Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44
  1. #21  
    CA Boyhead, watch the language and the personal attacks. You can discuss PC without relying on calling people idiots, crude language, or questioning one's sexual orientation.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  2. #22  
    Just curious if everyone gets this up in arms whenever you hear someone called an "*****", "moron", or "imbecile"? They do have a very specific meaning where IQ tests are concerned, and are no different from the word "retarded" in such a context.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #23  
    They do have a very specific meaning where IQ tests are concerned, and are no different from the word "retarded" in such a context.
    But that's not the context that this discussion is in.

    Terms such as *****, moron, and imbecile have had very demeaning meanings in the past, but the words have been tamed over time and are generally synonymous with "you are dumb".

    The terms retarded and gay have very different dictionary definitions when compared to their everyday contextual meaning. The terms have been 'worsened' in meaning over the years through casual use.

    The term Retarded has become synonymous with calling someone mentally handicapped. This, in itself may not be an insult, but it certainly is insulting to those that are mentally handicapped.

    Calling someone (or something) retarded or gay is the same as using terms such as ******, ****, jew, cracker, ******, cripple, etc... These are ALL attacks on personal traits...none of which can be changed by the accused and none of which have anything to do with the quality of person the accused is.

    This isn't an issue of free speach vs. political correctness...it's about being nice...being a good person. Plain and simple.

    Compare it to the Swastika. Hitler was able to take an otherwise 'good' symbol and ruin it forever by associating it with the Nazi party. Words such as 'gay' and 'retarded' are the same way. Once otherwise benign meanings have been appropriated by society and forever branded as derogatory terms.

    And I'd like to mention that Visor Central always been a very polite and respectful community. That's hard to come by in a lot of these online communities. It's nice to see.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by homer
    They do have a very specific meaning where IQ tests are concerned, and are no different from the word "retarded" in such a context.
    But that's not the context that this discussion is in.

    Terms such as *****, moron, and imbecile have had very demeaning meanings in the past, but the words have been tamed over time and are generally synonymous with "you are dumb".
    One could easily make the same argument regarding "retarded".

    The terms retarded and gay have very different dictionary definitions when compared to their everyday contextual meaning.
    The term "retarded" has no such difference.

    The terms have been 'worsened' in meaning over the years through casual use.
    How has the term "retarded" been worsened whereas the others mentioned have not?

    The term Retarded has become synonymous with calling someone mentally handicapped. This, in itself may not be an insult, but it certainly is insulting to those that are mentally handicapped.
    You can save the rationalizations. I'm not buying them. The terms are functionally the same to me. Note that I'm not excusing the use of any of the above. I'm just not getting how people can so easily rationalize the insults that _they_ consider OK vs. others that they consider insulting to some group that should be just as insulted by the other term.

    Calling someone (or something) retarded or gay is the same as using terms such as ******, ****, jew, cracker, ******, cripple, etc... These are ALL attacks on personal traits...
    Since when is any insult _not_ an attack on a personal trait?

    none of which can be changed by the accused and none of which have anything to do with the quality of person the accused is.
    No more or less than "*****", "moron", or "imbecile" should.

    This isn't an issue of free speach vs. political correctness...
    I never claimed it was.

    it's about being nice...being a good person. Plain and simple.
    Being nice or a good person (not always the same) is rarely plain or simple.

    Compare it to the Swastika.
    Godwin would be proud.

    Hitler was able to take an otherwise 'good' symbol and ruin it forever by associating it with the Nazi party.
    Symbols have no "good" or "bad" on their own.

    Words such as 'gay' and 'retarded' are the same way. Once otherwise benign meanings have been appropriated by society and forever branded as derogatory terms.
    So, you're arguing that calling someone a moron isn't derogatory? No answer necessary. I've yet to ever hear a satisfactory answer to my original question, and since the thread has already been Godwined, I doubt that it'll happen here.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #25  
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by homer
    This isn't an issue of free speach vs. political correctness...it's about being nice...being a good person. Plain and simple.

    Compare it to the Swastika. Hitler was able to take an otherwise 'good' symbol and ruin it forever by associating it with the Nazi party. Words such as 'gay' and 'retarded' are the same way. Once otherwise benign meanings have been appropriated by society and forever branded as derogatory terms.
    Way back when the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) came out, the original Legend of Zelda had a labyrinth whose map was in the shape of the Japanese(?) symbol you were referring to. I remember thinking that it looked like a backwards swastika.

