possible natural consequences for their actions, no matter how unlikely. It sucks, but life is random, and consequences do follow from actions.

I would be a lot more about someone going on about how "unfair" it was that they got injured in an accident caused by their own actions than I would about someone who was unhappy that it was so "unlikely" to have suffered such dire consequences. I know that's kindof a nitpick, but I have encountered both, and I think it's indicative of the underlying mindset. In neither case would I really begrudge them the opportunity to moan and groan a bit, because it really does suck, and it will suck permanently - all because of one temporary decision/action.

[CyclopticXander]

There are two things here that are not mutually exclusive.

You can (and I do) feel bad for anyone who is disabled regardless of their culpability in the event that caused it. I want them to have everything they need to be comfortable and happy, and I support legislation or social structures that help them live as fulfilling a life as possible.

But if you want to get into the nitty gritty philosophy of it (and I would only do so in a discussion like this, not unprompted) then yes a 20 year old should be able to foresee the chain of events that would lead from him driving while impaired to getting seriously injured. Even more importantly for ethical purposes, he should foresee his actions potentially seriously harming others. I wouldn't use the term "deserves it" because it sounds harsh, but I would say that they brought it on themselves, which granted only sounds slightly less harsh.

But like I say, it's not even a useful distinction to make because it doesn't change how I feel about that person's disability in practical terms.

Obviously I can't speak for Umkay, but from what I gather this is something like how she feels, please correct me if I'm wrong. I just hope this bit doesn't go on too much longer for the sake of everyone's feelings.

As for these hypothetical jerks (hopefully nonexistent) who think people in wheelchairs deserve it somehow,my gf was born with her disability. I'd like to see them say that about her.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

Ambivalid, you are lucky as shit that your stupid, irresponsible 20-year-old self didn't kill or injure innocent people. Maybe you should try focusing on that instead of on whether or not you "deserve" the consequences for those actions.

[Ambivalid]

Ok, let me attempt to clarify myself here, I don't understand exactly why I have been so misconstrued.

Yes, as a 20 year old, I was old enough to know that drinking and driving was 1) illegal 2) dangerous and 3) stupid. Never have I used my age at the time of my accident as any sort of excuse to avoid full responsibility for my actions. Never. When I make remarks about being "a kid", it is in relation to the idea of my decision-making faculties not being as well-developed as they are now when I'm fully grown. But the "responsibility" for my actions lies nowhere else but with me.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by umkay

As an afterthought: Have you ever thought about how you might feel if you had walked away unscathed, but had paralyzed someone else that night? Do you think they might feel it was fair for you to go to prison for the rest of your life? After all, the disability you caused them was a lifetime thing--why shouldn't your punishment be, too?

While I can't say I know how I would feel if someone else were responsible for causing my accident, I can say that I don't hold onto any feelings of loss, bitterness or remorse from it. My disability is now my life, my existence, a central part of who I am. I don't curse it. If someone else was responsible for bringing this part of me into the world, without intent or malice, I would hold no long-term anger towards them. Yes, they should face appropriate legal punishment but such punishment would absolutely fall short of life imprisonment. That would be throwing the life away of the person who made a mistake in judgment that one time. My life isn't over, why should their's be?

Now to flip this around on me, if I was the one responsible for paralyzing someone in an accident, I would probably feel like spending the rest of my life in prison; if not dying. While I could empathize with the temptation to lock up 'the bastard who did this' (me) for all eternity, in all reality I would have to admit that that wasn't the fair punishment.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by umkay

Think of this: Had you been sober that night, and another intoxicated 20 year old had plowed into you and caused your injury, would you have tut-tutted his actions, approving the court's decision to treat him as a minor and give him a slap on the wrist that would have been sealed from public view anyway? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you'd want him held accountable, and would be really insulted by the implication that he wasn't adult enough to deserve punishment?

