Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:40 pm**

Metsfanmax wrote:Yeah, I'm not going to continue this argument because it doesn't really matter. See my first post in this thread. If you know that people are hurt by the use of the word and you continue to use it anyway, that's on you.

I agree with your initial post. I have worked with mentally challenged students on a summer back when I was in highschool and let me tell you that they DO care. Mentally disabled does not automatically mean stupid. They may have issues communicating, but some of them would get really hurt if called stupid, retarded, dumb, etc. They are still human beings, but human beings that were dealt a harsh blow in life.

Another point, one girl told me that she hated when people referred to her as "Downe's" she said "I am not Downe's, I have Downe's Syndrome. I have a disability, but I don't like labels. Disabled is okay to say, Downe's is not." Do you think this girl had no intelligence?

I have a friend, a very close friend who has cerebral palsy, because she was a premature baby. This girl is extremely intelligent and not a thing wrong with her mentally. However, she does have some mobility issues. We've been friends since we were 13, and she went through a lot of operations to help her. Now, she's been called a retard because of how she looks. She has that pale, delicate look that people with this condition have. People have asked her mom in a restaurant "what would she like?" as if she couldn't speak for herself when we were out. She started crying. Hell, it hurts to see people you care about being subjected to other people's ignorance. She runs her own business today.

Think before you call someone a retard. If you have to make this thread to justify it, you already know that people with disabilities don't like it and are hurt by it. There is no debate to be had.

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:44 pm**

It's pretty easy to see how in the near future, 'mentally challenged' will be considered offensive. I think that's more offensive than 'retardation'. To me, mentally challenged is basically saying 'you have something wrong with your head'

We shouldn't have to say so much about what is already pretty clear. Anyone else find mentally challenged more offensive than retarded? I suspect I am in the minority, but I bet there are more than a few out there!

Posted: **Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:03 pm**

Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Unfortunately, some people have an unproductive style of advancing positions (thus arguments). They start with a position, build it into more positions, but then discard what they previously said in the face of rising counter-arguments. It's as if they lie to themselves that they made no previous arguments--except one minor point; it's weird. What explains this rejection of history?

Maybe they don't know what 'argument' means. The point of arguing/debate is to develop a better understanding of each person's position, and throughout this process, some positions can be demonstrated as false; conditionals can be changed; and so on.

For example, the claim 'bigoted words cause/reinforce more bigotry' is clearly an "if this, then that" argument, which is different from the other argument, "people should care about what others think about certain words." Why? To what extent should they care? Why is the onus on the speaker and not the fallaciously offended? [The defense of that position failed to advance]. When asked for evidence about the bigotry claim, one gives a kindergarten story. When pressured for better evidence, one throws up their hands and say, "oh it doesn't matter."

If you don't wish to debate/argue, then just say "[monologue] blah blah blah [/monologue]," and then refuse participate in the debate/argument. Monologues are not very productive nor scientific, but at least your intentions would be clearer. Also, there are some merits to your various positions ITT, but it's not very sportsmanlike to get fussy when you fail to defend your positions/arguments or to pull a jedi mind trick: "there are no arguments."

Please go back and read the OP. This thread is clearly about whether people who are intellectually disabled care about the use of the word retard. It is not about whether they ought to care. Your thesis is entirely off-topic, and so it is correct to say that the argument you created doesn't actually matter for the purposes of this thread. If you would like to have a discussion on whether it is indeed erroneous to care about that usage of the word, you are welcome to create a thread to do so. An example of a contribution which would actually be relevant to this thread would be to find someone with an intellectual disability who says they do not care about the word retard.

haha, I already know what you were initially talking about; I just seem to be the only one who remembers your various positions on pages 2-5.

