Wrong. Whine on, demagogue.
WHat happens to the mentally challenged after grade school?
- Thread starter Thebestchefever
- Start date
Speaking of retarded ....
Dreaming of Sparta?
James and I may live in different countries, and we may disagree about animals, but I'm pretty sure that he and I agree that your statement is utter balderdash. There are certain differences between people. Some are faster than you, many are smarter. But in the end, your deficiencies should not count against your human worth. If something unfortunate were to happen to you, most people's considerations would involve the things you chose in life, not the things you simply are.
Imagine for a moment you are struck by lightning and killed. The ripple of shock would spread through Sciforums. Some would toast your wit and intellect, and hopefully the rest of the community would be polite enough to bite their tongues. Some, who didn't like you, might shrug to themselves and think, "What's one asshole, more or less?" But of all the things people might think, one of the last would be, "What's one retard, more or less?" Because even if they viewed you as the retarded kid in the class who just couldn't help embarrassing himself, it's not theirs to hold against you. If you can't help it, you can't help it. And as long as you're not actually dangerous, people ought not worry about it.
Have you no fidelity to your species? Or are you that determined to prove that Darwin was utterly and completely wrong?
Mountainhare said:
Dreaming of Sparta?
James and I may live in different countries, and we may disagree about animals, but I'm pretty sure that he and I agree that your statement is utter balderdash. There are certain differences between people. Some are faster than you, many are smarter. But in the end, your deficiencies should not count against your human worth. If something unfortunate were to happen to you, most people's considerations would involve the things you chose in life, not the things you simply are.
Imagine for a moment you are struck by lightning and killed. The ripple of shock would spread through Sciforums. Some would toast your wit and intellect, and hopefully the rest of the community would be polite enough to bite their tongues. Some, who didn't like you, might shrug to themselves and think, "What's one asshole, more or less?" But of all the things people might think, one of the last would be, "What's one retard, more or less?" Because even if they viewed you as the retarded kid in the class who just couldn't help embarrassing himself, it's not theirs to hold against you. If you can't help it, you can't help it. And as long as you're not actually dangerous, people ought not worry about it.
Have you no fidelity to your species? Or are you that determined to prove that Darwin was utterly and completely wrong?
Tiassa:
I disagree very strongly with the above. Some people are born defective. To assert that they are equal to fit human beings is the height of stupidity.
I disagree very strongly with the above. Some people are born defective. To assert that they are equal to fit human beings is the height of stupidity.
so let me get this straight in my head......you think disabled people are not worth has much has ...lets say.......you?
It depends on their disability. But in general, those who are severely retarded are indeed inferior to me.
you keep saying that to yourself, because what that means to me is that there are differant laws for you and them, what about people with OCD, and not so severe mental problems, they can and some are better than you or i,
re·tard· (ri tärd′; for n. 2 rē′tärd′)
transitive verb
to hinder, delay, or slow the advance or progress of
Etymology: LME retarden < OFr retarder < L retardare < re-, back + tardare, to make slow < tardus, slow: see tardy
intransitive verb
to be delayed or undergo retardation
transitive verb
to hinder, delay, or slow the advance or progress of
Etymology: LME retarden < OFr retarder < L retardare < re-, back + tardare, to make slow < tardus, slow: see tardy
intransitive verb
to be delayed or undergo retardation
Mountainhare said:
So what you're saying, then, is that if someone were to murder you, the DA shouldn't bother prosecuting? I mean, theoretically ....
• • •
Lucifer's Angel said:
You missed n. 2 rē′tärd′ ... at least I think. In the U.S., "retard", as a noun, is a not exactly polite word for one who suffers learning disabilities. Generally, we use it as a catch-all insult for the able, much the way "faggot" is a catch-all insult for heterosexual males.
Insulting posters again, Tiassa? And you flout the law by bragging about the pot you smoke. How the hell did you sleaze your way to the top on these forums?
Bells
Staff member
In other words, you can only feel superior about yourself if you compare yourself to someone who is severely mentally disabled. Good to know.
Another moderator mocking me? What's with the mod squad these days?!
Hell, if I'm special, stop giving me infractions!
you get those infractions if you deserve it! i have got 9 infraction points and i admit i deserved it
So, if I think someone is obviously stupid, it's okay if I point that out to them? ...and I won't get infractions?
Baron Max
He didn't say that that's the "only" way he feels superior, it's just one of many ways. How did you arrive at your conclusion?
Baron Max
Mountainhare said:
Oh, come now, Mountainhare. Who couldn't see that one coming from a mile and a half away?
Look, I think there is definitely something amiss about your philosophy. This could be a matter of conditioning, or it could be something inherent that determines your response to stimuli.
Here's the thing, though: Regardless of who or what you are, you would find better respect in a world fashioned according to my rules than yours. That's one of the things I've always found strange about conservatives who complain of elitism, or people who accuse me of trying to force my views onto them.
But yes, I do think there's something wrong with you. And it may not be as severe as a Down's syndrome case, but if we absolutely must determine the value and worth of individuals, it's enough to say that I'll take the savant who can play Mozart over Ted Nugent any day. People who are simply are. People who attempt to be are often left scrambling for anemic excuses.
