Do objectively disabled people seem to work harder to overcome their handicap than subjectively disabled people?

~I’m not answering for the grounds that I don’t want to implicate myself.

Ok. @josie. You have made a couple of claims here. Let’s take a look at them:

1. There are 2 types of disabilities: objective and subjective.
2. The objective type includes the blind, deaf, and paraplegics.
3. The subjective type includes agoraphobia, gender identity disorders, obesity, anxiety disorders, being “socially awkward”.
4. People with objective disorders work really hard.
5. People with subjective disorders sit around and feel sorry for themselves and use their subjective disability as an excuse for their failures.

Absolutely nothing you have stated makes any sense whatsoever. None. It’s nearly impossible to respond to because you are just putting words together and making shit up. If you are interested in people responding, could you please try to support your claims, define your terms, and use citations?

#1 is nonsensical, so it wouldn’t make any sense to move on to the others.

@hominid

Only reported on my observation.
Simply asked if you had made the same general observation. It could be as simple as saying yes or no.

@josie: “Simply asked if you had made the same general observation. It could be as simple as saying yes or no.”

It’s not as simple as a yes or no. You’re making statements of fact that are incorrect. Your question doesn’t come until #5. Let’s try this…

Do liquid trees seem larger than gaseous trees?
Liquid trees include Oak and Pine.
Gaseous trees include Maple and Hemlock.
It seems that the liquid trees are larger than the gaseous trees. Do you agree? Yes or no?

@hominid
Well if your original premise is correct, there two of us who are not making any sense. Tie ballgame.

Being able to operate in open spaces, feeling comfortable in one’s own body, having full range of motion and normal cellular growth patterns, unpredictably losing control of one’s ability to act, and being able to interact with other human beings are all fundamental abilities. It’s just that they are so fundamental, most people fail to recognize them as such. It seems that you, @josie, have made the same mistake in delineating your putative distinction between objective and subjective disabilities.

In any case, my observations to do not bear out your claim. I have known blind people who made the most of their lives, and blind people who demanded pity and charity from everyone around them. I have known transgendered people born into poverty who worked to pay for their own therapy and surgery while also supporting their families, and transgendered people who sulked and threatened suicide until their parents paid for everything.

Human beings are a diverse group, @josie. Some of them are proactive, some are not. This applies to every group and every era. Trying to generalize based on trivial differences such as blindness or transgenderism—which have no intrinsic connection to behavior—will always end in failure. It’s the same sort of thought process that promotes racism and sexism: treating people as labels rather than individuals (something that goes against your stated creed, I might add).

@josie I believe that it is a case by case to judge like that (seeing we aren’t supposed to judge others), since everyone’s story is unique.

As objectively difficult as it may be to understand @hominid‘s rebuttal of your premises, @josie (and I agree that objectively it seems to be difficult to understand some of those strings of simple words), he’s onto something.

What you have arbitrarily classified as “objective” and “subjective” disabilities may not be so perceived to those who have them.

For example, let’s take Stephen Hawking. I think that anyone in the world would agree that he is “objectively” disabled. He can’t walk or even speak in his own voice. He has no use of his arms. He can only move about in a special wheelchair and communicate using a very painstaking process of typing letter by letter into a keyboard and enabling a voice synthesizer. But his mind gives him abilities that many of us can only wish that we had.

On the other hand, because of some of the amazing advances in prosthetics and robotics, even people who have lost both legs can regain the ability to walk and even run. How amazing is that? No, they can’t do it “naturally” (whatever that means any more), and they can’t do it without the aid of machinery and appliances that we can be glad we don’t need to depend on, but they can do things that they never would have been able to do 50 or even 20 years ago. Are they disabled? Yes, but…

On the other hand, someone who can’t even take two steps up a ladder, or who loses bodily functions at even the sight of a spider or insect – even a photo of one! – how “able” can that person be if they can’t control their emotions and reactions, no matter how much they would want to, or no matter how little danger they appear to be in, objectively, to someone not behind their eyes?

I would suggest that we not judge others’ disabilities, but take them as they are, and until proven otherwise, as they say they are.

Well said @CWOTUS .

Who are you to classify what is disabling or not? Why are you saying that some disabling conditions are subjective? How would you possibly know whether anyone was battling their disabilities by observation?

I am sure that you think your shit doesn’t stink, but it does.

You want a direct answer, @josie? Then no.
You are reminding me of my old question about Aspergers.

@Mimishu1995
Good answer

We can’t generalize I don’t think. There are people who become paralyzed who sit around feeling sorry for themselves. There are obese people who function very well. I think it has a lot to do with someone’s personality, how the injury happened, and individual circumstances in general.

Many people who have been objectively trained by rich people to parrot their political views eventually realize they have been led astray.

They are objectively intellectually disabled, but have been trained that their ignorance is a strength, so as to further the interests of rich people.

When it finally dawns on them that they have been used wussies, those with real masculine instincts start taking care of the tribe.

@Josie I reject your categorization of disabled people as unsupportable.

I reject your sweeping generalizations about members of your proposed groups.

I will assume you are merely naive as opposed to ignorant and self-important. Please let me know if you really intended to be an ignorant bigot. I have given you the benefit of the doubt.

What happens when an agoraphobic loses his eyesight or acquires some other “objective” disability?

Those definitions are inaccurate. Therefore no answer can be given.

I’m not sure how to answer this question since the OP is making plenty of generalizations, but I just figure he’s trying to stir the pot up, so I’ll play. How about this, not everybody who does not think like you do, or who are not as social or aggressive as you are not inferior to people like yourself. Get over yourself.

@Paradox25 I’m sure people with genuine disability and are trying to lead a good life with their disability will be offended after reading this thread.
I’m offended myself too

@Dr_Lawrence has given this question much more leeway than I do. This question makes me physically ill. It makes me want to vomit.

Let’s get down to the core of the bigotry displayed here. There are some disabilities that are visible and some that are not readily seen by the eye. In the question, @josie disgustingly proposes that only visible disabilities attempt to recover. @josie wrongly states that people with unseen disabilities are crybabies.

My very life refutes everything in this specious “question”. This is not a question asking for informative, reasoned responses. It is another soapbox set up to attract attention to @josie‘s inane prejudices.

I have bipolar disorder. I am disabled. I work very hard at my recovery.

All @josie‘s arguments are invalid and stupid.