It should be obvious to anyone who hasn't forgotten pages 2-5 that my criticism about being 'fallaciously offended' is relevant since some people insist on placing the burden on only the speaker, when obviously there's the problem of the audience and the strong possibility of their false interpretation. I shouldn't have to explain that to you again.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:09 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Unfortunately, some people have an unproductive style of advancing positions (thus arguments). They start with a position, build it into more positions, but then discard what they previously said in the face of rising counter-arguments. It's as if they lie to themselves that they made no previous arguments--except one minor point; it's weird. What explains this rejection of history?

Maybe they don't know what 'argument' means. The point of arguing/debate is to develop a better understanding of each person's position, and throughout this process, some positions can be demonstrated as false; conditionals can be changed; and so on.

For example, the claim 'bigoted words cause/reinforce more bigotry' is clearly an "if this, then that" argument, which is different from the other argument, "people should care about what others think about certain words." Why? To what extent should they care? Why is the onus on the speaker and not the fallaciously offended? [The defense of that position failed to advance]. When asked for evidence about the bigotry claim, one gives a kindergarten story. When pressured for better evidence, one throws up their hands and say, "oh it doesn't matter."

If you don't wish to debate/argue, then just say "[monologue] blah blah blah [/monologue]," and then refuse participate in the debate/argument. Monologues are not very productive nor scientific, but at least your intentions would be clearer. Also, there are some merits to your various positions ITT, but it's not very sportsmanlike to get fussy when you fail to defend your positions/arguments or to pull a jedi mind trick: "there are no arguments."

Please go back and read the OP. This thread is clearly about whether people who are intellectually disabled care about the use of the word retard. It is not about whether they ought to care. Your thesis is entirely off-topic, and so it is correct to say that the argument you created doesn't actually matter for the purposes of this thread. If you would like to have a discussion on whether it is indeed erroneous to care about that usage of the word, you are welcome to create a thread to do so. An example of a contribution which would actually be relevant to this thread would be to find someone with an intellectual disability who says they do not care about the word retard.

haha, I already know what you were initially talking about; I just seem to be the only one who remembers your various positions on pages 2-5.

It should be obvious to anyone who hasn't forgotten pages 2-5 that my criticism about being 'fallaciously offended' is relevant since some people insist on placing the burden on only the speaker, when obviously there's the problem of the audience and the strong possibility of their false interpretation. I shouldn't have to explain that to you again.

I'm sure some of this is my fault. Mets goes out a little further on the branches when he's talking to me. Things don't necessarily have to be true when he has a difference of opinion, so long as the post is negative and makes me look bad.

Like the whole taxpayer subsidies/insurance premiums as en expanded entitlement into a new rent seeking 'revenue' source. I asked mrs a question, and Mets jumped in with semantics (never did get a response from mrs) but the way Mets responded and mrs set it up was to misdirect an entire article about premiums as a new source of redistribution of wealth and resources and make it look like the article was about taxpayer subsidies, which was only mentioned once as something we already have.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:26 am**

Phatscotty wrote:It's pretty easy to see how in the near future, 'mentally challenged' will be considered offensive. I think that's more offensive than 'retardation'. To me, mentally challenged is basically saying 'you have something wrong with your head'

We shouldn't have to say so much about what is already pretty clear. Anyone else find mentally challenged more offensive than retarded? I suspect I am in the minority, but I bet there are more than a few out there!

I would NEVER say that to someone. You see there's a big difference is saying that and calling it to someone's face. There is also a line that you draw in using that. The poor kids that we literally had to feed because they couldn't feed themselves. These were the kids that we were helping out with and those were what I would refer to as mentally challenged. They can't do anything for themselves, but also, they deserve to be treated with dignity and not have someone go "HA RETARD!" or some shit.

I used to go play football once a week with the kids with learning disabilities from there. Not everyone there was all that bad, they had mild disabilities like the girl with Downe's Syndrome. Like I said, having a mental disability does not automatically say that they are stupid. One can be very intelligent and suffer from dyslexia. That too is a learning disbility. It doesn't mean stupid.

