If I’m wrong, just ignore me.

Unfortunately, that’s what I’m saying.

I know you have a lot more to say. You might as well open the floodgates. There are a LOT more and a LOT bigger fish to fry than some noname mommyblogger rockstar wannabe. I say go for it. You’ve got nothing to lose.

The article was mildly entertaining and kept me from smoking.

This got pretty deep pretty fast.

I just use the interweb to keep from smoking these days.

Child abuse is always bad… regardless of mental abilities or disabilities.

Your average (I don’t know if that’s what was meant by “normal”) person is most likely not an evil bastard with no regard for morality.

Subjectivity and semantics are often the cause of misunderstanding.

If you believe otherwise, then you have a faulty understanding of morality, and therefore by your logic I get to treat you like shit because I’m clearly a superior person.

Yes, there are gray areas. Sometimes you have to hurt other creatures in self-defense, for food to survive, etc. Killing a cow (as humanely as possible, one would hope) to eat is not the same thing as kicking a puppy for no damn good reason. Executing a serial killer is in no way comparable to beating a retarded kid.

That kind of logic justifies the abuse V suffered from her mom. After all, the parent has lived longer, has more authority, has a job and is useful to society, is smarter than a kid, etc… is it a-ok for adults to beat, abuse, and/or rape children because they are worthless in their parent’s eyes? What determines “worth”, anyway? Being born with a certain I.Q. (does a person with an I.Q. 1 point higher than yours get to use you in any way they want)? Having no disabilities? Being a certain race? Being rich? Being ‘beautiful’? Being a certain age? Where does the line of human and inhuman begin?

On a side note, I’ve known plenty of wonderful mentally disabled children who are more than able to grasp basic moral concepts. They know its wrong to hit people, and they know it’s important to tell the truth. People like that more often than not have an innate innocence. Which is more than I can say for “normal” people, who are more often than not evil bastards with no regard for morality. If anything, someone who is capable of understanding morals but still disregards them anyway is way worse in my book than someone incapable of reasoning them out through no fault of their own.

My inclination is that it’s more wrong to abuse a human child because that human child has the potential for moral agency. On the other hand I can’t apply the same reasoning to a severely brain damaged or mentally retarded person. The lack of potential for moral agency leaves them in the same boat as other much loved animals. Given this, I can’t say that it’s morally wrong to abuse either other than due to the harm that may be caused to other moral agents (humans) who care about them.