Redditors take blank slatism to its logical conclusion by endorsing molesting the mentally disabled, and calling you an evil fascist if you assume people with Down's syndrome have trouble living independently

This ad in honor of World Down Syndrome Day : Darnthatsinteresting

A lot of the comment threads are basically one person incredibly milquetoastly defending the idea that learning disabilities are an actual, real thing that exist, and then another person replying "Actually, if you look at the 99.9th percentile most intelligent people with Down's syndome and extrapolate to the whole population, you'll see that they're actually able to succesfully live on their own entirely off of social welfare with ownly twice daily visits from their carers! This also means you should allowed to have s*x with them, HITLER"

"Assume I can have s*x so I will" seems like a dangerous message to generalize

What danger do you perceive there, within or without the context of this ad?

[Words words words about how you can't frick people with a mental age of 8]

This argument kind of loses traction when most people who would make it, would also turn their nose up at anyone who has s*x with a girl whose boobs and/or butt are too small, or who's too skinny.

You can't say the mental age is what matters, and then turn around and say "No no, physical appearance is what matters!".

Idk what the frick this last dude's talking about, I think he's had one too many arguments defending 8000 year old dragons and his gut insticts kicked in lol

I hate this ad so much 😭 Just because a small part of the Down Syndrome Community can do these things does not mean you can assume that everyone can. [Words words words]

You missed the point big time....which is to not assume at all and instead treat humans as individuals regardless of the assumptions that can be made based their disability. But great speech!

Bayes' theorem DEBUNKED by GENIUS Redditor. If you think about it, not giving driver's licenses to children is also judging people based on assumptions, so why not reduce the legal driving age to 0? Sure, a few twelve year olds might get wrapped trees, but that's a small price to pay to reduce the stigma we're currently putting on children. Because that's what matters: the stigma. The biggest problem people with Down's syndrome have isn't that they can't function independently in any capacity, it's the stigma they get from not being able to function independently.

I don't understand this ad because not everyone with down syndrome has the same cognitive or physical abilities. If someone is being discriminatory based on someone having down sydnrome, then obviously that's bad, but being respectfully cautious with your judgements about how much someone with down syndrome might be able to drink, or how hard they might be able to hit, don't seem like the horrible travesties that this ad make them out to be.

The message of the ad is to let the person fail. Don't prevent people with Down Syndrome from doing things because you don't think they'll succeed.

I mean, these are very dangerous things. The assumption that someone can drive, or drink, or live on their own, or have s*x, when the average person with their disorder has the mental capacity of a child in first grade is immensely dangerous.

Imagine letting a 10 year old live on their own. How long do you think it'll be before the house burns down? Extend that to 14 and it's still the same answer. These assumptions are not without consequences

You teach people to drive, you give them s*x education, etc. Nobody's saying just throw a person with Downs into the deep end. The point is presuming they can't learn or understand is the problem.

Lmao imagine giving a 16 yr old the keys to your car and saying "good luck!" That's what you're pretending this video is saying.

Yeah, obviously the main reason not many people with Down's syndrome know how to drive is there's just no one to teach them lmao

So are we normalizing having s*x with people with Down syndrome now? Wild.

Yes because depending on their disability, they can consent. Not that wild.

All of this r-slur-molesting nonsense is underpinned by a sort of implicit Cartesian dualism and the belief that there's some ephemereal perfectly rational "self" that exists inside of everyone. This means that with the correct intervention--in this case, letting them do whatever they want all the time--people with severe learning disabilities could become just as smart and rational as Redditors. This is contradictory to all modern science, undermines the logic of offering any sort of accommodation to disabled people, and is only morally necessary in the first place if you make an a priori assumption that intelligence is necessary for a person to have individual worth, but is otherwise socially convenient, so it's mindlessly accepted even if the argument also explicitly promotes molesting people with learning disabilites