Why does everything have to be a debate with you, Scotty. Yes, you are in the minority because it's what's used in professional circumstances. I am not debating because as far as I am concerned, there isn't one. I think often times, the word "retard" is much more suited to the able-bodied.

Good day.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:31 am**

I wonder what Darwin would have to say about this thread.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:41 am**

mrswdk wrote:I wonder what Darwin would have to say about this thread.

Brains.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:43 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Unfortunately, some people have an unproductive style of advancing positions (thus arguments). They start with a position, build it into more positions, but then discard what they previously said in the face of rising counter-arguments. It's as if they lie to themselves that they made no previous arguments--except one minor point; it's weird. What explains this rejection of history?

Maybe they don't know what 'argument' means. The point of arguing/debate is to develop a better understanding of each person's position, and throughout this process, some positions can be demonstrated as false; conditionals can be changed; and so on.

For example, the claim 'bigoted words cause/reinforce more bigotry' is clearly an "if this, then that" argument, which is different from the other argument, "people should care about what others think about certain words." Why? To what extent should they care? Why is the onus on the speaker and not the fallaciously offended? [The defense of that position failed to advance]. When asked for evidence about the bigotry claim, one gives a kindergarten story. When pressured for better evidence, one throws up their hands and say, "oh it doesn't matter."

If you don't wish to debate/argue, then just say "[monologue] blah blah blah [/monologue]," and then refuse participate in the debate/argument. Monologues are not very productive nor scientific, but at least your intentions would be clearer. Also, there are some merits to your various positions ITT, but it's not very sportsmanlike to get fussy when you fail to defend your positions/arguments or to pull a jedi mind trick: "there are no arguments."

Please go back and read the OP. This thread is clearly about whether people who are intellectually disabled care about the use of the word retard. It is not about whether they ought to care. Your thesis is entirely off-topic, and so it is correct to say that the argument you created doesn't actually matter for the purposes of this thread. If you would like to have a discussion on whether it is indeed erroneous to care about that usage of the word, you are welcome to create a thread to do so. An example of a contribution which would actually be relevant to this thread would be to find someone with an intellectual disability who says they do not care about the word retard.

haha, I already know what you were initially talking about; I just seem to be the only one who remembers your various positions on pages 2-5.

It should be obvious to anyone who hasn't forgotten pages 2-5 that my criticism about being 'fallaciously offended' is relevant since some people insist on placing the burden on only the speaker, when obviously there's the problem of the audience and the strong possibility of their false interpretation. I shouldn't have to explain that to you again.

That is why you do not communicate effectively. You are more interested in winning an argument or educating someone than truly listening to and understanding a position someone else holds.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:50 am**

Mets, I can summarize your various positions which you've held and then forgotten throughout this thread. If you don't want to defend them, and if you'd rather launch into monologues, then please let us know whenever you're ready.

One final question: are you autistic?

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:43 am**

p.s -

*down's

p.p.s -

daniil kharms on words:

today, i wrote nothing. doesn't matter

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:07 pm**

Shannon Apple wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:It's pretty easy to see how in the near future, 'mentally challenged' will be considered offensive. I think that's more offensive than 'retardation'. To me, mentally challenged is basically saying 'you have something wrong with your head'

We shouldn't have to say so much about what is already pretty clear. Anyone else find mentally challenged more offensive than retarded? I suspect I am in the minority, but I bet there are more than a few out there!

I would NEVER say that to someone. You see there's a big difference is saying that and calling it to someone's face. There is also a line that you draw in using that. The poor kids that we literally had to feed because they couldn't feed themselves. These were the kids that we were helping out with and those were what I would refer to as mentally challenged. They can't do anything for themselves, but also, they deserve to be treated with dignity and not have someone go "HA RETARD!" or some shit.

I would never say it to anyone either, but I'm still talking about the words themselves. 'Mentally challenged' sounds like a direct offense if you ask me... it specifically addresses the brain and states out loud there is a problem with the brain.

