nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Ate people who need glasses disabled?

recylingbin

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.