• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trucker ticketed $500 for poor English

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
If we give people concessions then should we allow people who are afflicted with dwarfism to drive forklifts? Is it a violation of their rights if we don't hire them because they are physically unable to operate the machines or should every employer be forced to purchase specially built forklifts for this case?

I propose that we don't give concessions to people with disabilities when it is unsafe to do so.

Is it unsafe to drive without being able to communicate in the lingua franca? If not then why should we restrict people who cannot?

If so then we should restrict everyone who cannot since otherwise people would be at risk. That would include:
1) People who live in the country but speak other languages
2) People who are speech or hearing impaired
3) Tourists

Again, I don't see the correlation. If you can physically speak English, you should have to in those circumstances. If you can't, that's another story. I don't see the use of bringing people with disabilities into the discussion. That's a separate matter.

We should restrict people who cannot communicate in English because it's an easily avoidable situation. If people with those disabilities could speak English, I'm sure they'd love to. It's a question of being sensible. Obviously, if you can't physically speak the language, it's not your fault and shouldn't be held against you. If you can, but you choose not to, then it's your fault and can beheld against you.

It's the difference between self-defense murder and premeditated murder. One you can help, but you don't. The other, you can't help. That's why the first one is completely illegal, and the second is not necessarily.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
strike that - reverse it ;)

Actually, I mixed everything up. I meant the first one referring to "One you can help, but don't", being illegal. I didn't even think about which was first in the first sentence. Thanks for clarifying.

... and self-defense is not murder...

Fine, then use "killing". The point is that killing someone in a premeditated fashion is illegal, while killing someone out of self-defense is legal, depending on the circumstances.
 

LittlePinky82

Well-Known Member
Actually, I mixed everything up. I meant the first one referring to "One you can help, but don't", being illegal. I didn't even think about which was first in the first sentence. Thanks for clarifying.



Fine, then use "killing". The point is that killing someone in a premeditated fashion is illegal, while killing someone out of self-defense is legal, depending on the circumstances.

It's all about proving premeditated or not.
 
Top