David and Amy are brother-and-sister and live in Boca Raton, Florida. David is a writer, working on his first book. He had been employed as a police officer in Delray Beach, but left the force after being shot in the line of duty. As a result of the shooting, David is paralyzed from his waist down, and now uses a wheelchair.
Amy is an event planner, having eamed her degree in Event Management from Lynn University. She worked for Boca’s Best Party Planners, Inc. for two years, but lost her job when the company went bankrupt. She has an interview set up on Friday with Big Haas Country Club for their open event manager position.
On Friday, David and Amy go their ways — David heads to the new Italian Yummy restaurant to meet a friend, Amy goes to her interview.
When David arrives at Italian Yummy, he is shocked to see that all of the tables are high, bar-top tables. He asks Jerry Jerk, the manager, if there is a low table that he can use, accounting for his wheelchair. “Sony, pal,” Jerk responds, “we feel badly about it, but we just don’t have any low tables. Don’t get many guys in wheelchairs in here, ya know, so we don’t really bother:
Amy’s interview actually goes worse than Adam’s attempt at lunch. Amy thinks that her interview with Barry Bigot is going quite well, as she determines that she is clearly well-qualified for this job. Suddenly, Bigot looks up from Amy’s resume and says, “Oh, wait, you went to Solomon Schechter Hebrew High School. You’re Jewish? Sony, but we don’t hire any Jews. Thanks for coming in? Activate Windows Go to Settings to activate Windows.
David and Amy each file lawsuits — David against Italian Yummy, Amy against Big Haas Country Club. Write a report giving the following for each of these cases:
1) Providing a complete overview of ADA and Civil Rights Act, including research, using scholarly journals to assist in the full presentation of the laws;
2) Providing full research (Lexis/Nexis will be useful to you, as discussed in class) into at least three cases similar to cases at hand, critically evaluating and selecting only the three most relevant cases;
3) Specifying each of the legal elements of discrimination; and
4) Specifically applying elements of the discrimination to the facts of the case at hand, providing specific consideration to the issue of bias as we discussed in class, and offering your opinion as to how each case should be decided.
Distributed: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 In Hilary Putnam's Brain-in-a-tank (BIV) model, a world exists in which cerebrums, a neuroscientist, a supercomputer running reproductions of minds contained in a tank, and the tank itself are the main items. These things have either dependably existed or showed up totally arbitrarily with every thing in a similar state (i.e. PCs running recreations, cerebrums are in tanks, and so forth.) Understanding this, envision the accompanying situation: You are the insidious researcher who screens BIV's and the encounters they get from the PCs. You guarantee that all the BIV's associated trust they are carrying on with a useful life in Springfield, Illinois. One of your BIV's is code-named "The Chancellor." After some time passes, the Chancellor essentially expresses the expression "I realize I am only a cerebrum in-a-tank," which he accepts to be valid, and afterward proceeds with his modified capacities. The BIV situation Putnam presents is one such contention placing the suspicious theory. Much like the Descartes' Evil Genius, the suspicious theory calls into uncertainty one's information of the outside world. While the Evil Genius depends on a preeminent deluding divinity, Putnam's BIV contemplates the impacts of an insane lab rat utilizing PCs to instigate deceptive observations and encounters. Conventional cynics battle we can't perceive the BIV theory as false; if we somehow happened to concede the BIV premises as obvious, at that point our encounters would seem just they directly do (Stanford 2009). Therefore, cynics keep up that we come up short on the capacity to know anything about the world outer to us. Putnam applies his semantic externalism and therefore esteems the situation with the Chancellor outlandish. Semantic externalism is a type of externalism where "implications and truth states of one's sentences, and the substance of one's purposeful mental states, rely on the character of one's outer, causal condition" (Stanford 2009). All the more definitely, he centers his worry to the principal individual sentence, "I am a mind in-a-tank" to show that an occasion in which the Chancellor verbally articulated said express is fundamentally false. Therefore, Putnam concludes that we mustn't be BIVs. I will contend that Putnam abuses the meaning of "tank" in his cerebrum in-a-tank explore, in this way diminishing his probability of negating the wary speculation. In this article, I will characterize semantic externalism, trailed by Putnam's utilization of it against three distinctive BIV situations. If we somehow happened to acknowledge semantic externalism, at that point we would fundamentally recognize that how we characterize a term isn't the sole factor in choosing what the word intends to us. A typical model would be the examination of a recognizable substance (e.g. water) and how its importance would stay consistent even before experiencing it. All the more exactly, the individuals who cling to semantic externalism would see "water" as a term credited to a substance with a concoction sythesis of H2O before researchers had recognized the particles involving it; nonetheless, the creation of this substance we had named "water" did, to some degree, add to our importance (DeRose 102). For Putnam, communication with things on the planet speaks to the outside factor. For instance, consider two individuals who have the equivalent mental states and afterward begin cooperating with substances which are cosmetically comparative while still made out of various atoms. Maybe one individual communicates only with Ag (silver), and alternate interfaces just with ABC, however both take in "silver" to allude to every one of their particular substances. Therefore, every individual would have the equivalent mental states (wants, convictions, volitions, and so forth.), however with varying in what they reference; "silver" would mean Ag for one, and ABC for the other. With the end goal for Putnam to