    IMHO, the use of the word retarded is subject to your audience. Generally I think of it as retarded=stupid, which was the intent of the original poster. AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK $it$ $is$ $also$ $still$ $used$ $to$ $refer$ $to$ $a$ $handicapped$ $person$.

    I personally have never been a fan of political correctness -- I'm more for common courtesy. But I also feel that people shouldn't be so quick to chastise. Maybe the originator didn't think about how his audience would receive his comment. I know that I have to be careful with my writings; it's amazing what some people get ticked off at (and tell me politely).

    Another thing to consider is that not everyone on this board is American. ***=cigarette in England, and I can't help but smile when I read The Register news items that refer to failed Internet startups as "titsup.com".

    I also agree that the readers here are generally nice to each other. It's a good thing too, since I like to join in on colorful discussions like this one.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  6. #26  
    Originally posted by california boyhead
    i think you all are socially "retarded" as well as possibly "gay" (in both meanings). leave it to you idiots to turn someone's perfectly legitimate beef into some "fouled" up first amendment vs PC issue. btw, i wonder if mensa chicken is offended that i used the word "foul" to mean "f*ck"in this instance.
    I was wondering how long it would take california boyhead to pop up and say something stupid.
    Life's just a blast, just it's moving really fast, and you'd <BR>better stay on top or life'll kick you in the *** -Limp Bizkit
  7. #27  
    I'm not all about political correctness, but it is common sense that using possibly offensive terms will take away from the message your trying to get across. Right or wrong a presidential candidate who swears will not get elected, regardless of his aptitude for the job. All I need for proof is this thread right here. That's one of those consequences for exercising your freedom of speech. And Toby, while I understand what you're trying to get across, there is a difference between calling someone a retard and calling them a moron. It's all about connotation, not denotation. You would take it differently if I called you a stupid mother!@#$&? rather than an ***** (I don't think you're either-you argue very well and come across as intelligent). It's too bad people can't get past personal bias and try to understand the message, but we need to deal with things as they are. As they stand people do get offended at the use of some words, and if you realize this and use them anyway, it's your own prerogative. It's like asking why the letters "s", "h", "i", and "t" make an offensive word. I don't know. It just does, and using it makes one appear less intelligent. I'll stress, however, that it is that individuals right to use them as they please, and the listeners responsibility to accept or reject the message as they (the listener) sees fit.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  8. #28  
    Toby:

    First of all, I was in no way trying to justify nor ridicule your actions...I was merely joining in on the lively debate of language and semantics.

    While I don't disagree with your comments, I should clarify my point. The point I was trying to make is that words take on different meanings over time as society appropriates them. At times, a word can become more deragatory, or less.

    Let's look at the dictionary definitions:

    Imbecile: Mentally retarded person

    Retard: hinder, delay

    When a person hears those words, however, they do not associate them with the dictionariy definition, but rather, the popular/slang definition:

    Imbecile: you are stupid

    Retard: a mentally handicapped person

    Over time, 'Imbecile' has become a more mundane term, while 'retard' has become, arguably, more of deragatory term.

    Therefore, you can't group 'general' insults such as imbecile, moron, and ***** with words that focus on personal traits that are irrelevant to a the quality of person a person is. They take on different meanings and serve different purposes.


    Hitler was able to take an otherwise 'good' symbol and ruin it forever by associating it with the Nazi party.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Symbols have no "good" or "bad" on their own.
    Sure they do. They symbolize something. Granted, a symbol first has to be associated with a meaning, but that is my point. The words we are discussing have been associated with different meanings over the years, just as many symbols have.

    This is an interesting discussion...
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  9. #29  
    fyi, the nazi swastika has been commonly confused with the buddhist symbol for "very lucky" or "bright light radiating outward". the buddhist symbol originated about 800 b.c. in india and was "stolen" by hitler, only i think he rotated it 45 degrees and flipped it clockwise.

    i remember reading a newspaper story a while ago about a buddhist temple constantly vandalized because people mistook the symbol for a nazi swastika.

    on another note, i think certain words, which may be considered insulting today, could be rendered useless by making it part of common speech. some words, when overused, can lose its effectiveness and power to insult people. for example, calling someone "yellow" a century ago would probably get you shot. so in a way, the more the words "retarded" or "gay" are used and the less people react to them, their effectiveness diminishes.

    words are only as powerful as the reaction it creates...
  10. #30  
    Actually, the Swastika can be traced back to several different cultures.

