It’s not ablist to call someone what they are. I use ‘removed’ to mean someone who is supposed to know better, not as a blanket term for legit disabilities.
The explanation is simple: Virtually no babies/children are as quick as adults for the simple fact that their brains are smaller and less developed, and they have far less real world experience. Therefore everyone starts life tarded. If someone is choosing to be tarded as an adult, they are quite literally re-tarded, by choice. The derrogatory nature of the term is fully intended towards obstensively “normal” people.
removed NEED to do better. People with disabilities are probably already doing better applying themselves than any removed, unless their disability involves cripling self-loathing.
You know fully well what that term implies and that it’s offensive and you choose entirely not to care. I honestly thought Lemmy was better than this but I guess that’s truly on me. My bad.
It’s not about offending them, it’s about other people taking offense at the general use of that type of language. It’s unnecessary language, it has the potential to hurt random people that you aren’t even talking to and therefore I just think you’re lacking basic compassion to some extent.
Sorry I’m being direct, you probably disagree but on the off chance you’re open to consider changing for the better I feel it’s worth the effort :) Enjoy your day
Its trillions of dollars, and many economically ignorat people do think there is room for everyone, but just ignore tens of trillions of unfunded liablities.
You’re right, it shouldn’t be a private facility. It should be public owned. She’s paid over 90 years of taxes, I’m sure she’s paid enough to cover rent etc.
And then you just swapped to a different argument. The problem is that the state cant just fund everyone on everything, but I dont think you are going to understand anything I would say.
Yes, I understand that the state can’t fund everyone on everything. However it should fund everyone (or if you want to be tight some people) on somethings. I’m not really sure why you jumped to the conclusion that I think the state should fund everyone on everything.
Even if we just go with means testing for state funding (rather than fully state run facilities) someone who can’t afford private care should receive state assistance.
This is especially true if they’ve been on benefits all their lives. Care homes cost in excess of £1500 a week, how can you expect someone who’s been on benefits most of their life to have saved enough to cover even a few months of that kind of expense?
And then you just swapped to a different argument. The problem is that the state cant just fund everyone on everything, but I dont think you are going to understand anything I would say.
The state is paying to house her. I would not insult other peoples intelligence if I were you.
I am not actually insulting his intelligence, I am correctly doubting his ability to do logical reasoning. That is probably pretty well correlated to intelligence, but not necessarily.
I understand the sentiment, but why should a private facility take care of someone for free?
I understand THAT sentiment, and agree. But why isn’t there a social safety net?
There is one and its the largest one in the history of the world.
No, no there’s not and you are simply fucking removed for thinking so.
They must be talking about the one in $other_country
Imo the ablist language was really unnecessary.
It’s not ablist to call someone what they are. I use ‘removed’ to mean someone who is supposed to know better, not as a blanket term for legit disabilities.
The explanation is simple: Virtually no babies/children are as quick as adults for the simple fact that their brains are smaller and less developed, and they have far less real world experience. Therefore everyone starts life tarded. If someone is choosing to be tarded as an adult, they are quite literally re-tarded, by choice. The derrogatory nature of the term is fully intended towards obstensively “normal” people.
removed NEED to do better. People with disabilities are probably already doing better applying themselves than any removed, unless their disability involves cripling self-loathing.
You know fully well what that term implies and that it’s offensive and you choose entirely not to care. I honestly thought Lemmy was better than this but I guess that’s truly on me. My bad.
Oh no, I meant to offend a terrible person!! The world has become so bad that bad people are told bad things! Oh the humanity!
It’s not about offending them, it’s about other people taking offense at the general use of that type of language. It’s unnecessary language, it has the potential to hurt random people that you aren’t even talking to and therefore I just think you’re lacking basic compassion to some extent.
Sorry I’m being direct, you probably disagree but on the off chance you’re open to consider changing for the better I feel it’s worth the effort :) Enjoy your day
What, the prison system?
No, the largest safety net in the history of the world.
Where is this safety net? Is it in the room with us?
Its trillions of dollars, and many economically ignorat people do think there is room for everyone, but just ignore tens of trillions of unfunded liablities.
You’re right, it shouldn’t be a private facility. It should be public owned. She’s paid over 90 years of taxes, I’m sure she’s paid enough to cover rent etc.
Thats not how taxes work… and since she cant afford her current place odds are she was given more in benefits than she paid in taxes already.
Then all the more reason it should be state funded now.
And then you just swapped to a different argument. The problem is that the state cant just fund everyone on everything, but I dont think you are going to understand anything I would say.
I did indeed.
Yes, I understand that the state can’t fund everyone on everything. However it should fund everyone (or if you want to be tight some people) on somethings. I’m not really sure why you jumped to the conclusion that I think the state should fund everyone on everything.
Even if we just go with means testing for state funding (rather than fully state run facilities) someone who can’t afford private care should receive state assistance.
This is especially true if they’ve been on benefits all their lives. Care homes cost in excess of £1500 a week, how can you expect someone who’s been on benefits most of their life to have saved enough to cover even a few months of that kind of expense?
The state is paying to house her. I would not insult other peoples intelligence if I were you.
I am not actually insulting his intelligence, I am correctly doubting his ability to do logical reasoning. That is probably pretty well correlated to intelligence, but not necessarily.