The acceptability of using the word 'retarded'

[_keene]

It's so interesting sometimes how we stumble across how to interact with each individual as if they are individuals and forget the manuals!

Like the manuals that say retard jokes are offensive? ;)

:) I like your stories too. I think we need to be reminded of the positive humanity in everyone more often -- so much centers on how /bad/ things are, so little on how /good./

[_keene]

No. What do you mean by "slow"? Slow in what way?

If you weren't purposefully being unclear, then you were unclear unpurposefully.

Your statements come across as the child having to make a larger-than-normal effort to formulate words -- given the context of retardation in the thread, the assumption is made that this child has to use that effort because of a retardation.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

One more time...

What do you mean by "slow"? Slow in what way?

One more time...

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

[_Jersey Girl]

No. What do you mean by "slow"? Slow in what way?

If you weren't purposefully being unclear, then you were unclear unpurposefully.

Your statements come across as the child having to make a larger-than-normal effort to formulate words -- given the context of retardation in the thread, the assumption is made that this child has to use that effort because of a retardation.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

One more time...

What do you mean by "slow"? Slow in what way?

One more time...

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

Perhaps you should have asked for clarification before making the remark that you did or read the comments within the context of the actual post. Nowhere did I indicate that the child was retarded in any way. I said he presumably couldn't speak.

[_keene]

No. What do you mean by "slow"? Slow in what way?

If you weren't purposefully being unclear, then you were unclear unpurposefully.

Your statements come across as the child having to make a larger-than-normal effort to formulate words -- given the context of retardation in the thread, the assumption is made that this child has to use that effort because of a retardation.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

One more time...

What do you mean by "slow"? Slow in what way?

One more time...

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

Perhaps you should have asked for clarification before making the remark that you did or read the comments within the context of the actual post. Nowhere did I indicate that the child was retarded in any way. I said he presumably couldn't speak.

Thank you for clarifying. I know how hard it is for you to admit that you weren't clear, and I appreciate the great effort you went through to do it.

Seriously, given the context of the entire thread, can you really think you can hide behind this unclear statement as a shield of righteous indignation?

However, I have to ask, if the kid isn't retarded, then what was the point of your post? A mere guilt-trip? Still quite offensive, Jersey Girl. I thought you were better than that.

[_barrelomonkeys]

It's so interesting sometimes how we stumble across how to interact with each individual as if they are individuals and forget the manuals!

Like the manuals that say retard jokes are offensive? ;)

:) I like your stories too. I think we need to be reminded of the positive humanity in everyone more often -- so much centers on how /bad/ things are, so little on how /good./

Oh! My individual manual says this to you Keene ----> ;P

[_keene]

It's so interesting sometimes how we stumble across how to interact with each individual as if they are individuals and forget the manuals!

Like the manuals that say retard jokes are offensive? ;)

:) I like your stories too. I think we need to be reminded of the positive humanity in everyone more often -- so much centers on how /bad/ things are, so little on how /good./

Oh! My individual manual says this to you Keene ----> ;P

My 3rd grade teacher once told me that sticking out your tongue means "Kiss me quick and don't slobber."

So.... Yes.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I have nothing against slobber!

[_Jersey Girl]

No. What do you mean by "slow"? Slow in what way?

If you weren't purposefully being unclear, then you were unclear unpurposefully.

Your statements come across as the child having to make a larger-than-normal effort to formulate words -- given the context of retardation in the thread, the assumption is made that this child has to use that effort because of a retardation.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

One more time...

What do you mean by "slow"? Slow in what way?

One more time...

Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

Perhaps you should have asked for clarification before making the remark that you did or read the comments within the context of the actual post. Nowhere did I indicate that the child was retarded in any way. I said he presumably couldn't speak.

Thank you for clarifying. I know how hard it is for you to admit that you weren't clear, and I appreciate the great effort you went through to do it.

Seriously, given the context of the entire thread, can you really think you can hide behind this unclear statement as a shield of righteous indignation?

However, I have to ask, if the kid isn't retarded, then what was the point of your post? A mere guilt-trip? Still quite offensive, Jersey Girl. I thought you were better than that.

The point of the post was one of contrast. You could try reading it again. The great effort I made was spent pulling teeth to get you to explain your comment. The child in question isn't "retarded". There are a myriad of reasons that a child cannot speak, keene.

Your assessment of "guilt trip" has little or nothing to do with what I wrote. That's a convenient and simplistic evasion of the perspective that I offered, as is your labeling it "offensive".

Nowhere in my post did I express "righteous indignation". If you perceived it as such, it is your overly defensive reaction to being asked to explain your own comments.

[_keene]

The point of the post was one of contrast. You could try reading it again.

I did, and it was still unclear, hence my questioning.

The great effort I made was spent pulling teeth to get you to explain your comment.

I did explain my comment, and then I asked you to clarify.

The child in question isn't "retarded". There are a myriad of reasons that a child cannot speak, keene.

Given the context of the entire thread, perhaps you should have stated that more clearly. Especially when I stated that it was unclear.

Although, in a strict sense of the word, any inability to speak would still be a retardation. Like I said earlier in the thread, not all retards have mental issues, and the assumption that they do is offensive.

Your assessment of "guilt trip" has little or nothing to do with what I wrote. That's a convenient and simplistic evasion of the perspective that I offered, as is your labeling it "offensive".

And it also is in response to the effect that it had on The Nehor. Offering your "perspective" is all well and good, but the effect it had /was/ a guilt trip. Context is a bitch, I know. Although, in hind-sight, IF your intentions were not to put someone into a guilt trip, then my personal reference to you in that post is officially retracted.

Nowhere in my post did I express "righteous indignation". If you perceived it as such, it is your overly defensive reaction to being asked to explain your own comments.

Oh yes, because the way I perceive your responses has NOTHING to do with your ability to present yourself in a clear and consice manner. Communication is a two-way street -- if I continually read "bitch" in your words, perhaps it's not just me? Maybe it's the way it's presented? I know I'm not the first to make that mistake -- if it is a mistake.

[_asbestosman]

Let's get back to making fun of the Mormons. Everybody loves that - right?

Anyone have some good BYU co-ed jokes?

I'd avoid those. I have a cousin who is a BYU co-ed and I might take offense on her behalf and of all other BYU co-eds and mark you down as cruel and insensitive.

Oh wait, that would be retarded.

Or over-sensitive which is the obvious counter-side to this whole ado.