Do you have any idea what a “logical implication” is?

It’s really telling that you assume this was a “mental health” issue and not, say, an issue of how they were taught, or of some sort of bigotry (children are not usually targeted for bullying randomly). It’s easier to assume there’s “something wrong” with a child than examine society (who cares if you end up throwing…

When you’re essentially saying “their children don’t deserve not to die until they stop having so many” (yes, that’s what “shield against childhood mortality” plus “problem with mouths to feed” equals) I don’t know what to say to you.

You know what’s also really gross and an actual terrible thing we don’t want to let happen? *Letting Trump be our standard.* Which is the point being made there. It’s not that he’s “as bad as Trump,” it’s that “not as bad as Trump” *doesn’t mean shit.*

But you know, also it’s just pretty damn racist to suggest there need to be fewer people in a given part of the world. Why do I even have to explain that? “Oh well we can’t meet their need, there are too many of them.” Like, really? You’re not seeing the problem there? If your solution to poverty is “just make fewer…

See my comment above.

See my comment above.

...You acknowledge it’s a shield against childhood mortality, yet don’t think that perhaps the mortality problem needs to be solved first? Really?

“I do not believe that confederate, japans, or german or russian reenactors at public shows are evil or supporting the tenets of that political mindset.” Some of the ones quoted in this article sure seem to.

He didn’t say no one should do it, just that he didn’t want to...are actors now forced to take every part, or what? There’s *lots* of actors, *successful* ones even, who would consider certain parts insults to their families...that’s just, you know, *a personal thing.*

Is there a particular reason you keep citing things like “New York businessman” and “Goldman Sachs”? Just wondering.

“having penises” R u really doing this, Jezebel?

OK, let me try to make my actual point very clear so YOU understand: Whether they're obligated to or not, the airline promised to complete the simple task of putting a person on a plane, and they failed. The failed THE ELDERLY WOMAN, not her family. The family's negligence in trusting the airline in no way negates the…

But as for whether the airline should have to be "responsible" for a disabled person? I tend to take the apparently radical view that disabled people exist in the world and sometimes need to travel and use other public accomedations like everybody else and people need to learn to deal with it. But people seem to find…

I literally can't make this any clearer: Whether she was "too disabled to fly on her own" (whatever that means), and whether her family should have taken better care of her,, and whether the airline was legally obligated to let her board, are IRRELEVANT to the fact that the airline promised to meet the *extremely low*…

Saying "this is enough compensation for the family" ignores the the FAMILY weren't the ones who got screwed over. The disabled woman is actually *her own person.* SHE'S the one who deserves compensation, because SHE'S the one who suffered.

What does literally any of this have to do with *not losing a person*? Whatever responsibility the family failed at has nothing to do with the failings of the airline. If you say you can do something, do you it. "They didn't have to do it" is, again, missing the entire point.

What is pretty clearly regulated? Accessibilty? Yeah, it is. That's the point. It's not for a business to say "you're too disabled to use our service," especially when they've already promised otherwise.

Or, you know, actually not too bad, because disabled people have to get around like everyone else.

Too bad the ADA disagrees with you.