Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you are going with the definition of "Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource): " Then yes it was exploiting the person in a wheelchair, as they were making full use of and derive benefit from the person in the wheelchair.

If you are going with the definition of Use (a situation or person) in a selfish way:" Then yes it was exploiting the person in a wheelchair

If you are going with the definition of "use (a situation or person) in an unfair way:" Then no it is not exploitation.

So it is, in some definitions and it is not in others.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Exploiting&rlz=1C1DVCB_enUS383US392&aq=f&oq=Exploiting&aqs=chrome.0.57j60j61j5j0l2.2346j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

DeathReaper wrote:If you are going with the definition of "Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource): " Then yes it was exploiting the person in a wheelchair, as they were making full use of and derive benefit from the person in the wheelchair.

If you are going with the definition of Use (a situation or person) in a selfish way:" Then yes it was exploiting the person in a wheelchair

If you are going with the definition of "use (a situation or person) in an unfair way:" Then no it is not exploitation.

So it is, in some definitions and it is not in others.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Exploiting&rlz=1C1DVCB_enUS383US392&aq=f&oq=Exploiting&aqs=chrome.0.57j60j61j5j0l2.2346j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The situation is that they found a handicapped person that could get them to the front of the line, which is not fair to all the people who were waiting for their turn. Thus, it is exploitation no matter which definition you want use.

Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion at hand, or would you like to continue to try and derail the thread? Because so far you have failed to offer any counterpoint.

"use (a person) in an unfair way:"

Not exploitation in that sense.

So it is, in some definitions and it is not in others.

I suppose the question is "is this unfair?"

Well, I suppose that's a little subjective. I would say its not unfair to the disabled guide, they are getting paid damn good money to go to Disney World after all.

But, it is unfair to any disabled person who's just taking a vacation that more people are using the handicapped services and its unfair to the non-disabled people standing in line, although I would consider the latter part only a small concern.

DeathReaper wrote:"use (a person) in an unfair way:"

Not exploitation in that sense.

So it is, in some definitions and it is not in others.

So shall we simply say that you've got no real response and leave it at that?

 azazel the cat wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:"use (a person) in an unfair way:"

Not exploitation in that sense.

So it is, in some definitions and it is not in others.

So shall we simply say that you've got no real response and leave it at that?

Say what you wish, it does not change the facts.

They are not using the person unfairly, to do that they would need to force the person into service, or pay them very little.

They are use the situation in an unfair way, but not the person.

Slight but important difference.

DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:"use (a person) in an unfair way:"

Not exploitation in that sense.

So it is, in some definitions and it is not in others.

So shall we simply say that you've got no real response and leave it at that?

Say what you wish, it does not change the facts.

They are not using the person unfairly, to do that they would need to force the person into service, or pay them very little.

They are use the situation in an unfair way, but not the person.

Slight but important difference.

To be clear then, is it your contention that the person in the wheelchair is not being exploited, because they are being paid well?

Gonna be honest on like a 1-10 outrage scale, I'm feeling this at like a... 2 or maybe a 1.5. Is it an unfair exploitation of the system? Sure. Does "Cheating the lines at Disney whatever" rank anywhere on my list of "gak I care about"? Not at all.

I mean ideally you'd find a way to close the loophole, but it's probably not worth the effort to find a way to both close and remain fair to the disabled + their family and friends. Seriously

"Disabled woman takes money to help wealthy Americans cheat somewhat-less-wealthy Americans out their place in line at expensive amusement park" doesn't really rank very high on the injustice scale.

Reading the article it doesn't make it clear whether it was the disabled individual who came up with the idea of being a pass-for-hire, or if it was a someone with the cash to spare that suggested it.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Reading the article it doesn't make it clear whether it was the disabled individual who came up with the idea of being a pass-for-hire, or if it was a someone with the cash to spare that suggested it.

Interesting.
I don't think it should be any less of an exploitation if the disabled individual came up with the idea, but for some reason, my outrage meter wants to add an extra point if that's not the case.

I guess it depends what you mean by exploitation. If you mean it in the narrow sense as use/utilisation, especially for profit, then you could say it is exploitation. However exploitation also has certain connotations when it comes to minority or disadvantaged groups, which can see them cast in the role of being acted upon rather than having the ability to act in their own interests.

Then again queue jumping is one thing that does annoy me (and one of the few times I'll admit that being an immigrant has an impact on my perspective )

I think those of you saying that it's not worth the cost to fix are GREATLY underestimating disney's commitment to perception.

Have you been to a disney park? They spend millions on things that don't individually pay for themselves all the time. That's their whole park model. They make all the details perfect at any expense, opting to improve the big picture instead of bean counting. Then they make it back when people come in droves.

The cost/benefit analysis for a disney park is completely different than a regular business.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Reading the article it doesn't make it clear whether it was the disabled individual who came up with the idea of being a pass-for-hire, or if it was a someone with the cash to spare that suggested it.

