does anyone on this forum have aspergers syndrome?

redrock

sponger wrote:

You mean you didn't know that retardation is used to describe people with an IQ below 70? That physicians have to make this distinction to determine the proper care for said individuals?

That and bits of some other posts makes me think you've been looking up Wikipedia again!!!!!

angelica

I agree with you 100% sponger, that it boils down to context. I saw that you were validating the original posters experience with your usage of the word. Your intent was clear to me and I did not see it as insulting. Therefore I can understand you finding it offensive that others were chastizing you for what they were obviously not understanding.

I also see that you got yourself into trouble beyond that by being insensitive to the feelings of others. That's why sensitivity is an important issue--when it's not being practiced, the subject matter gets very muddled.

Ultimately, I agree with you, sponger. Despite the ugly stigma of the word, retarded is a valid word in many scholarly sources, because behind the stigma, the word is a word that describes something validly, no matter how offended people are. People's value judgments of the word are SUBJECTIVE, and therefore cannot effectively change the objective meaning of the word. Granted, it can colour and distort the meaning, and has done so.

Dictionary.com alone has numerous valid meanings of the word that were not mentioned in this thread:

ie: To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.

To be delayed.

Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed.

A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.

slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development : characterized by mental retardation

characterized by retardation: a retarded child.
–noun

(used with a plural verb) mentally retarded persons collectively (usually prec. by the): new schools for the retarded.

—Synonyms backward, disabled, handicapped.


If people have a personal judgment on this word saying it is "bad", I respect that. I also expect others to respect that I don't have that judgment and no amount of grandstanding or crying "bad" or "wrong" can implant an intention upon me that I do not have. BOTH "sides" require sensitivity and respect, or else both sides fight a losing battle.

redrock

sponger wrote:

Otherwise, we'll end up in this horribly inefficient and impractical situation where we have to keep changing words or even just not have a word.

Evolution of the language... that's what it is.


Tell me Sponger...if you had a child with an IQ lower than 70... would you go around saying he is retarded (with all its connotations and the reactions you may get from people like sadscaryguy has to deal with on a daily basis) or would you rather say he has difficulties (or any other more sensible word)...?

Restless Soul

sponger wrote:

That link that you provided does not subscribe to your notion of using "sever" learning impairment, only using "learning disability" instead. So, why post a link that you do not share your views with?

Besides, there are varying levels of retardation, so under your suggestion, we would have to say "severe severe learning disability" or "mild severe learning disability".

Again, impractical. But, I appreciate the opportunity to illustrate this to you.

You are nitpicking for the sake of it! I talk to people such as youth workers and disability charities about disabled young people for work and these are the terms they use, including severe. They would NEVER use the word retarded, spastic or anything. The link was not satisfactory enough I know because it was just an outline of the terms that are not acceptable anymore. A lot of it is based on what disabled people themselves feel about the terms and what they'd prefer to be called or used. But the people I speak to are what informs my views, and I happen to agree with them.

Tell me, what informs YOUR views? I do not accept the AAMR as a source because of their use of the word. Post me some links from the medical world where professionals describe people with severe learning disabilities as "retarded".

harmless_little_f***

sponger wrote:

At any rate, "nigger" is not a technical term. Nor has it ever been. It is perfectly possible to give reference to a black person without using the word "nigger"

I'm not sure you're completely correct. When this word was used, it was commonly accepted as a way of categorising people who were black. It was a technical term used by scientists, layfolk, the religious and the slave trade to describe people who these figures in authority saw as 'different' and displaying impairment. Our attitude changed, and so the word had to.

Your argument that it is impossible to describe these learning difficulties as anything else but 'retarded' is just weak. All you have to do to find out what words people use for these types of learning impairments is read.

