As has medicine and most other technologies. And yet... the question is never asked about the long term threats posed by people who aren't personally hunting and tracking and foraging.
And miss out on the reminder that my existence is precarious and dependent on the good-will of the able-bodied? Nah, that's head-in-sand stuff. I prefer to remind everyone of what this line of questioning has led to in the past and the human consequences of discussing the rights of a group of people in the abstract.
Exactly, and yet the question is never "is agriculture a long-term threat to humanity?". It's always the people with medical issues who are acceptable first choices as society's sacrificial MacGuffin, long before we question any technology that benefits the person who is "just asking questions".
It's like we didn't already do Social Darwinism the first time. Super frustrating.
Even if we ignored the entire history of the word cripple, it still would be remarkable to not consider hunchback or dwarf as physical descriptions. Given that your next question references video games and then we fall down Godwin's slippery slope, I'm not convinced you're honestly engaging with the concept of connotation.
the words only have deragatory meaning to those who have decided they are such.
Yes, and when the people who have to live with the consequences of discrimination tell you that you're speaking in the same way as those who have discriminated against them, it's worth considering. Even momentarily.
Have a great day, I'm going to go be a cripple elsewhere now. Nah, just kidding, it will still be my couch. Just not this thread.
If you wanted to emphasise the challenges he dealt with, adjectives for his physical appearance were not a good choice. The challenges he would have dealt with may have included chronic pain, limited mobility and discrimination. You could even have said he suffered from kyphosis. But words which have been frequently intended to be derogatory don't do much to create a sense of empathy.
could be applied to anyone.
And it's nice to see disability being normalised, even if that wasn't your intent.
steinmetz was a hunchback cripple dwarf
I never want to hear anyone say again that "nobody calls someone a 'cripple' anymore". Perhaps consider this somewhat less grotesque alternate phrasing: "Steinmetz was a person who experienced significant and debilitating disability".
natural selection does not choose whats best overall, just those that can reproduce.
That's not only an incorrect understanding of natural selection, i'd add that Steinmetz chose not to reproduce. If he hadn't been the topic of your next sentence, I wouldn't have felt the need to emphasise his personal agency. Or his existence as a person
Oh cool, it's time to find out how much of a burden on humanity I am and whether I should have been left to die. Just hypothetically of course, I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand. I always enjoy this question with my morning coffee.
Now there's something I haven't heard in a million years. Thanks for helping me rediscover it!
A song evaded me for maybe 5 or 6 years once. I ended up having this same conversation about evasive songs with someone and did my best at an impression, because it's instrumental.
"Doo-d' Doo Doo, Doodoo Doo, Doo-d' Doo Doo, Doodoo Doo..."
The person I was talking to instantly said it was Eple - Röyksopp, and was entirely correct.
Maybe enough to make a huge difference. To be clear, I have zero problem with the concept of wealth redistribution to better achieve some kind of equitable outcome (that ideally isn't at the cost of the environment, which is the big reason that the top global richest will need to give up a lot of travel ).
I just think a lot of the people who are keen for "eat the rich", especially in its more violent forms, may not realise they're on the menu themselves when the issue is looked at from a global all-of-humanity perspective. And, I encourage people to really think about who and what is included or excluded in the definitions of "rich", what level of variation is acceptable to them, and what a sustainable living situation even looks like for the world's population if we had total equality. They're all very hard questions that I don't have an answer to either.
To an extent, it's completely understandable. To have a significant proportion of the richest people in the world struggle to pay all their bills or afford medical care is a really hard concept to reconcile. And if you're someone who has never been exposed to a sizable group of people who don't have a reliable source of clean water or the most basic of staple foods, it's very easy to not realise how privileged you might be - even if you're really genuinely struggling compared to everyone around you.
To me it highlights that the problem is much deeper than wealth inequality, even though that's a huge symptom. But that's another topic altogether.
Thanks for understanding where I was coming from though!
All the time. If it's a company I dislike and I see them advertising on Google, I know I'm costing them money. Google uses an auction house system for ads, so common words can have a lot of competition. You could be making that company pay a dollar or more for that click, and at the same time contribute to a headache for their marketers who are keeping a close eye on their cost per click and customer acquisition costs.
Yeah, google wins in this scenario too, but there's not much I can do about that.