It's like an anecdote I related earlier in this topic:
We were in a restaurant the other day and a kid was whooping loudly. I'm not sure what the disorder was. The parents were doing their best. My daughter is four, and she perceived that there was some sort of a problem. She asked, "He's sad?" I just shrugged and said, "I don't know. They're doing their best." She accepted that and went back to her lunch.
Everyone else in the restaurant seemed to understand, as well. (1555972/146)
Everyone else in the restaurant seemed to understand, as well. (1555972/146)
Don't get me wrong. When the first whoops rang out, everybody looked around, wondered, "What the hell is that?" When they realized it was a patron, they wondered, "What the hell is wrong with him?" And as it was revealed that the noise was coming from a disabled child, you could literally see people shrug: "Oh. Well, then." And they went back to their lunches.
Once they realized that nobody was going out of their way to be deliberately annoying, people simply dealt with it. And, truthfully, that was easier for them than getting upset or self-righteous about it.
Take a minute to think about it, Mountainhare: a retarded person has an excuse. You, on the other hand? If I ask you the question, "Are you intentionally a rude, disgusting human being?" would you protest? Would you dispute my interpretation? Fine. The question is whether you intentionally conduct yourself in this fashion. Is this just "who you are"? Fine. We return then to the point that you find so insulting.
Take a poll: Is anybody actually surprised?
Does anybody actually care? Generally, no. For the most part, the only people at Sciforums who give a damn are those who are grasping after straws because they're upset with me.
Well, on the one hand, at the time I had the most posts and spent more time at the site than most, and I also happened to view the relationship between the site and its users in a way that seemed to correspond fairly consistently with our administrator's outlook. To the other, I might actually have been elected. Go figure. It's been a while.
I suppose that would be fair. But when you become a danger to the site or anyone else, we'd have to do something. I'll look into having a nice little room with padded walls put together for you. In the meantime, do you wanted to be treated like everyone else, or policed and parented like someone with learning disabilities? It's up to you, Mountainhare.
Last edited:
Mocking me, again? Merely because my beliefs differ from the norm? Sciforums at its best! I merely express my God to honest beliefs, and as a result, am the target of snide personal attacks. Something which is not only strictly against the rules, but something I would get shot down with infractions for! Oh, and three of these people are mods. Go figure.
Yeah, nobody really cares that you brag about defying your countries laws with substance abuse. But when you act as though you are a better person that someone like Baron Max, well, the absurdity is revealed, huh?
Are you sure that the substance abuse didn't fuck up your head? I hear that a common symptom of compulsive users is delusional behaviour, and writing pages of incoherent bullshit! That's how the Beatles stayed in business, I guess.
Yeah, nobody really cares that you brag about defying your countries laws with substance abuse. But when you act as though you are a better person that someone like Baron Max, well, the absurdity is revealed, huh?
Are you sure that the substance abuse didn't fuck up your head? I hear that a common symptom of compulsive users is delusional behaviour, and writing pages of incoherent bullshit! That's how the Beatles stayed in business, I guess.
mountainhare:
I've discussed this topic in detail before. For most people who eat meat, it is simply convenient, and they never think about the moral implications. And if they do, it's a kind of double-think which is self-serving and illogical.
I might well ask you what you imagine gives you the "right" to kill and eat non-human animals with impunity. But, first, that would be off-topic for this thread. And second, I'm sure your rationale would be uninteresting and unhelpful and circular. I'm sure you think that your innate "superiority" to every other living thing gives you the right to do anything you damn well please.
Correct.
The equality of human beings in terms of equal consideration was basically settled in the 18th century, by all intelligent people. The same debate regarding animals has really only been on the agenda since the early 1970s, and is only entering the public consciousness to some extent today. As people become more environmentally aware, gradually the views of all clear-thinking people will shift, but it will require education of the current generation and the ones that follow.
Regarding human beings, obviously you personally are living in the dark ages. Discussion with you on that issue would seem pointless, since you are unwilling to accept what has been accepted for centuries. On the issue of animal rights, however, a discussion with you might prove illuminating for other readers, even if not for you.
No, he is mocking you because you're about three centuries out of date in your antiquated views.
I've discussed this topic in detail before. For most people who eat meat, it is simply convenient, and they never think about the moral implications. And if they do, it's a kind of double-think which is self-serving and illogical.
I might well ask you what you imagine gives you the "right" to kill and eat non-human animals with impunity. But, first, that would be off-topic for this thread. And second, I'm sure your rationale would be uninteresting and unhelpful and circular. I'm sure you think that your innate "superiority" to every other living thing gives you the right to do anything you damn well please.
Correct.
The equality of human beings in terms of equal consideration was basically settled in the 18th century, by all intelligent people. The same debate regarding animals has really only been on the agenda since the early 1970s, and is only entering the public consciousness to some extent today. As people become more environmentally aware, gradually the views of all clear-thinking people will shift, but it will require education of the current generation and the ones that follow.
Regarding human beings, obviously you personally are living in the dark ages. Discussion with you on that issue would seem pointless, since you are unwilling to accept what has been accepted for centuries. On the issue of animal rights, however, a discussion with you might prove illuminating for other readers, even if not for you.
No, he is mocking you because you're about three centuries out of date in your antiquated views.