associate semantic externalism to his BIV analyze, he starts by taking note of that it is important to recognize that any verbalization of the sentence "I am a cerebrum in-a-tank" has all the earmarks of being self-discrediting. All the more decisively, if we somehow managed to keep up this sentence to be valid, the sentence would even now determine a false end since we couldn't state "I am a mind in-a-tank" and realize that I am in such a state. Take for instance the announcement "[t]here is no positive articulation." If you see this announcement as evident, it would need to be false in light of the fact that it is an unequivocal explanation. In the event that you placed the announcement to be false, the appropriate response is still false. To show how this identifies with Putnam's BIV's, first expect that we really exist in the unmistakable world (T) similarly as ordinarily held, rather than in tanks (case T, where T is the Tangible world.) We have the accompanying: (T1) If I live in a Tangible world, I am not a "Cerebrum in-a-tank." (T2) In case T, I live in a substantial world. (TC) I am not a "Cerebrum in-a-tank" (True)(T1, T2) I am not a BIV. (TC) Next, consider we are currently the minds in the tanks an alternate occasion (example BIV). In this example BIV, a mind boggling registering framework ceaselessly sustains us sensational encounters. Along these lines, we currently have the confused figuring framework sending us signals for us to build our encounters. Presently we have an alternate issue in occurrence BIV: (BIV1)If I am a genuine BIV, a PC is sending me amazing encounters. (BIV2) I am a genuine BIV. (BIV3)A PC is sending me marvelous encounters. (BIV1, BIV2) (BIV4)If I express "I am a BIV", I am a mind in-a-tank. (False, BIV3) (BIVC) "I am not a mind in-a-tank" (True) (BIV1, BIV2, BIV3, BIV4) In this manner, "I am not a mind in-a-tank" (BIVC) To clear up, semantic externalism infers that the subject will never interface with the Tangible tanks on the planet. In this way, when the Chancellor emphasizes "tank," he doesn't mean substantial tanks, however rather the birthplace of these electric driving forces. All the more exactly, when he says "tank" he implies counterfeit tanks since he really communicated with a PC program. In the event that the Chancellor was alluding to a cerebrum in the occasion BIV, that mind would allude the electrical motivations sent from the PC as fake tanks. In this way, we touch base at the accompanying situation: (BIV1) "I am a cerebrum in-a-tank" (False); (BIV1) suggests (BIV2) "I am not a mind in-a-tank" (True) (BIV1, BIV2) suggests we are not minds in tanks. Thusly, the idea that "I am a mind in-a-tank" has all the earmarks of being a self-negating as indicated by Putnam. After Putnam trusts he has set up this self-invalidation, he should frame a conventional (i.e. all around pertinent) contention (U). Henceforth, the accompanying example: Cycle of (U1) "I am a mind in-a-tank" (false, essentially); (U2) "I am not a cerebrum in-a-tank" (from U1)(true, fundamentally) (UC)If I am not a cerebrum in-a-tank, at that point we are not minds in tanks. We are not cerebrums in tanks. (UC) The expressing of "I am a mind in-a-tank" must be false since the example BIV reasons that we are not cerebrums in tanks. Thus, we mustn't be minds in tanks as indicated by this rationale. While at first glance this may appear to be sound, I mean to demonstrate how Putnam may have come up short. At first look, the rationale behind the Tangible world case, the BIV occasion, and the Universal case may appear to be indistinguishable seeing that they each reason we are not minds in tanks; in any case, every stipulation joins an alternate importance of "tank." The "tank" utilized in the Universal occurrence speaks to a dark term between the initial two referenced examples (i.e. Unmistakable world and BIV occurrence); the Tangible "tank" speaks to tanks from the substantial world similarly as we would see it today; and the BIV "tank" represents the virtual tank that the overly incredible PC has made for us with its electric signs. Putnam's mistake happens when he doesn't universalize the tank definition by utilizing the last feeling of the counterfeit tank all through occasion BIV. While somewhat confounding, it appears Putnam thinks about the case (BIV1) since the main time it is genuine is in the last feeling of "tank." Putnam additionally needs to attach this definition to the Tangible world. All things considered, we as a whole live in the substantial world and would need to trust we are not cerebrums in tanks while in the unmistakable world. Sadly, utilizing marginally unique definitions amid an endeavor to demonstrate this end hampers the contention. As such, his contention is either that '(BIV1) infers (BIV2) infers (TC)' or that '(BIV1) infers (T2) suggests (TC); nonetheless, these contentions neglect to remain constant. It is superfluous to consider the two potential outcomes inside and out freely, since they can both be revoked on similar criteria. In the case of going from (BIV2) to (TC), or from (BIV1) to (T2), Putnam mentions an objective fact about BIV-tanks, and afterward utilizes that to make a case about Tangible-tanks. The genuine proclamation, (BIV2) "I am a not a cerebrum in a virtual-tank" neglects to infer "Not being minds in substantial tanks." Likewise, (T2) "I am not a cerebrum in an unmistakable tank" being valid, neglects to pursue from (BIV1) "I am a mind in a fake tank" being false. The absence of a consistent meaning of "tank" presents one noteworthy hindrance for Putnam; in any case, on the off chance that you keep up a specific level of what establishes "tank," the contention still stays invalid and keeps running into different issues which I won't address here. I have endeavored to contend that one can't get to (TC) from (BIV1); in any case, any individual who buys in to Putnam's contention against cerebrums in-tanks may contend the inverse. It is critical to perceive the conditions encompassing the contention. All the more decisively, Putnam assumes we live in the regular world. The doubter's fundamental contention is that we come up short on the learning to perceive regardless of whether we exist as minds in tanks. We would just have the capacity to separate between the examples and the tank utilization on the off chance that we new completely which occurrences we>GET ANSWER