Would I have "tut-tutted" his actions? If I had been paralyzed by them? Of course not. Who is "tut-tutting" any actions here?? What court treated what person as a minor and gave them a slap on the wrist? What exactly are you talking about here? I'm confused. I certainly wasn't treated as a minor by the courts and I ceraintly didn't receive just a "slap on the wrist". I absolutely never implied that I wasn't "adult enough" to deserve punishment.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by umkay

Again, sorry if I stepped into a pile here unknowingly. But I'll be glad if you tell me I didn't.

Ha! You wish you did!

But seriously, don't worry about a thing. There is no "off-limits" subject matter for me. If I had any sort of problem discussing anything, I would simply abstain from discussing it. It's merely stimulating conversation.

[MostlyClueless]

[armchair psychologist]

I think there's an explanation for people blaming the victim.

Sometimes, the most awful things happen without any reason. This makes a lot of people feel very nervous and completely powerless.

There's a solution for that: assigning blame! (Serves her right for going out after dark. That bum should've just gotten himself a job. Why would you even drive a Toyota?) This way, some control is regained. "It's their own dumb fault, I would never do something that stupid."

And thus; Crisis averted!

[/armchair psychologist]

[Napier]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

Ambivalid, you are lucky as shit that your stupid, irresponsible 20-year-old self didn't kill or injure innocent people. Maybe you should try focusing on that instead of on whether or not you "deserve" the consequences for those actions.

I think this goes too far. It doesn't sound to me like Ambivalid is trying to hang the blame for his accident on anybody else. Out of all the people who did things more or less like what Ambivalid chose to do, his consequences are fairly unusually painful, aren't they? You sound really angry. Are you that angry at so many of the rest of us that made similarly unwise choices, especially around that age? I bet a lot of us earned the same treatment, whatever it is.

The random part of this whole deal is really ugly. And, 20 year olds really do tend to be more foolish than older adults. Many of our 20 year old selves have some stupid and irresponsible stretches. Usually nothing this bad happens, but it isn't strictly and solely a result of the person's choices.

One thing interesting about this thread is how people whose outcomes are statistically very rare have managed. Otherwise typical people in extremely rare and unusual situations often create some pretty fascinating and useful life stories.

[drewtwo99]

One time, when I was young, I took a turn too fast on a wet road, and slid into oncoming traffic on one of the busiest highways in my small city, and couldn't regain control of my car for several seconds.

Luckily, I just so happened to do this at a time when there didn't happen to be any oncoming traffic traveling at 50+ miles per hour into that lane. So I got back into my lane in time, and got out of the way of the oncoming traffic I saw coming towards me a few hundred feet away.

If the timing had been a little different I could have killed myself, killed my sister, or killed any number of other people. I got lucky. And all of this could have happened because I took a turn a little too fast on a wet road. I wasn't drinking. I wasn't on a phone, or fiddling with a radio, or anything. But tragic, terrible things can happen at a moment's notice, and at that moment, I failed to maintain control of my vehicle. I was young and a relatively new driver, and it would have been 100% my fault.

I often go back in my mind and replay that moment and think about what I "deserve" for such a failure as a driver. I got off without even a ticket, but I certainly deserved some sort of punishment. But we can't obsess over about what we do or don't deserve for stupid mistakes we make. Same for drunk driving. We get what we get out of life, deserving or not. If we get caught making mistakes that are illegal, we get punished for them, and that's about all we can do.

I feel really bad for both Ambivalid and Umkay for mistakes they made that changed their lives. And I don't think it's productive to say one deserved their fate more than the other, or that they either of them deserves what happened at all. I don't even think it's a meaningful thing to say. I could just as easily have been in an accident that disabled me, or my sister, and I certainly wouldn't want anyone to say that I deserved it.

[Napier]

Now, if you are mooning people out your car window, and the thorn bushes lash your impudent ass as you rocket by, then you deserve it.

Hmm. Well, maybe it depends on whom you were mooning and why.

OK, still complicated.

