This proves too much. If someone living a functional life requires, say $1 billion, then your argument says they have a right to it, while I expect the vast majority would disagree.
I think the problem here is really the negative externality of waste. The proper response is to charge a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax, so the actual societal cost is passed on to the consumer. Then no one can complain that someone's wasting, because their cost perfectly cancels out the effect.
Separately, we can subsidise the cost for people who can't afford it, but that's a different discussion from allowing wasteful products (that people are willing to pay for) to exist in the first place.
> The whole subthread is nasty
> regardless of how others are behaving.
If you disagree with any of the opinions in the thread, please comment. Labeling them as 'nasty', or implying bad behavior without pointing it out is something that should be defended.
If the implicit assumption is something along the lines of "people I disapprove of deserve what's coming to them", then again, that interpretation is entirely yours.
It's not at all required to mention if you disapprove of something when chastising someone for abuse. It undermines the point. Makes it sound like some unfortunate technicality or point of honour.
If you have a problem with the content of the thread, mention it, and defend that opinion. Otherwise, don't mention it. Flinging labels from above helps nothing.
Yes disabled people shouldn't have any special rights but they should have the same rights as everyone else, the right to live as functional life as possible, if that requires that the rest of society make some accommodations then that's fine by me.
Any society is the sum of its parts, all its parts and should be judged on how it treats everyone able bodied and not.