Ate people who need glasses disabled?

recylingbin

I need glasses.
Without them I cannot see a thing.
(Census form related)

12Phase

No.

bodhrandude

recylingbin wrote: »

I need glasses.
Without them I cannot see a thing.
(Census form related)

I kinda figured when I looked at the thread title.

Filmer Paradise

I need another glass of wine.

I somehow thought that this thread was about cannibals who ate disabled people who wore glasses....

Stacker Pentecost

If I was a disabled person reading this I'd feel insulted and thinking - "you're a f*cking idiot."

mickdw

I would say needing glasses is a minor disability yes.

mansize

leg disabled?

recylingbin

Stacker Pentecost wrote: »

If I was a disabled person reading this I'd feel insulted and thinking - "you're a f*cking idiot."

Its differently abled ffs.

StupidLikeAFox

I think we have officially run out of thread ideas

Arsemageddon

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

I somehow thought that this thread was about cannibals who ate disabled people who wore glasses....

Oh God, not another one of those threads.

Esel

Ate people?

Sawney Beane?

Crash-landed in the Andes?

Belch, get someone else to fill the form.

Have a very good excuse for why you happened to be there and are still alive.

Sam Quentin

Are people who ask extremely dump questions disabled?





Anyway NO.. Except for the clowns who wear sun-glasses MUCH TO MUCH........

Esel

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Are people who ask extremely dump questions disabled?

Nice one. Courtesy flush, please. Be grand.

I ate one. I was fcukin' crippled after it.

Supercell

Filling in the Census on Wednesday morning eh? (I did mine in a guilty fit last night )

One eyed Jack

Stacker Pentecost wrote: »

If I was a disabled person reading this I'd feel insulted and thinking - "you're a f*cking idiot."

Sooo, you're not a disabled person, but if you were, you'd feel insulted and you'd be thinking the OP is the idiot...

That's more insulting than anything the OP could say, because not only are you not disabled, but you assume people with visual disabilities or impairments have no sense of humour, and they must all think the same as you would, if you were a disabled person :rolleyes:

Esel

Nor everyond with far fingerd haa a probken, fffs.

We werw only slagginh dte OP ffd.

He,s granf.

Jusr n3eds to gi to spexsacerz to. Have hiz fingerz tested".

Wibbs

Not really, but it is a physical fault alright. I suppose it depends on the severity too. It's long surprised me that things like myopia didn't evolve out of us. Being shortsighted must have been extremely damgerour for health back when big hairy things ruled the earth. Maybe it has some other positive side effect that kept it around?

hardCopy

There's a specific question asking if you are blind or seriously vision impaired

Samaris

Stacker Pentecost wrote: »

If I was a disabled person reading this I'd feel insulted and thinking - "you're a f*cking idiot."

Er, why? The census sheet has "Blindness or a serious vision impairment" on it. Myopia is a mild disability, it's just so common and so easily corrected with glasses that we don't really consider it one anymore.

I mean, think about it a bit. If OP (or any of the other several million of us that rely on glasses to see) lost them permanently, we'd be quite severely limited in day to day life. For a hearing impairment (also a mild disability), you wear a hearing aid. Just because it's correctable by a temporary measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Having said that, after considering it for a bit, I ticked "No", since it is correctable by glasses.

One eyed Jack

Thecanes wrote: »

Take your bitterness elsewhere.

My... what? :pac:

Buona Fortuna

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

I need another glass of wine.

I somehow thought that this thread was about cannibals who ate disabled people who wore glasses....

They liked the extra crunch

osarusan

Thank f**k the census is only once every 5 years.

NiallBoo

No

Afaik, there's a specific threshold below which it's considered a disability.

RayM

A character in the sitcom Veep once described them as 'Wheelchairs for the eyes'.

My eyesight is dreadful, but if I strain my eyes enough, I can usually see things eventually. A trip to Specsavers is on my to-do-list.

Lavinia

Supercell wrote: »

Filling in the Census on Wednesday morning eh? (I did mine in a guilty fit last night )

Same here


Btw could mods correct the title?

cowboyBuilder

People with glasses disabled ?





Seriously, Im ****ing blind without them..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NiallBoo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

in fairness, you can't be expected to know everything.

OP was just asking the question...how can you be expected to learn stuff if you get criticised for asking questions?

Maximus Alexander

Wibbs wrote: »

Not really, but it is a physical fault alright. I suppose it depends on the severity too. It's long surprised me that things like myopia didn't evolve out of us. Being shortsighted must have been extremely damgerour for health back when big hairy things ruled the earth. Maybe it has some other positive side effect that kept it around?

Aye, I was thinking about this before when a friend of mine who is quite shortsighted pointed out that just a few centuries ago he'd have been considered blind, and that in a hunter gatherer society he wouldn't have had a hope of surviving. But people with his genetics obviously did survive, so must have served some function.

I suppose you could imagine that being useless on a hunt, they might have had more time to think and be inventive, or collect and pass down oral histories, or maybe they could have been priests or shamans. With humans being such social animals, they must have carved out some sort of niche.