Just saying I would judge that as more offensive than mentally retarded.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:48 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:be careful when people start telling you they will not tolerate you calling something exactly what it is.

In the context of this thread this is a kind of weird comment.

Met, myself and others (the "progressives" I guess) are 100% in favour of calling things what they are. Retard is now generally accepted as a derogotory word - it doesnt mean a specific disability - sure it might change, but currently if you call someone a retard most people would interpret that as a synonym for idiot.

The correct label (and this has been the PC title for over a decade) is "a person with a mental disability". First you label them as a person, because first and foremost they are a person, then you state the disability they have. I dont see any reason why any "progressive" would ever consider "banning" this phrase.

'Mentally challenged' sounds like a direct offense if you ask me... it specifically addresses the brain and states out loud there is a problem with the brain.

Even people with downs syndrome recognise they have a disability. Truisms are only offensive if the tone in which they are delivered is derogotory.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:33 pm**

khazalid wrote:p.s -

*down's

p.p.s -

daniil kharms on words:

today, i wrote nothing. doesn't matter

For some reason, I thought it had an "e", but you're right.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:51 pm**

Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:be careful when people start telling you they will not tolerate you calling something exactly what it is.

In the context of this thread this is a kind of weird comment.

Met, myself and others (the "progressives" I guess) are 100% in favour of calling things what they are. Retard is now generally accepted as a derogotory word - it doesnt mean a specific disability - sure it might change, but currently if you call someone a retard most people would interpret that as a synonym for idiot.

The correct label (and this has been the PC title for over a decade) is "a person with a mental disability". First you label them as a person, because first and foremost they are a person, then you state the disability they have. I dont see any reason why any "progressive" would ever consider "banning" this phrase.

'Mentally challenged' sounds like a direct offense if you ask me... it specifically addresses the brain and states out loud there is a problem with the brain.

Even people with downs syndrome recognise they have a disability. Truisms are only offensive if the tone in which they are delivered is derogotory.

I concur with Lootifer. No one is arguing with the validity of the basic idea implied by terms like "mentally challenged" or "mental disability." Rather, it is the implications of how the terms are used that we care about. If you call someone with a intellectual disability a "retard," and you say it with a sneer in your voice, it is analogous to rudely calling someone who is gay a "fag." The content of the word itself has become hollowed out -- it is just a catchall term used to imply an insult about such a person, like many racial slurs. I go one step further than Lootifer and say that it is also wise not to use it in public even to someone who does not have an intellectual disability, because I am concerned that use of the word entrenches negative stereotypes.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:55 pm**

Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:be careful when people start telling you they will not tolerate you calling something exactly what it is.

In the context of this thread this is a kind of weird comment.

Yeah I know. I thought I pointed out that was not specifically related...if it's not there I must have erased it for some reason. It was strictly about PC

Lootifer wrote:Met, myself and others (the "progressives" I guess) are 100% in favour of calling things what they are.

You're kidding me, right? Perhaps you and Mets do, but here, Progressives are the one's who do that. Just look at social justice itself, it's code for unequal justice, but they would never say it like that or admit it.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:59 pm**

Metsfanmax wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:be careful when people start telling you they will not tolerate you calling something exactly what it is.

In the context of this thread this is a kind of weird comment.

Met, myself and others (the "progressives" I guess) are 100% in favour of calling things what they are. Retard is now generally accepted as a derogotory word - it doesnt mean a specific disability - sure it might change, but currently if you call someone a retard most people would interpret that as a synonym for idiot.

The correct label (and this has been the PC title for over a decade) is "a person with a mental disability". First you label them as a person, because first and foremost they are a person, then you state the disability they have. I dont see any reason why any "progressive" would ever consider "banning" this phrase.

'Mentally challenged' sounds like a direct offense if you ask me... it specifically addresses the brain and states out loud there is a problem with the brain.

Even people with downs syndrome recognise they have a disability. Truisms are only offensive if the tone in which they are delivered is derogotory.

