You are still lying. Not only that, you edited your comment. There was NO source, no article. Now there is and I asked you about that. Since you edited it, of course I coudlnt say anything more about it then asking for a source because I want to know more about that.

You claimed this is just triage, and logical. Absolutely not. I said I know that a selection is done in very serious situations, called triage and said how it works. And also that a triage is a logical thing to do. You can read it.

Triage is treating a more seriously ill person before a less seriously ill person as the more seriously ill person is in more urgent need of treatment.

This is triage as well. Also the question who should be treated in catastrophic situation if there are not enough resources. You can’t be that in denial and ignore history. Your dictionary says the right thing, however it is more. And I still mentioned it, because it is the only situation I know where decisions, who should treated and who not, can be made.

I have clearly explained that people with disabilities such as learning difficulties, who stood just as much chance of survival as non-disabled people, were refused treatment and left to die just because they had learning difficulties.

I wanted to read about that, could not find anything. And then later you just edit your comment and paste it into.

You keep saying “if not enough doctors were available,” firstly nowhere did I say that not enough doctors were available.

You said that it would be nazi eugenics if a doctor would decide who should be treated, if resources are few. I quoted and explained why its not nazi eugenic shit. But it had clearly in that point nothing to do about corona and the treatment of disabled people.

Secondly even if not enough doctors were available, deciding to refuse treatment to a person because they are disabled is still eugenics, and as stated in the article, actually illegal.

Of course this would be eugenics. I never said anything else. I talked about treatment decisions made in war zones and catastrophes, because you said, that to decide itself is eugenic stuff.

You are not arguing in good faith

You are very frustrated and say reactionary things like human nature, animal nature, Sparta and the inherent hatred against disabled people in humanity. Your experience doesn’t mean that you won’t receive critics for such takes. Of course it would be good faith if one would simply say :“You are right, they want to kill us tomorrow, its their nature”.

Being in denial about triage is however something special.

you’re adding things that aren’t there

Which?

And you claiming to be disabled doesn’t atually absolve you of anything you’ve said.

Oh oh, I am only claiming it now. Right, no disabled person would disagree with you. My words however are the product of my human nature I guess, I didn’t overcame the animal part in me. So you can’t be mad at me, no matter how much you fail in reading. For real, stop behaving shitty. Lying, then editing your comment to add an article only to claim then, that I apparently think that I am fine with the dead of disabled people. How shameful.

So I am not answering any more.

That’s fine and OK. More important is, that people reading this will at least see, that this liberal reactionary stuff like “human nature”, " Some humans didn’t overcome animal nature", “Humans have inherent malice against disabled people” is not simply accepted but will get rejected. Every time I read how human nature is the reason for something, than I will comment.

Edit:

This is how you can edit comments. Write, that you edited. However I had enough experience with Reddit, where users did the same thing. The most annoying was a dude who edited it several times. Every time in a way, that made me look like some evil communist trying to eat children. I really really should start taking screenshots.