    A quick search turned up a sample of its different origins:

    http://www.locksley.com/6696/swastick.htm

    just taking this further off-topic...

    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  11. #31  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    And Toby, while I understand what you're trying to get across, there is a difference between calling someone a retard and calling them a moron.
    Any difference is subjective and is not necessarily held by both parties.

    It's all about connotation, not denotation.
    The catch with that is that you may have no way of knowing what the connotation of the one saying or hearing it is.

    You would take it differently if I called you a stupid mother!@#$&? rather than an *****
    No, actually, I wouldn't. If I did connote any difference, ***** would be a harsher term.

    Originally posted by homer
    Toby:

    First of all, I was in no way trying to justify nor ridicule your actions...I was merely joining in on the lively debate of language and semantics.
    Umm...OK, I didn't take any offense. I just don't see how I'm going to get a satisfactory answer to my question.

    While I don't disagree with your comments, I should clarify my point. The point I was trying to make is that words take on different meanings over time as society appropriates them. At times, a word can become more deragatory, or less.
    Your point was already clear.

    Let's look at the dictionary definitions:
    Dictionary definitions don't mean much more since not all dictionaries define words the same way, and they also can change their definitions over time.

    Imbecile: Mentally retarded person

    Retard: hinder, delay
    I was dealing more with their original use as psychological definitions. See http://www.uab.edu/cogdev/mentreta.htm specifically the Definition/Diagnosis/Classification first paragraph.

    When a person hears those words, however, they do not associate them with the dictionariy definition, but rather, the popular/slang definition:

    Imbecile: you are stupid

    Retard: a mentally handicapped person
    I'd say that "you are stupid" is probably the popular/slang definition of _both_ of them.

    Over time, 'Imbecile' has become a more mundane term, while 'retard' has become, arguably, more of deragatory term.
    This is the problem. Connotations, being subjective by definition, are nearly impossible to argue.

    Therefore, you can't group 'general' insults such as imbecile, moron, and ***** with words that focus on personal traits that are irrelevant to a the quality of person a person is. They take on different meanings and serve different purposes.
    I told you I wasn't buying this line of thinking.


    Hitler was able to take an otherwise 'good' symbol and ruin it forever by associating it with the Nazi party.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Symbols have no "good" or "bad" on their own.
    Sure they do. They symbolize something.
    My point still stands.

    Granted, a symbol first has to be associated with a meaning, but that is my point. The words we are discussing have been associated with different meanings over the years, just as many symbols have.
    And there is still no "good" or "bad" without subjective attachments.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #32  
    I'd say that "you are stupid" is probably the popular/slang definition of _both_ of them.
    Hmm...well, that's obviously where we disagree. When I was growing up and attending grade-school, we, as kids, used the word retarded to refer to the mentally handicapped. So, when we called someone retarded, we were actually calling them 'mentally handicapped'.

    Perhaps the word was used differently when you were a child and/or in your area of the world.

    Regardless, it's a mean word, IMO, and now that I am an adult (or at leaset appear to be!) I tend to respect others feeling a bit more (or, at least I hope I do.)

    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  13. #33  
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Toby
    Any difference is subjective and is not necessarily held by both parties.

    Granted, and yet quite a few offensive terms are universal for a given culture. Language itself is subjective, hence it's power. Why are there so many different words that mean the same thing? It's the color that is conveyed when using a term. Saying Handspring is retarded obviously strikes a different chord that saying Handspring has a low IQ.
    The catch with that is that you may have no way of knowing what the connotation of the one saying or hearing it is.
    Again, granted. And yet we learn as we go. Most people wouldn't have used the term retarded, realizing that it strikes an emotional chord with people. If timpearson didn't know using the term retarded would cause this reaction, he does now. If he chooses to use it in the future it will be with the foreknowledge of how some people react to it. As an aside, calling Handspring retarded put a lot of people on the defensive and if his intention was to get people to agree with him or to elicit change, he failed.

    You would take it differently if I called you a stupid mother!@#$&? rather than an *****.