As a sidenote, it is very easy to lump everyone with a learning disability in together as 'retarded'. It is a LOT harder to learn about every individual disability as distinct from one another; they all have different names and descriptions, sponger. Ah who cares, 'retarded' just about covers 'em.

redrock

Restless Soul wrote:

A lot of it is based on what disabled people themselves feel about the terms

Which is sadscaryguy's point. In his initial post he says "...because i get called names like retard for it."

sponger

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

I'm not sure you're completely correct. When this word was used, it was commonly accepted as a way of categorising people who were black. It was a technical term used by scientists, layfolk, the religious and the slave trade to describe people who these figures in authority saw as 'different' and displaying impairment. Our attitude changed, and so the word had to.

The word nigger was replaced with terms more specific, and therefore more practical. "Black" and "African-American" are even more descriptive than "nigger", so the analogy still does not liken to the situation with "retarded". A more specific term is not in use.

Your argument that it is impossible to describe these learning difficulties as anything else but 'retarded' is just weak. All you have to do to find out what words people use for these types of learning impairments is read.

Currently, there is no other word that describes a person with an IQ below 70 that isn't also used for people who have IQ's above 70.

As a sidenote, it is very easy to lump everyone with a learning disability in together as 'retarded'. It is a LOT harder to learn about every individual disability as distinct from one another; they all different names and descriptions, sponger. Ah who cares, 'retarded' just about covers 'em.

I'm not the one lumping everyone with a learning disability together as being "retarded". I'm referring to retardation as a term used to describe a specific set of criteria that goes beyond what the term "learning disability" can describe.

sponger

Restless Soul wrote:

Post me some links from the medical world where professionals describe people with severe learning disabilities as "retarded".

Center for disease control?

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/ddmr.htm

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry?

http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=Children+Who+Are+Mentally+Retarded&section=Facts+for+Families

harmless_little_f***

sponger wrote:

I'm not the one lumping everyone with a learning disability together as being "retarded". I'm referring to retardation as a term used to describe a specific set of criteria that goes beyond what the term "learning disability" can describe.

OK, so have we found the crux of the issue? I would really like to know how 'retarded' is a better and more accurate descriptor than 'learning disability' please. Educate me.

sponger

redrock wrote:

Tell me Sponger...if you had a child with an IQ lower than 70... would you go around saying he is retarded (with all its connotations and the reactions you may get from people like sadscaryguy has to deal with on a daily basis) or would you rather say he has difficulties (or any other more sensible word)...?

It would depend on who I am talking to.

sponger

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

OK, so have we found the crux of the issue? I would really like to know how 'retarded' is a better and more accurate descriptor than 'learning disability' please. Educate me.

A "learning disability" is apparently what you seem to have. "Retarded" might be too much of a stretch.

Skitch Patterson

Im glad to see that you guys managed to turn this thread into a pissing match about use of the word retarded. and someones going to quote this and get pissed off because i dared to even type the word retarded.


Inoffensive use...

There is nothing wrong with using the word in discussion, especially when the afflicted used the word as well. "They make me feel retarded"- "well, are you retarded". That goes for stupid, funny, goofy or drunk... repeating the word should not be considerded offensive, and anyone who is offended in that situation is just looking for something to whine about.



offensive use:

This thread is retarded.



(and it is)

harmless_little_f***

sponger wrote:

A "learning disability" is apparently what you seem to have. "Retarded" might be too much of a stretch.

You didn't answer my question. Nice. Can you answer my question?

sponger

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

You didn't answer my question. Nice. Can you answer my question?

I did answer your question. When making an assessment about a person's mental facilities, you don't deem it important to know if whether or not that person is either suffering from a "learning disability" or is mentally retarded?

In the case of you needing my point of view repeated to you over and over and over, one can come to the conclusion that you just have a learning disability. With that in mind, I can reasonably assume that enough explanation will eventually lead to your understanding.

On the other hand, if your responses were just outright incoherent and lacking almost completely in relevance, I would not even bother trying to explain. Instead, I would say, "OK, whatever you say. You're probably right." I would assume that you were retarded or maybe really drunk. You would then have my deepest sympathies.

These types of distinctions are important. There is a major difference between someone who has a mere learning disability and who is mentally retarded. Why would you think they should be treated as though they are the same?

