Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO
Blindness isn't MI. ...Just sayin'
|
It's a disability, and MI's like schizophrenia can cause blindness in some cases. ...Just sayin'
So, is revoking rights based upon problems caused by a disability ableism if the disability reasonably interferes with their ability to responsibly exercise those rights?
Quote:
|
Two logical fallacies in two sentences, well done.
|
Which two? If you're going to say ad-hominem, you're incorrect.
Quote:
|
Let me try one - should someone with medication controlled epilepsy be allowed to drive?
|
A logical fallacy? I'd rather you didn't.
Smartassness aside: As for medication controlled epilepsy it would depend upon how well the epilepsy was controlled by the specific medication. If the schizophrenia can be reasonably controlled by medication, I'll concede you've got a case for gun ownership, but at this point I'm hesitant as everything I've read and seen indicates that anti-psychotics are a bit more of a crapshoot when compared to anti-epilepsy medication.
Now, since it's obvious that no one will answer my first question let's try another one: with rights come responsibilities, if we eliminate debilitating mental illness as a reason to restrict rights, should we also eliminate the insanity defense in court?