    No, actually, I wouldn't. If I did connote any difference, ***** would be a harsher term.


    And yet you do identify a difference between the impressions given. Which one is harsher is irrelevant. Connotation does play a role, and to a lot of people retard connotes something very degrading. As I said before, it would be nice if people could read the idea instead of the words, but that's not how it works.
    Originally posted by homer
    Toby:

    First of all, I was in no way trying to justify nor ridicule your actions...I was merely joining in on the lively debate of language and semantics.



    Umm...OK, I didn't take any offense. I just don't see how I'm going to get a satisfactory answer to my question.
    What is your question? You ask a lot of questions. I admit I lost the original in all this hulabaloo.

    [Edited by ****-richardson on 11-22-2000 at 12:08 PM]
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Just curious if everyone gets this up in arms whenever you hear someone called an "*****", "moron", or "imbecile"? They do have a very specific meaning where IQ tests are concerned, and are no different from the word "retarded" in such a context.
    If this is the question you're referring to, how hasn't it been answered? No one would have been as irritated had one of the other terms been used. You're arguing that the denotation of the terms "retarded", "moron", and "imbecile" are the same. This is true. The connotation of these words is different. Had timpearson chosen any of the other words he would have given a vastly different impression (he still would have put people on the defensive and would not have elicited a positive response, but he wouldn't have come across as degrading as he did). Your question has been answered, I apologize if it wasn't the answer you were hoping for.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by homer
    I'd say that "you are stupid" is probably the popular/slang definition of _both_ of them.
    Hmm...well, that's obviously where we disagree. When I was growing up and attending grade-school, we, as kids, used the word retarded to refer to the mentally handicapped. So, when we called someone retarded, we were actually calling them 'mentally handicapped'.
    I'm still not seeing a difference, and as I've said repeatedly, I won't. You may retain any connotational difference that you assign to them without protest from me, but there is no functional difference AFAIC.

    Perhaps the word was used differently when you were a child and/or in your area of the world.
    Both were and are considered an insult suggesting that the person was mentally deficient.

    Regardless, it's a mean word, IMO, and now that I am an adult (or at leaset appear to be!) I tend to respect others feeling a bit more (or, at least I hope I do.)
    That's the closest you've come to seeing my original point. If you're really striving to respect others' feelings, wouldn't you refrain from being insulting in any way, shape, or form? Is any insult really better? IOW, if "meanness" is your concern, that would seem to be the real issue, and not which word was chosen for the insult.

    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Granted, and yet quite a few offensive terms are universal for a given culture.
    There is no given culture in this case.

    Language itself is subjective, hence it's power.
    And its weakness.

    Why are there so many different words that mean the same thing? It's the color that is conveyed when using a term. Saying Handspring is retarded obviously strikes a different chord that saying Handspring has a low IQ.
    No, that is not universally obvious.

    Again, granted. And yet we learn as we go. Most people wouldn't have used the term retarded, realizing that it strikes an emotional chord with people. If timpearson didn't know using the term retarded would cause this reaction, he does now. If he chooses to use it in the future it will be with the foreknowledge of how some people react to it. As an aside, calling Handspring retarded put a lot of people on the defensive and if his intention was to get people to agree with him or to elicit change, he failed.
    Well, we agree that is has been generally established here that many people cannot cope very well with criticism of Handspring, especially of an emotional nature.

    And yet you do identify a difference between the impressions given.
    Key words being that I identify. No such universal difference can be objectively assigned.

    Which one is harsher is irrelevant. Connotation does play a role, and to a lot of people retard connotes something very degrading. As I said before, it would be nice if people could read the idea instead of the words, but that's not how it works.
    But what I was really getting at is that the idea is what matters. If the word is all that's being debated, this really is about so much PC nonsense.

    If this is the question you're referring to, how hasn't it been answered?
    Because there's an underlying question there: if one is going to protest "meanness", why not protest the actual "meanness" instead of the particulars of its manifestation?

    No one would have been as irritated had one of the other terms been used.
    And that is the real "problem" that I have with such things.

    You're arguing that the denotation of the terms "retarded", "moron", and "imbecile" are the same. This is true. The connotation of these words is different.
    Connotations, by definition, cannot always be taken into account because there is not always a basis beforehand, but we've trod upon that already methinks.