[MsWhatsit]

Originally Posted by Napier

I think this goes too far. It doesn't sound to me like Ambivalid is trying to hang the blame for his accident on anybody else. Out of all the people who did things more or less like what Ambivalid chose to do, his consequences are fairly unusually painful, aren't they? You sound really angry. Are you that angry at so many of the rest of us that made similarly unwise choices, especially around that age? I bet a lot of us earned the same treatment, whatever it is.

Mostly I was just irritated because it seemed to me that he was trying to shrug off responsibility for his actions due to having been an immature 20-year-old. His subsequent posts have clarified, however. But to answer your question, I wouldn't say I'm "angry," per se, but I do have an extraordinarily low opinion of anyone who drives while impaired enough to cause an accident.

[CyclopticXander]

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

One time, when I was young, I took a turn too fast on a wet road, and slid into oncoming traffic on one of the busiest highways in my small city, and couldn't regain control of my car for several seconds.

Luckily, I just so happened to do this at a time when there didn't happen to be any oncoming traffic traveling at 50+ miles per hour into that lane. So I got back into my lane in time, and got out of the way of the oncoming traffic I saw coming towards me a few hundred feet away.

If the timing had been a little different I could have killed myself, killed my sister, or killed any number of other people. I got lucky. And all of this could have happened because I took a turn a little too fast on a wet road. I wasn't drinking. I wasn't on a phone, or fiddling with a radio, or anything. But tragic, terrible things can happen at a moment's notice, and at that moment, I failed to maintain control of my vehicle. I was young and a relatively new driver, and it would have been 100% my fault.

I often go back in my mind and replay that moment and think about what I "deserve" for such a failure as a driver. I got off without even a ticket, but I certainly deserved some sort of punishment. But we can't obsess over about what we do or don't deserve for stupid mistakes we make. Same for drunk driving. We get what we get out of life, deserving or not. If we get caught making mistakes that are illegal, we get punished for them, and that's about all we can do.

I feel really bad for both Ambivalid and Umkay for mistakes they made that changed their lives. And I don't think it's productive to say one deserved their fate more than the other, or that they either of them deserves what happened at all. I don't even think it's a meaningful thing to say. I could just as easily have been in an accident that disabled me, or my sister, and I certainly wouldn't want anyone to say that I deserved it.

That would just be a mistake, nobody could say you had anything coming from the kinds of driving mistake that we all make at some time or another. That is worlds away from driving while in an impaired state, which is a decision to drive even knowing that you are especially likely to make such a mistake. Your transgression is ethically speaking similar to Umkay's, only Umkay payed a very heavy price for it that nobody would deserve for doing the same. You weren't doing anything that you would reasonably expect would hurt others, and that's where the line is drawn.

[BMalion]

I don't know, I think my ex would say that I deserve my MS.

[Cub Mistress]

Originally Posted by BMalion

I don't know, I think my ex would say that I deserve my MS.

and she would be wrong.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

I do have an extraordinarily low opinion of anyone who drives while impaired enough to cause an accident.

(my bold)

Ok, so whether or not an accident occurs as a result of the impaired driving is what determines your opinion of a person? If I had been of legal age, I wouldn't even have been guilty of any alcohol-related driving infraction; it was due to the fact that I was 20 years old and had some level of alcohol in my bloodstream. Any amount of alcohol in a person under the legal drinking age meets a zero-tolerance policy from the law. In a bit of irony, the very reason mr and my friend were on the road at the time of the accident is because we had both left my friend's house early that night because we both had to get up for work the next morning at 5am; we had left the 'party' early because we needed to be clear-headed the next day.

[Iggy]

Not to hijack the flow of the discussion, but a question for umkay...

Any opinions on ADA requirements for public pools?

Specifically, does it matter to you if a lift is permanently installed or has to be set up/moved as needed?

[toodlepip]

Originally Posted by BMalion

I don't know, I think my ex would say that I deserve my MS.

Did you leave the toilet seat up?

[longhair75]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Not to hijack the flow of the discussion, but a question for umkay...

Any opinions on ADA requirements for public pools?

Specifically, does it matter to you if a lift is permanently installed or has to be set up/moved as needed?

