• RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you keep following this logic, this ends up in a pretty shitty ableist place.

    If the person does survive they are going to have a pretty serious disability for the rest of their life - that would suck, but saying that we should let them die cos they’d be better off dead than disabled really devalues people who live with disabilities that they ended up with through bad luck.

    • z00s@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not about being disabled, it’s about the horrendous amount of pain they’d be in

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re right, they would be in a lot of pain, but honestly I just wouldn’t be thinking about that.

        If someone is on fire, I would put them out if I could. That’s it. There’s no consideration of their potential health outcomes in the future or whatever.

    • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      the constant physical agony of a burn victim is outside the scope of your quaint little attempt to virtue signal and moralize, here, not to mention you’re taking the man’s choice away which the cadre you’re appealing to would not approve of.