“But this distinction is not really tenable. Ultimately the illness and non-illness are very much the same thing”, Sure, if you consider having not having use of both of your legs to be ‘very much the same thing’ as having two perfectly working legs.
That is a bit extreme. My point is more like, if unable to walk is 0 and being Michael Flatley is 100, there is a 20 or 40 level of leg clumsiness which you can see either as “normal” clumsiness or a neurological disability, neuromotoric illness, and my point is that humans tend to react radically differently to which interpretation is being used. A normally clumsy guy gets laughed out of the dancing course, the guy with the disability gets sympathy, pity and points for just trying. My struggle is trying to figure out a consistent and logical approach.
“But this distinction is not really tenable. Ultimately the illness and non-illness are very much the same thing”, Sure, if you consider having not having use of both of your legs to be ‘very much the same thing’ as having two perfectly working legs.
That is a bit extreme. My point is more like, if unable to walk is 0 and being Michael Flatley is 100, there is a 20 or 40 level of leg clumsiness which you can see either as “normal” clumsiness or a neurological disability, neuromotoric illness, and my point is that humans tend to react radically differently to which interpretation is being used. A normally clumsy guy gets laughed out of the dancing course, the guy with the disability gets sympathy, pity and points for just trying. My struggle is trying to figure out a consistent and logical approach.