LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Let's guide you through an audit trail of your confusion. You posted:
Implying your wife is part of a vulnerable sector of society (women) who would be discriminated against if placed in a position of fear by the train company by not providing a guard. You were quite outspoken about your demands.
You then adopt a totally different tone about the potential predicament of the disabled, another vulnerable sector of society. Contradictory or what? Both your wife and a disabled person would be discriminated against, one being placed in fear the other being denied the rights of an able bodied person.
Yoda then posted:
Pointing out that it is discriminatory to deny access to the disabled. To which you replied:
So you can't seem to comprehend that both situations are discrimination. Is it because you have no personal connection or empathy with a disabled person whereas you do with your wife?
And then you went on to post:
So you introduced an extreme scenario at the top of the world, presumably in an attempt to justify your laissez faire attitude to the disabled. It's obvious that when anti-discrimination laws were introduced there would always be exceptions. So it is that a disabled person may be able to board a train unassisted or a boxing champion may feel totally safe when she travels on a train without a guard late at night however, your climbing Everest conjecture is patently off the scale. I know you have a problem with discrimination but the exceptions to the rule don't obviate the need to ensure that the vulnerable are empowered rather than being disadvantaged. It's what a decent society does.
Well argued