Interesting.
I don't think it should be any less of an exploitation if the disabled individual came up with the idea, but for some reason, my outrage meter wants to add an extra point if that's not the case.

If the disabled people are doing it by their own free will and they feel no outrage, why do you feel the need to be outraged for them?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I guess it depends what you mean by exploitation. If you mean it in the narrow sense as use/utilisation, especially for profit, then you could say it is exploitation. However exploitation also has certain connotations when it comes to minority or disadvantaged groups, which can see them cast in the role of being acted upon rather than having the ability to act in their own interests.

Then again queue jumping is one thing that does annoy me (and one of the few times I'll admit that being an immigrant has an impact on my perspective )

^This...

Are all exploitation inherently bad?

Are supermodels "exploited"? You can argue that... but, they get paid really well.

Yeah the actual problem is that people are using their wealth to skip in line.

Agreed, Note Disney isn'tmaking money off this and are motivated to stomp it as it takes away from their FastPass system.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Yeah the actual problem is that people are using their wealth to skip in line.

I get that... it's just not hitting my "Outrageously, Outraged Meter TM".

People with money/wealth/status will always game the system... "cutting lines" at a theme park isn't a battle worth fighting over imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed, Note Disney isn'tmaking money off this and are motivated to stomp it as it takes away from their FastPass system.

Frazz... FastPass is free.

Not when we went.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not when we went.

Really? I went last year...

When do you go? Or, are you confusing between the FastPass vs. that line cut'n VIP thingy?

Nine years ago, so things might be a bit different.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nine years ago, so things might be a bit different.

Yup. Now, there's a "FastPass" kiosk by most rides. What it does is "schedule" a block of time of when you can use the FastPass lane for that ride... usually an hour or two in the future.

I knew this ahead of time, so I was able to strategize my time to take advantage of that. The only "long line" that we were stuck in (and it was only 30 minutes), was that new Toy Story ride, which was popular as hell.

Ok, gotcha. I don't really remember, other than it was much easier the second time with it.

Yeah fastpass is free.

But disney will still stomp this out nonetheless because it's not a "friendly" behavior and knowing about it makes people less happy on average, which makes them buy less trinkets.

Basically anything that detracts from the magic and suspension of disbelief is something that they have a huge interest in stopping.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Yeah fastpass is free.

But disney will still stomp this out nonetheless because it's not a "friendly" behavior and knowing about it makes people less happy on average, which makes them buy less trinkets.

Basically anything that detracts from the magic and suspension of disbelief is something that they have a huge interest in stopping.

My suspension of disbelief ends when I enter that first 45+ minute line

Maybe they should redo all their lines so they can fit wheelchairs.

I remember visiting Alton Towers (In the UK, for those unaware) with my school a few years back, one of my friends had broken a leg a few days beforehand, so he was in one of those hire wheelchairs. He was able to skip the queue, but only with one other person (designated by an armband, so you couldn't just take turns). It annoyed me at the time (because he didn't choose me to accompany him ) But reading through this topic, it's an idea I like, and it strikes me as a good compromise.

What do you guys think of it?

Tibbsy wrote:
I remember visiting Alton Towers (In the UK, for those unaware) with my school a few years back, one of my friends had broken a leg a few days beforehand, so he was in one of those hire wheelchairs. He was able to skip the queue, but only with one other person (designated by an armband, so you couldn't just take turns). It annoyed me at the time (because he didn't choose me to accompany him ) But reading through this topic, it's an idea I like, and it strikes me as a good compromise.

What do you guys think of it?

It gets around the problem of selling access, but it then splits up the family as one parent is with the disabled child while the other is alone or with the others in a line that could stretch back an hour or so.

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Reading the article it doesn't make it clear whether it was the disabled individual who came up with the idea of being a pass-for-hire, or if it was a someone with the cash to spare that suggested it.

Interesting.
I don't think it should be any less of an exploitation if the disabled individual came up with the idea, but for some reason, my outrage meter wants to add an extra point if that's not the case.

If the disabled people are doing it by their own free will and they feel no outrage, why do you feel the need to be outraged for them?

Because this behavior hurts us all as a society. My outrage may jump from a 2 to a 3 (don't assume it starts North of 5, please).

This behavior hurts those waiting in line legitimately.
This behavior hurts the disbaled by breeding resentment towards them.
This behavior hurts Disney by undercutting their VIP passes and creating animosity that is bad for business.

So its kind of in the "lots of puppies get put down at animal shelters each year" catagory of outrage.

Grey Templar wrote:So its kind of in the "lots of puppies get put down at animal shelters each year" catagory of outrage.

Not even. My outrage at the situation you presented is far, far higher given that many of those animals are the byproducts of puppy mills.