Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I hate it that your feelings get hurt by that, but again, show me where your feelings are protected by the Constitution.
You know, I didn't say that. You just don't get it! You can go around insulting anyone you like, but "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar". You may have your "rights", but you can also be "right obnoxious".
And I hate it that your feelings get hurt by that, but again, show me where your feelings are protected by the Constitution.
You know, I didn't say that. You just don't get it! You can go around insulting anyone you like, but "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar". You may have your "rights", but you can also be "right obnoxious".
Well, if I was trying to catch retarded flies, I guess I'd be more careful about using the term "retarded".
Yes, I have my rights, which includes the right to be obnoxious.
At one time that was the neutral term for the condition. Constantly changing the words you use to describe a condition might make hyper-sensitive people feel better, but it does nothing to change the condition.
The thing is, you are reversing the cause and the effect. "Idiot" became a generalized epithet for a reason: namely, that a very low IQ, whether from Down's Syndrome or any other cause, is a bad thing. As long as the condition remains bad, it will give rise to epithets. The epithets will adapt to whatever new, "neutral" name you select for an underlying bad thing. Don't believe me? In 1994 Al Gore was criticized for making a crack about "the extreme right [wing], the extra-chromosome right." Changing the name from "Mongolian Idiots" obviously didn't reduce its value as an epithet for people who want to use epithets.
But it does become more accurate. You can't stop people from behaving childishly, but you can make sure in your everyday speech, you are getting your facts straight.
This article is about Ted Haggard. Long article but about 3/4 of the way through it the filmmaker, who is Nancy Pelosi's daughter, makes an interesting observation which I'll paraphrase: basically she says that she has noticed that many liberals are intolerant of those whose worldview does not match their's.
As a follow-up to my previous post...does anyone who studied civil rights history know if the bible/religion was used against black rights? What about women rights?
Well, that's a matter of opinion, simply because the Bible was also used by other Americans (black and white) who agreed with civil rights for blacks.
.....which makes the Bible or any other so-called sacred book worthless, as far as them being used as a basis for social policy or for anything for that matter. If you can quote the Bible to argue for anything, while using the same Bible to argue against it, why are we even wasting our time with this book? Why Barack Obama took his oath on this piece of garbage is beyond me.
Well, our nation was founded on religious beliefs. Most of our original laws were created using religious moral values. You can see religion in the Constitution, The Mayflower Compact, assembly meetings, in all the courts around your town, Supreme Court, etc.
There is nothing wrong with the Bible nor any other religious book, for any faults sit squarely on the people, not on inanimate objects.
But it does become more accurate. You can't stop people from behaving childishly, but you can make sure in your everyday speech, you are getting your facts straight.
"Mongolian" was inaccurate, but nobody ever meant or understood it literally anyway, i.e. thought that people with Down's Syndrome or their ancestors were from Mongolia. "Idiot" at one point meant a person completely unable to care for themselves, later refined to mean a person with an IQ under 25. That was not inaccurate, and it wasn't deemed insensitive until people started using it as an insult. My point is, people will start to use anything you call it as an insult, because it is an obviously inferior condition.
"Mongolian" was inaccurate, but nobody ever meant or understood it literally anyway, i.e. thought that people with Down's Syndrome or their ancestors were from Mongolia. "Idiot" at one point meant a person completely unable to care for themselves, later refined to mean a person with an IQ under 25. That was not inaccurate, and it wasn't deemed insensitive until people started using it as an insult. My point is, people will start to use anything you call it as an insult, because it is an obviously inferior condition.
Wrong, bub! "Mongolian" derived from the slant of the eyes in Down's people. In re: to IQ, your figure is very inaccurate. See this link:
"All children with Down syndrome are delayed, although this may not be apparent until the child is beyond infancy. IQ scores range from 20 (severe mental retardation) to 85 (low normal). Overall learning abilities are usually equivalent to a 6 to 8 year old child without Down syndrome. "
Conservatives like to "conserve" things that are good. That's why true and honest conservatives are not in conflict with environmentalists that want a healthy planet.
Why can't we all admit that the United States has MANY, MANY things worth conserving? I don't understand many liberals who seem so often hostile to our nation, culture and past, and are willing to be led by people and movements that are against conserving that which got us where we are in this country.
Of course there are going to be people who hate the US, are jealous, etc. and it's understandable that they want to destroy, change, or alter it. They should be resisted, not followed.
True conservatives (not the neocons) are not really in conflict with much of liberalism except the liberals' hatred for Whites and Western Civilization and supporting non-Whites efforts to overthrow whites anywhere in the world (USA, Canada, Europe, marxism, hatred of Western religions, etc.). I suppose conservative opposition to abortion is another divergence, but again, who in their right mind wouldn't believe that conserving a life is the right thing???
PS Why do some liberals embrace the "religions" of failed dump eastern or non-White countries? I laugh my butt off at all the Western liberal suckers who have made Depak Chopra rich. Think about it, many people in India want to move to the West, they admire the West, they live in squalor in backwards cultures -- yet the people here always have to think something else is better. It's that kind of thing. Conservatives look at the facts and appreciate the West and want to conserve it. Oddly enough most of the planet agrees with us and had decided to move to where we are. When the US stops conserving what made it great and attractive, then guess what? People will begin to hate us and not want to move here. This is already happening.
The USA in its pathetic multi-cult state is now loathed worldwide. In the 1950's the USA was universally loved and respected and we were looked at for everything. It was that that the conservatives wanted to conserve, but they didn't conserve much of it, and now look at our nation, what's left of it and what it's turning into.
Well, I conceded in other posts that people tend to be traditional on certain issues and progressive on others. My point was that some of our greatest advances as a society have been due to progressive or liberal ideas.
However, if I'm understanding your post correctly, you don't see it that way? What do you mean by pathetic multi-cult state? Are you implying we were better off before civil rights, etc? Why do you mock other peoples religion as if they're for fools?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