One of the interesting things that article is that the ADA codes are administered by the Justice Department.

Most code violations are enforced by the City or State inspection divisions. Code violations at that level are a civil matter, usually settled by fines and such.

ADA codes are enforced by the Justice Department. Violations can, and often are, prosecuted as a criminal offense.

[BMalion]

Originally Posted by toodlepip

Did you leave the toilet seat up?

no comment.

[Filbert]

Guys, guys... Missing the point here- obviously the thing for the alcoholically impaired to do is become a pilot:

Originally Posted by Broomstick

1) Can you control the machine?
2) Are you a danger to others (note it's to others, they'll happily allow you to maim or kill yourself as long as no one else is in danger)

If the answer to both of those is "yes" you can be a pilot.

Yes I'm a typo nit pickin' eejit. Sorry.

[Broomstick]

OK, I'm pretty everyone knows what I MEANT to say...

[Napier]

Maybe... But I wouldn't go picking on pilots just now, if I was you...

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Ellen Cherry

Inappropriate. You need to stop this.

Considering the line of questions already answered, I dont think so.

She has been very open about her sexuality.

[Broomstick]

There's a difference between her volunteering information (which is what she has done) and someone else asking questions, especially when she's already related her concerns about "devotees".

Saying any question is fair game because she's shared some of her sexuality is like saying that a woman wearing a miniskirt isn't allowed to say "no" to groping or sex because she's already shared so much. Umkay any woman any individual is allowed to draw their own line as far as sexual sharing goes.

[Asimovian]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Saying any question is fair game because she's shared some of her sexuality is like saying that a woman wearing a miniskirt isn't allowed to say "no" to groping or sex because she's already shared so much. Umkay any woman any individual is allowed to draw their own line as far as sexual sharing goes.

I'm asking not because I'm disputing what you're saying, but because I may have missed it in the thread: Did SHE draw that line, or did Ellen Cherry draw it for her?

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

There's a difference between her volunteering information (which is what she has done) and someone else asking questions, especially when she's already related her concerns about "devotees".

Saying any question is fair game because she's shared some of her sexuality is like saying that a woman wearing a miniskirt isn't allowed to say "no" to groping or sex because she's already shared so much. Umkay any woman any individual is allowed to draw their own line as far as sexual sharing goes.

apples to oranges here. The title of this thread is

Ask the girl in a wheelchair. She has been open about her sexuality.

All she had to say is

None of your business, No, That is too personal etc.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Saying any question is fair game because she's shared some of her sexuality is like saying that a woman wearing a miniskirt isn't allowed to say "no" to groping or sex because she's already shared so much.

Actually it's barely anything like that at all, unless your intent is to create the most exaggerated comparison possible in a shamelessly melodramatic appeal to emotion. But you wouldn't do that, would you?


That said, dngnb8's "question" was phrased in a remarkably sleazy way. Or did you class it up by redacting the *fap* *fap* *fap*?

[Gezmo]

How are you typing?
Is someone typing for you?

[SmellMyWort]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

apples to oranges here. The title of this thread is

Ask the girl in a wheelchair. She has been open about her sexuality.

All she had to say is

None of your business, No, That is too personal etc.

Other questions of that nature seem to be rooted in a genuine curiosity about how a quad's body functions, what he/she is able to do, etc. Not "dirty minds want to know."

[SmellMyWort]

Originally Posted by Gezmo

How are you typing?
Is someone typing for you?

Did you even bother reading the thread? Sometimes a caregiver types for her or she uses voice recognition software.

[Gezmo]

More questions?

How is your breathing?
Do you have sensations for bowel movements?
Can you eat?
Can you drink?
Can you experience an orgasm?

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by SmellMyWort

Other questions of that nature seem to be rooted in a genuine curiosity about how a quad's body functions, what he/she is able to do, etc. Not "dirty minds want to know."

Pardon me for adding a bit of humor. As far as body functions, I am aware of that answer already with my background in medicine.

LOL @ thin skins