ADD is a learning disability. Would you conclude that ritalin is a prescription for retardation? Obviously not. Dyslexia is a learning disability. Does that mean a dyslexic person is going to have an extremely difficult time performing even the simplest daily functions? Obviously not. A distinction has to be made just as a distinction is made between the varying levels of severities that exist between all types of afflictions.

PJPOWER

Calling a person a retard=bad=calling someone stupid=insulting =offensive
Mental retardation= a real thing=Mentally handicap=mental disorder meeting certain conditions

I think that it is retarded how non-offensive words get turned into gay terms used by all these bitch mother fucks that act like complete jack-asses as they twist their shit gurgling language into meaning anything offensive that they can think of thus ruining the non-offensive usage of the word completely..........bitches

Restless Soul

sponger wrote:

Center for disease control?

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/ddmr.htm

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry?

http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=Children+Who+Are+Mentally+Retarded&section=Facts+for+Families

Well if they all use the same terms its no wonder the term is in such proliferation in the states. One of those links even acknowledges its derogatory aspect! Doesn’t say it should be avoided though, which I consider negligent. And just because they all use it it doesn’t stop it from being a derogatory word because of the way it is used against people with disabilities. Really, organizations like that ought to know better. In Britain I think maybe people are a bit more ahead.

harmless_little_f***

sponger wrote:

I did answer your question. When making an assessment about a person's mental facilities, you don't deem it important to know if whether or not that person is either suffering from a "learning disability" or is mentally retarded?

In the case of you needing my point of view repeated to you over and over and over, one can come to the conclusion that you just have a learning disability. With that in mind, I can reasonably assume that enough explanation will eventually lead to your understanding.

On the other hand, if your responses were just outright incoherent and lacking almost completely in relevance, I would not even bother trying to explain. Instead, I would say, "OK, whatever you say. You're probably right." I would assume that you were retarded or maybe really drunk. You would then have my deepest sympathies.

These types of distinctions are important. There is a major difference between someone who has a mere learning disability and who is mentally retarded. Why would you think they should be treated as though they are the same?

ADD is a learning disability. Would you conclude that ritalin is a prescription for retardation? Obviously not. Dyslexia is a learning disability. Does that mean a dyslexic person is going to have an extremely difficult time performing even the simplest daily functions? Obviously not. A distinction has to be made just as a distinction is made between the varying levels of severities that exist between all types of afflictions.

The same reason people who are black and white should be treated as though they are the same. Equality. We are all humans. We are the same.

You just basically told me I have a learning disability just because I don't agree with you. Symptomatic of an American epidemic. You HAVE to keep the term 'retardation' because your country has this intrinsic need to create categories in which it lumps groups of people together and seperates them.

You're just prejudiced, and you need to hold on to a 'scientific' justification of your prejudice.

You still haven't told me why 'retarded' is any more specific than 'severe learning disabilities'. Have you forgotten?

PJPOWER

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

You HAVE to keep the term 'retardation' because your country has this intrinsic need to create categories in which it lumps groups of people together and seperates them.

LOL, What country doesn't do this? Maybe you should say "The world" has this intrinsic need to create categories in which it lumps groups of people together and seperates them. That would be less prejudiced against my country :P

harmless_little_f***

PJPOWER wrote:

LOL, What country doesn't do this? Maybe you should say "The world" has this intrinsic need to create categories in which it lumps groups of people together and seperates them. That would be less prejudiced against my country :P

OK, fair point Of course this isn't specific to America. I'm using hyperbole.

angelica

Restless Soul wrote:

Well if they all use the same terms its no wonder the term is in such proliferation in the states. One of those links even acknowledges its derogatory aspect! Doesn’t say it should be avoided though, which I consider negligent. ... In Britain I think maybe people are a bit more ahead.

If people are "a bit more ahead" in England, why does the BBC, the national news source that is internationally well-known, refer openly and unapologetically to "mental retardation"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4355355.stm

"A host of nasty diseases and disorders sit on the human X chromosome, including haemophilia, autism, muscular dystrophy and mental retardation."

or here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A577046

"Mental deterioration leading to severe mental retardation"