I concur with Lootifer. No one is arguing with the validity of the basic idea implied by terms like "mentally challenged" or "mental disability." Rather, it is the implications of how the terms are used that we care about.

So then why did you counter me when I said basically the same thing? Without going down that all too familiar path, just let me say I concur as well.

Separately, what do the Progressive suggest for people like me, who learned a different term that i will probably use for the rest of my life. How do you suggest to change my thinking? And who makes the decisions as to what is right and wrong? what about when it's just a scapegoat for politics and narrative control and exerting power over others?

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:06 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:be careful when people start telling you they will not tolerate you calling something exactly what it is.

In the context of this thread this is a kind of weird comment.

Met, myself and others (the "progressives" I guess) are 100% in favour of calling things what they are. Retard is now generally accepted as a derogotory word - it doesnt mean a specific disability - sure it might change, but currently if you call someone a retard most people would interpret that as a synonym for idiot.

The correct label (and this has been the PC title for over a decade) is "a person with a mental disability". First you label them as a person, because first and foremost they are a person, then you state the disability they have. I dont see any reason why any "progressive" would ever consider "banning" this phrase.

'Mentally challenged' sounds like a direct offense if you ask me... it specifically addresses the brain and states out loud there is a problem with the brain.

Even people with downs syndrome recognise they have a disability. Truisms are only offensive if the tone in which they are delivered is derogotory.

I concur with Lootifer. No one is arguing with the validity of the basic idea implied by terms like "mentally challenged" or "mental disability." Rather, it is the implications of how the terms are used that we care about.

So then why did you counter me when I said basically the same thing? Without going down that all too familiar path, just let me say I concur as well.

I answered that in the part of the post that you cut out.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:35 pm**

Phatscotty wrote:Separately, what do the Progressive suggest for people like me, who learned a different term that i will probably use for the rest of my life. How do you suggest to change my thinking? And who makes the decisions as to what is right and wrong? what about when it's just a scapegoat for politics and narrative control and exerting power over others?

It's pretty simple:

The person with downs syndrome is first and foremost a human being. A person.

Therefore when you address them you should first address them as such.

Secondly no one should be offended if you are pointing out a fact (although obviously in this case you should probably use tact, but thats up to you).

Therefore if you say: "A person with a mental disability" you should not cause offense, and if you do cause offense it is unlikely to be your fault as this is the language with which people who work with people with mental disabilities use (and have used for many years; since we have, as a society, decided that people with mental disabilities are not lesser human beings).

Now no one is perfect and I myself often slip up and instinctively refer to "a downy" or similar. But the above is what you should as a reasonable and compassionate person aim for.

Posted: **Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:38 pm**

Lootifer wrote:Met, myself and others

wait ... you said it was ...

OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE NON-MENTALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE ONLY
Mets said it was ...

NOT OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE ANYONE
Do I need to change the scoreboard?

Posted: **Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:57 pm**

Mets wrote:I go one step further than Lootifer and say that it is also wise not to use it in public even to someone who does not have an intellectual disability, because I am concerned that use of the word entrenches negative stereotypes

Posted: **Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:39 pm**

how long before they start self-identifying?

'what's up my retard?'

then you definitely can't say it, right?

Posted: **Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:49 pm**

khazalid wrote:'what's up my retard?'

I'm eating mayonnaise.

What are you doing?

Posted: **Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:48 pm**

2dimes wrote:
khazalid wrote:'what's up my retard?'

I'm eating mayonnaise.

What are you doing?

Nothin' much. Just 'tardin.

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:13 am**

So why's it that changing the spelling makes it okay to say the n-word?

50 Cent asks "where are my niggas?" - okay
John McCain asks "where are my niggers?" - SEXY RACEST

Posted: **Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:39 pm**

You need to be less obvious with the trolling.

Conquer Club

Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re:

Re: Retards, do they care?

Re: Retards, do they care?