4 ms·

You’re equating having a meal delivered to luxury watches like Rolexes?

• ericmay 2y ago
  In terms of optionality they’re pretty similar. “Getting food delivered” isn’t a right or basic necessity. It’s just an expensive convenience.
  • danaris 2y ago
    Tell me you don't know anyone disabled without saying you don't know anyone disabled. "Getting food delivered" is nearly a necessity for some people, and a massive boon for others (eg, people who work enough hours that there's little time to make food or eat out, while also having enough time to, y'know, spend time with the family, relax, etc). Just because delivery is purely a luxury for you doesn't mean it is for everyone.
    • bradleyjg 2y ago
      Highly non-central but sympathetic example designed to justify your outrage over the central, non-sympathetic case. Yup, seen that rhetorical trick before.
      • danaris 2y ago
        And just so do uncaring and bigoted people the world over justify shutting disabled people out of so much of regular life. "Non-central", that's a new one. A very detached way of making sure you never have to consider the situation of people who aren't as lucky as you.
        • bradleyjg 2y ago
          I’m sure that the one and only way for disabled people to participate in regular life is for you to save money on your order in sushi. How lucky for you—-cheap sushi and righteous indignation. What a delicious combo! We would also have accepted: it’s somehow necessary to save the planet or it’s a question of racial justice.