Samaris

It is possible that it's a recently developed weakness? As in, back in the hunter-gatherer age, those with the genetic weakness would have been eaten by something early on, but once we were settled and farming and even more so in the last millenia or so, it just wasn't a weakness serious enough to prevent reproduction. Thus our daily lives now have actually increased the relative amount of people with it. After all, survival of the fittest only works if an impairment is enough to stop an individual from reproducing.

Couple that to various stresses that can weaken our eyes that our ancestors didn't have to deal with (chemicals, FAR more reading and close-up work, computers etcetera), maybe it's like lactose intolerance; a recent issue.

Alternatively, go back a few centuries and it was just something that one put up with. And if you were born with weak eyesight, you weren't going to know that actually, you should probably be able to see beyond the end of that field there. Therefore, people just got on with it until the days of regular eye tests and a decent general knowledge of how good one's eyesight should be.

Sam Kade

osarusan wrote: »

Thank f**k the census is only once every 5 years.

Why so, don't tell me that you are physically and mentally drained after filling out a simple form.

Wibbs

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I suppose you could imagine that being useless on a hunt, they might have had more time to think and be inventive, or collect and pass down oral histories, or maybe they could have been priests or shamans. With humans being such social animals, they must have carved out some sort of niche.

Could be. There seems to be some weak correlation between myopia and IQ, which might have a part to play. Even the image of a scientist/hyper intelligent/nerd type nearly always includes glasses and that goes way back too where great sages are represented as squinting at documents held close to the face.

The shortsighted would be better at close up work in toolmaking etc too(when I do my amateur(very) watchmaking I rarely need to use magnification). If you look at some of the earliest decorated human art on bone, wood and ivory the level of detail is very impressive. Of course someone with normal or long sight could make such items, but it would come easier to the speccy four eyed types. Long sightedness would also be an advantage going the other way. It would be a major advantage for the group in hunting or spotting danger at greater distances. I'd be the gimp found in a wooly rhino's footprint because I wouldn't have seen them coming.

I wonder has anyone done research on the skulls of humans before us? IIRC short sightedness comes from the eyeball being too long so focus is empaired, but could that be spotted in a skull? They have done research on handedness in non modern humans and it seems they had lefties at about the same ratio we do.

The environmental pressures that Samaris noted might well be a factor too, because we as a species tend to have more close in work than ever.

Fratton Fred

Wibbs wrote: »

Could be. There seems to be some weak correlation between myopia and IQ, which might have a part to play. Even the image of a scientist/hyper intelligent/nerd type nearly always includes glasses and that goes way back too where great sages are represented as squinting at documents held close to the face.

The shortsighted would be better at close up work in toolmaking etc too(when I do my amateur(very) watchmaking I rarely need to use magnification). If you look at some of the earliest decorated human art on bone, wood and ivory the level of detail is very impressive. Of course someone with normal or long sight could make such items, but it would come easier to the speccy four eyed types. Long sightedness would also be an advantage going the other way. It would be a major advantage for the group in hunting or spotting danger at greater distances. I'd be the gimp found in a wooly rhino's footprint because I wouldn't have seen them coming.

I wonder has anyone done research on the skulls of humans before us? IIRC short sightedness comes from the eyeball being too long so focus is empaired, but could that be spotted in a skull? They have done research on handedness in non modern humans and it seems they had lefties at about the same ratio we do.

The environmental pressures that Samaris noted might well be a factor too, because we as a species tend to have more close in work than ever.

Is what we consider short sightedness, actually decent eyesight for our forefathers?

Samaris

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is what we consider short sightedness, actually decent eyesight for our forefathers?

I would say that that's unlikely as a general thing. I believe what Wibbs is saying is that although there may well have been myopic people back in the early ages of humans, they may have found their own niches that didn't involve being squashed by a woolly rhino they didn't see coming! Such as early artwork, especially some of the really intricate carving. It may have been slightly beneficial to be myopic when working with something so fine and close-in.

But overall, I think it is more likely that eyesight was generally better back then, as we don't see that much evidence of sharpened other senses to make up for poorer eyesight. We're a very visual species as a whole and our hearing is relatively poor compared to other predatory species.

Knasher

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe it has some other positive side effect that kept it around?

Yeah, its how us ugly people were able to pass on our genes.

biko

I prefer to think of myself as "differently abled"

Samaris

biko wrote: »

I prefer to think of myself as "differently abled"

But are you differently-sighted?

Capt'n Midnight

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

I need another glass of wine.

I somehow thought that this thread was about cannibals who ate disabled people who wore glasses....

disabled people can be cannibals too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4O1A-mmBWw

JupiterKid

No, people who require glasses are not disabled. Well, I wear glasses and don't consider myself disabled.

I don't want to be eaten!!

Tombi!

I'd consider it a disability to have imperfect eyesight but I wouldn't call it disabled.
I'd keep disabled to people who genuinely have a disability that greatly affects their lives. Someone needing crutches or a wheelchair/mobility scooter would be disabled. A person missing an arm is disabled.
Needing to put on a pair of glasses then usually I wouldn't say you're disabled.

If, on the other hand, you can't see more than a meter or so in front of you without glasses, I would be okay if someone considered themselves disabled as they genuinely need their glasses for a day to day life.

andekwarhola

Threads like this are mentally disabled.