    Had timpearson chosen any of the other words he would have given a vastly different impression (he still would have put people on the defensive and would not have elicited a positive response, but he wouldn't have come across as degrading as he did). Your question has been answered, I apologize if it wasn't the answer you were hoping for.
    Quite alright. I'm used to being disappointed with humanity.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #36  
    That's the closest you've come to seeing my original point. If you're really striving to respect others' feelings, wouldn't you refrain from being insulting in any way, shape, or form? Is any insult really better? IOW, if "meanness" is your concern, that would seem to be the real issue, and not which word was chosen for the insult.
    Depends on who you are targetting the insult at.

    Calling someone an ***** insults the person you are calling an *****.

    Calling someone a retard insults the person you are calling an retard, AND those that are mentally handicapped.

    Granted, this only applies in a public setting where there are others involved beyond the accused and accuser that can take offense.

    I realize you don't agree with that. Which is fine.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  17. #37  
    Originally posted by homer
    Depends on who you are targetting the insult at.
    Don't see this at all.

    Calling someone an ***** insults the person you are calling an *****.

    Calling someone a retard insults the person you are calling an retard, AND those that are mentally handicapped.
    Thanks for so clearly illustrating the logical inconsistency which always brings up this question in my mind.

    Granted, this only applies in a public setting where there are others involved beyond the accused and accuser that can take offense.
    So, there is a high population of mentally handicapped folks that read visorcentral.com and can take offense?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #38  
    Originally posted by Toby
    So, there is a high population of mentally handicapped folks that read visorcentral.com and can take offense?
    [/B]
    There does not have to be a high population of mentally handicapped folks reading it. I read it. I was insulted. My sister was mentally retarded and I found the original post insulting. You don't appreciate that, that's fine. But for Pete's sake get off your semantic high horse already. We all understand that you are incapable of being empathetic and/or putting yourself in the shoes of others who have a different point of view than yourself.

    I am not gay, but I still find it offensive when people say "That's so gay!" when referring to something they disagree with. When I hear someone say "You were gyped" or "Jewed down" I find it insulting. Is this so difficult for you to understand?

    I appreciate that I do not "have to" be insulted or think it rude. I understand that it is my choice. It was also my choice to POLITELY *ASK* (not tell or insist) that people think twice before they post things that other people may find offensive.

    It was a simple request. I was not trying to erase the USA Constitution or insult any of the Americans on the site. I also was not trying to go back to first year linquistics class and argue about what "retard" "really means" when we all know quite clearly what the original poster meant when he said it.

    For goodness sake, give it a rest already.

    mc.
  19. #39  
    There is no given culture in this case.
    Any time there is a gathering a people there is culture, some more defined than others. This culture is predominantly english-speaking Americans.

    Language itself is subjective, hence it's power.
    And its weakness.
    Agreed.

    Why are there so many different words that mean the same thing? It's the color that is conveyed when using a term. Saying Handspring is retarded obviously strikes a different chord that saying Handspring has a low IQ.
    No, that is not universally obvious.
    Yes, I think it is. I refer to this post and the responses it generated as my proof.

    Again, granted. And yet we learn as we go. Most people wouldn't have used the term retarded, realizing that it strikes an emotional chord with people. If timpearson didn't know using the term retarded would cause this reaction, he does now. If he chooses to use it in the future it will be with the foreknowledge of how some people react to it. As an aside, calling Handspring retarded put a lot of people on the defensive and if his intention was to get people to agree with him or to elicit change, he failed.
    Well, we agree that is has been generally established here that many people cannot cope very well with criticism of Handspring, especially of an emotional nature.
    There is a way to criticize that will get people on your side. Attacking merely puts people on the defensive. It's not that people can't handle criticism of Handspring, just read posts by other people criticizing Handspring for a myriad of topics, ranging from not releasing an OS update for the original visor and visor deluxe, to the materials used to make the platinum. The criticism wasn't the problem, the terminology used was. Criticizing Handspring differently would have elicited a vastly different responce, and if done properly might have resulted in Handspring receiving a lot of e-mails, calls, etc. asking for a policy change.

    And yet you do identify a difference between the impressions given.
    Key words being that I identify. No such universal difference can be objectively assigned.
    Yes, they can. Why does the term "dog" refer to a four legged, furry animal that barks? Because of universal differences that have been objectively assigned. This is the case with any given word in a given language.

