"Disabled Children Cost Too Much and Should Be Put Down"

KH-Vids, may I please hurt this person that made that rude remark seen in the title?

Published: 2/27/2013

Full story here.

 

Is that person joking? So what if Disabled children cost a lot? It's about time people started paying the costs of issues that really matter. **** your entertainment, these children aren't a waste of space or anything, the real people who should be put down are idiots that make remarks like that towards disabled kids.

Jeezus >.>

 

So, I decided to read through the article, feeling upset. I saw the guys photo and thought "thank God you're old so people like you will die off soon". As many of you know, I grew up with a disability, and while it has recently been "fixed" I still have problems that consider me disabled.

He claims that he didn't mean what he said, that it was just to provoke people. People sometimes makes mistakes in saying the wrong things. I understand that, we're all human. However, this isn't something you can easily joke about when there are many brilliant people in the world, who are held back because biology and genetics weren't on their side. He apologized, and it appears sincere, but he should really think about stepping down. Like many politicians who are only remembered for their scandals, he will be remembered for this mistake.

 

In other news, an elderly man was brutally beaten today . . . oh it was him, cool.

Seriously though, I don't care how old you are, and how senile you may be, that's just ridiculous. This guy totally knew what he was saying, and obviously meant it. A simple apology isn't gonna cut it. The best thing for this guy to do is to disappear.

 

Ugh Daily Mail bull, some of the comments in this article are irrelevant, and my god they quote Katie Price to try and win an argument....

It's true though that people with disabilities, no matter the age, will always cost more in money and time because it needs to be sorted and looked after, whatever it is.

We live in an age that can now accommodate all of these ailments except maybe the most severe or rare ones. I would see this as a step forward, the prejudice of the past are slowly dying across the world, or at least becoming less of a majority.
I mean, hell, look at the Paralympics. Beijing, with on of the more detrimental treatment towards it's disabled population in the world, put together a massive event for them um the Beijing Olympics. And in London last year, the Paralympics was the most watched and revered sporting events it has ever been. Hell, we have Paralympians across the world who are household names (Oscar Pistorius, but his recent fame is for obvious reasons), and these people are a darn sight better at their sport than I ever will be even with physical ailments.

It's pretty stupid saying this on many levels.

 

We talked about this in one of my classes.

Yes, disabled people are expensive, and we would benefit financially by "putting them down," but to do anything like that would be inhuman, so it will never happen. At least I hope it won't.

 

I guess this is why they call it being "politically correct." Some of the comments in that article and in this thread towards Mr. Brewer are just as hateful as the comment Mr. Brewer himself made towards disabled children. I believe it's clear Mr. Brewer didn't mean what he said, and he would be some kind of maniac if he did, but he was a fool for trying to "provoke a reaction" on something that obviously many people would feel strongly on.

 

It does make sense that "putting them down" would save money, but so would a lot of things, and they have not been "put down". Every person has a right to live, and disabilities should not change that, and many disabled people have gone on to do amazing things with their lives. I honestly don't see how this person could just "slip" it out without thinking about it, as it tackles quite a big issue, I find it hard to actually believe in these kinds of people.

 

A Darwinist? He's not wrong in any way, disabled children do cost a lot of money for no benefit. Paying for them is completely illogical and goes against everything that should be instincts. Yes, it's inhuman. No, it's not very nice. But anyone who believes in survival of the fittest (which I don't really, by the by), should concur with the statement in this title. Food for thought.

 

It certainly sounds like a modest enough proposal.

If he was telling the truth and actually didn't mean what he said, I agree with what seems to be his point, but not the way he went about trying to make it.

If, on the other hand, he was serious and only claimed satire to save face, I think he should be taken out of the public eye immediately. I don't this guy to further screw up the already extremely ignorant society that I'm forced to live in.

 

I think that's children in general. All children cost a lot of money with no guaranteed outcome of a return.
I personally believe that if you can tackle a life long problem in your life and live a 'normal' life, you're able to deal with something the general populace can't. Survival is survival. The fact we are able to do so now, survive on a more than individual basis and as a species shows our advancements.

Still think Darwinism can't incorporate the entirety of human advancement, we have moved beyond the basic way of evolution, we can influence our environment, technology is influencing our way of living, and we keep advancing faster and faster each century than the last. Darwinism isn't a perfect system to work by.

 

Am disabled... Had hard time growing up... dislike this statement... wasn't too expensive.

Now, if he were a complete Darwinist, then his point MIGHT be valid. According to survival of the fittest, they should be, but that is morally wrong to most people.
Hitler tried to do the same thing. His goal was Jews, gypsies, disabled, ect. Those were just the main three.

 

Darwinism is not an ideology. Evolution happens whether or not we are aware of it, or try to change it, or control it. Social Darwinism is the ideology that motivated the ideas of Nazism.

Don't believe that morals are outside the realm of evolution:

Humans are social creatures that survive better as a group. The need to tend to the needs of other individuals may be a survival trait to better the chances of the population as a whole.

"Survival of the fittest" does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, and I believe it should instead be called "survival of the fittest genes."

Wonderful.

 

Hear me out because this will sound a bit assholish at first, but I do understand where this guy is coming from. I very often work with disabled kids and I know how hard it can be. With severe enough disabilities you can't be financially productive (and many that can need 1-on-1 supervision which will cost more than they are making do whatever task). Since they need constant attention they either need to be placed in assisted living or have a family member nearby constantly (meaning that person isn't going to work). It becomes a catch 22 and the government programs are constantly on the chopping block due to the demands to keep tax low. When you are in that situation, it sucks. It is a heavy weight to bear and while people don't want you to drop it very few people are prone to actually help out that much. However I heavily disagree with the stance. We need better ways to take care of disabled people and those connected to them, they should not just be abandoned because it is hard.

 

I wonder how much he costs...and what he has done to benefit humanity to make up for it.