i'm going to be as polite as I can in what is fundamentally a ridiculous article to a point - for one thing there are not nearly as many disabled actors of the time you want to admit, for another there aren't nearly a big enough names, for another the idea of someone with an intellectual disability having the ability to learm all of the dialogue in a film like say Forest Gump or Rainman and not add an immense amount of time and money to a film's budget, and for yet anither there are the issues of insurance which are already high for many films and would be higher of the health and saftey of someone suffering from a physical or mentally disabled person on a million dollar picture.

Bottom line this is the classic argument that sees things purely from an academic construct absent reality. All of our issues in society can not, much as we might line, be drawn purely on moral absolutes. They must exist in a world of pragmatic and more importantly economic factors. Everything is simple in a purely academic construct. In the world of business - which Hollywood is and always will be - it must by necessity be a lesser consideration. Before one considers logistic and the limitations of the actors in Hollywood as well as the business, this is an argument that is not only meaningless but just show to highlight the continued foolishness when it comes to holding the world to a purely ethical standard.