Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st May 2010 12:45 UTC, submitted by martini
Thread beginning with comment 426547
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-12-15
What's worse?
1) Generalizing the population of an entire country (cultural bias, stereotype, etc.)
2) Calling someone "retarted", even though it was obviously not meant as a jab at the mentally challenged (political incorrectness)
Certain words in the English language have had their meanings altered to the point that their original meaning is hardly ever taken into consideration when commonly used. While the word "retarted" may have been in poor taste, its use in that context was in no way meant to insult the mentally challenged. Intent is the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.
Political correctness is a gigantic load of bullshit, and claiming that the use of "retarted" nullifies any arguments made, regardless of actual merit, is insane.
Making a sweeping generalization of a culture/population is a huge mistake if you want the rest of your argument to be taken seriously. Whoops!