It's all about context and intent. In the context there is no intent to apply or relate the term retardo to anyone suffering from a mental handicap.

I'm questioning the suitability of "retardo" as a rebuke term in this context because it equates mere ignorance or stupidity with a condition (mental disability) that for most of its sufferers, is not reversible.

Your killing me here man!

So the world should bow to your judgement about suitability?

You've agreed, that there was no intent. You've agreed, that there was no association in context. Just as I hope you will not interpret the first line of this response as an accusation of attempted murder; you must see that neither person wrote with any intent to disparage the mentally handicapped; and nor will the majority of onlookers take it to mean that. No more than when we hear people say "you/he/she are crazy!".

Proscribing the use of particular English words because they have more than one meaning, one of which would be derogatory to some group or other, even when obviously used for the other meaning, simply makes light of the real problems faced by those groups.

At this point, you've made and reinforced my point exactly, all that's left to do is point you at some appropriate previous discussion.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

So the world should bow to your judgement about suitability?

Already answered back in 1123792 (i.e. "I'm not telling people what to do or not do"). The world can make up it's own mind.

It's all about context and intent. In the context there is no intent to apply or relate the term retardo to anyone suffering from a mental handicap.

Yes, context is important. However, the "no intent" part is not true. The original quote (which, in the reply, was not put in quotes) is meant to deride a non-mentally disabled person to say that he was acting as if he was mentally disabled. That's the meaning of the quote and the oomph is given to it by the hidden disdain we have for people not as put together as us.

By seeking out offense, and choosing to be offended, on behalf of others, where no offense was intended, nor can be rationally inferred from the context, you don't help a problem -- you are the problem.

He did not seek out offense. He pointed out the offense that was already there. He did it by asking a question, which instead of answering, you attacked him, ad hominem. If you don't want to answer the question, or even if you think it is off topic, just say so, or don't answer at all. But don't attack him.

I attacked no one.

And you're intervention is unwarranted and unhelpful.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

I attacked no one.

From Re^6: MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly "you are the problem" (amongst other comments.)

And you're intervention is unwarranted and unhelpful.

As the thread started because of a comment that i made and subsequently considered a reply, i feel quite involved. And, i refuse to stand by idly as you berate a fellow monk for asking a poignant question.