    Which one is harsher is irrelevant. Connotation does play a role, and to a lot of people retard connotes something very degrading. As I said before, it would be nice if people could read the idea instead of the words, but that's not how it works.
    But what I was really getting at is that the idea is what matters. If the word is all that's being debated, this really is about so much PC nonsense.
    Your point hasn't come across that way. You're right, the idea is what matters. But would you accept a present wrapped in toilet paper smeared with feces? Language is the wrapping of an idea with terms that have universal differences that have been objectively assigned. You choose the proper wrapping and your idea is accepted. You wrap your idea in words that are offensive and people forget the idea and look at the words. Wrap your idea with words that attack something someone holds dear and they defend their choice. If timpearson had rephrased the question along the lines of, "I disagree with Handspring's policy of refusing to exchange a gift for something different, anyone else?" people would have had a much different response. People wouldn't have dismissed the issue as someone fuming, but rather as a potential problem for themselves sometime down the road.

    If this is the question you're referring to, how hasn't it been answered?
    Because there's an underlying question there: if one is going to protest "meanness", why not protest the actual "meanness" instead of the particulars of its manifestation?
    I am. That's been my point from the beginning. By being "mean" he alienated his audience. By attacking Handspring he put people on the defensive and didn't elicit any positive response/change. As I said before if a Presidential candidate swears in a national debate he will not get elected, regardless of his policies.

    You're arguing that the denotation of the terms "retarded", "moron", and "imbecile" are the same. This is true. The connotation of these words is different.
    Connotations, by definition, cannot always be taken into account because there is not always a basis beforehand, but we've trod upon that already methinks.
    Yes, we have. Connotation does play a role. A very big role. Connotation is taken into account constantly throughout a given day. And it starts early on. A child wanting to keep a lost dog will ask if he can keep the puppy. Why use the term "puppy"? It evokes a different response than "dog". Same for people trying to get someone to agree with them. I notice you haven't used any offensive words in your posts, save as reference. Why? Is it to get people to look at your ideas, rather than dismiss them and focus on your terminology?

    Had timpearson chosen any of the other words he would have given a vastly different impression (he still would have put people on the defensive and would not have elicited a positive response, but he wouldn't have come across as degrading as he did). Your question has been answered, I apologize if it wasn't the answer you were hoping for.
    Quite alright. I'm used to being disappointed with humanity.
    Yeah, me too.

    [Edited by ****-richardson on 11-24-2000 at 01:16 AM]
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by mensachicken
    There does not have to be a high population of mentally handicapped folks reading it.
    That was a bit facetious.

    I read it. I was insulted.
    I never said I had a problem with your being insulted.

    My sister was mentally retarded and I found the original post insulting. You don't appreciate that, that's fine.
    No, you've wholly misunderstood my point. I don't have a problem with anyone taking the original poster to task for their mannerisms. I have a problem with them only being taken to task seemingly solely for their word choice.

    But for Pete's sake get off your semantic high horse already.
    I own no such animal.

    We all understand that you are incapable of being empathetic and/or putting yourself in the shoes of others who have a different point of view than yourself.
    If "you all" understand that, you have made a grave error in judgement. I've been around mentally handicapped people all my life.

    I am not gay, but I still find it offensive when people say "That's so gay!" when referring to something they disagree with. When I hear someone say "You were gyped" or "Jewed down" I find it insulting. Is this so difficult for you to understand?
    Not at all. What is difficult for me to understand is how someone could be offended by that sort of thing, but think that calling someone an *****, moron, etc. is A-OK. Again, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I was defending the original poster.

    I appreciate that I do not "have to" be insulted or think it rude. I understand that it is my choice. It was also my choice to POLITELY *ASK* (not tell or insist) that people think twice before they post things that other people may find offensive.

    It was a simple request. I was not trying to erase the USA Constitution or insult any of the Americans on the site.
    I never said you had to do (not do) anything or were trying to do any such thing.

    I also was not trying to go back to first year linquistics class and argue about what "retard" "really means" when we all know quite clearly what the original poster meant when he said it.
    Actually, I wasn't trying to argue what retard means either.

    For goodness sake, give it a rest already.
    Ahh...but perhaps from my viewpoint, goodness requires that I bring these things up.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions