Use insults only to insult

Back to the topic:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/Emanuel-Makes-a-Private-Apology-for-Retard-Insult-83443812.html

CounterWithWhining:

I neglected to mention that you need to check your dictionary (get one if you don't have one) for "lose" and "loose".

You lose again.

CounterW(ith)W(hining):

At last I understand your name. Unable to counter with logic, reason, or “truth” (whatever that is), you counter with whining.

“It is interesting that you put yourself up so high and mighty Schaum. At least you admit that you are a elitist person.”

Both statements are false. I have never put myself us as anything. It is true that I do not suffer fools, or whiners, and it is true that I call them out on the superstitions and unproven “beliefs” that they would force on us all, but that does not make me elitist. And I admitted no such thing. I said that “its possible—I’ll think about it.” Evidently there is no more truth in you than there is any ability to use reason.

“What I notice from the atheist crowd- and there used to be nice atheists-“

More whining. I assume you refer to atheists who were not willing to call you stupid when you believe and say stupid things? Well, times have changed.
“is that they now tend to follow the lead of people like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.”

That seems to make you very defensive and fearful, and whiney. Actually I think you will find most atheists are perfectly willing to let christers and god-believers continue to dwell in the darkness they have imposed on themselves, but are not willing to let them push their superstitions into positions of control over the whole.

“You believe anyone that believes differently than you about God , especially Christianity, is , in the words of the "great" Schaum- that he should treat people that are "Christers" with disdain. There is no back and forth here. It is Schaum saying things like -"you lose"- or is he looses? You can't even use the english language , sir- is it lose or loose?”

Speaking of an inability to use the English language! Where did you study grammar – at the Jack-and-Jill Maximum Security Day School? But you are right about one thing – I consistently write ‘lose’ when I mean ‘loose’.

”You really are like a child- and having taken computer classes- I remember the professors that were full of themselves. You could not learn as well from them as the ones that were - patient , kind, forgiving, etc etc. Oh, look at that- its the fruits of the Spirit! The very thing that if mankind listened and adhered to the New Testament, there would be much more peace, tranquility, and all around good in the world.”

If mankind adhered to the “new testament”, the human race would already be extinct. Remember your beloved “Saint” Paul – you know, the one who got struck by lightening, and had an electro-convulsively induced hallucination – it was he who suggested that people would be better off not marrying and encumbering themselves with families, because jesusgod was coming right back.

You lose again. Whine on, whine on in majesty!

CounterWW

"As for Timmy- tell me, why would I trust my government with MORE of my tax money when they have squandered my Social Security funds I was taxed for"

I am against governments squandering our tax dollars. But I am strongly in favor of universal health care. The answer is to fix the waste in the system. Not to leave disadvantaged brethren to suffer without health care because of administration problems. Fix the administration problems. Are they unfixable or something?

"I would trust them with even more of my money when i need to save for retirement"

How could you have possibly made that money without the government? Without the contributions of your fellow human beings some of whom can't afford health care. You couldn't have.

"so i will just trust that somehow things will work out by trusting God"

God is trusting you and you are letting him down. He was talking about you when he (in the form of Jesus) said "easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a man of great possessions enter the kingdom of heaven." Compared to most of the people in this world, you are a man of great possessions. And you do not give nearly enough away to the poor to satisfy the spirit of Jesus. Admit it.

80% of Americans are Christian. If they were truly Christian, there would be no poverty. Plain and simple.

"It is all I can do because I don't believe that our government can solve our problems"

If they can't, you sure can't. If your government fails, so will you. Better stop hating the government and start becoming it.

"Perhaps your government is better than ours"

To be sure.

It is interesting that you put yourself up so high and mighty Schaum. At least you admit that you are a elitist person.

What I notice from the atheist crowd- and there used to be nice atheists- is that they now tend to follow the lead of people like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. You believe anyone that believes differently than you about God , especially Christianity, is , in the words of the "great" Schaum- that he should treat people that are "Christers" with disdain. There is no back and forth here. It is Schaum saying things like -"you lose"- or is he looses? You can't even use the english language , sir- is it lose or loose?

You really are like a child- and having taken computer classes- I remember the professors that were full of themselves. You could not learn as well from them as the ones that were - patient , kind, forgiving, etc etc. Oh, look at that- its the fruits of the Spirit! The very thing that if mankind listened and adhered to the New Testament, there would be much more peace, tranquility, and all around good in the world.

As for Timmy- tell me, why would I trust my government with MORE of my tax money when they have squandered my Social Security funds I was taxed for , my whole life- and then think that with the massive debt they are in, (yeah, I know its all of the people's debt) I would trust them with even more of my money when i need to save for retirement. They fail all the time, and I just do not trust that they will stay away from the monied interests(unions on one side, corps on the other) and do the right thing for the people. Now I have no one to trust as the Pubs abandoned true conservative principles under Bush, and Obama has tripled the deficits Bush did.

There is no political party to trust, so i will just trust that somehow things will work out by trusting God. It is all I can do because I don't believe that our government can solve our problems. Perhaps your government is better than ours.

www.nbcchicago.com/.../Emanuel-Makes-a-Private-Apology-for-Retard-Insult-83443812.html

"Emanuel Makes a Private Apology for "Retard" Insult

Emanuel calls Special Olympics CEO to apologize for his recent remarks "

"Who is Yael9??"

CCNL, Yeal9, the retarded retard from Retardia, etc.

Frederic2:

"What a nightmare to think, being poor, to be dependent on CounterWW's "charity"."

Dan Quayle was right after all: a mind IS a terrible thing to loose. Iscariot was merely the first in a LONG line of christers who have the ability to ignore their jesusgod's teachings when it is of benefit to them.

What a nightmare to think, being poor, to be dependent on CounterWW's "charity".

Timmy?
Really?
Point by point to the non believer:

1) He said give all of your money to the poor and you won't listen to him.

No he said that to one person- and it was a lesson for the one person, not all Christians in this time.

2)Paul? Was Paul the messiah? Are the words of Jesus retractable by Paul?

Paul's letter are considered scripture. He augmented the words of Christ. Of course, you either ignore that , or just dismiss it out of hand as it ruins your argument.

3)If Jesus were President? If he were the ruler of the entire world(which someday he will be by the way) there will be no wars, and the earth will flourish as he will create a place we can't even dream of.

4)No that was Constantine's version of Jesus. Jesus' primary goal was ending the divide between the rich and the poor. All of the people sharing all of the world. One giant commune.

Again, he talked about sacrificing his life for all mankind. Last supper, ring a bell?

5) You talk like someone who thinks that the state is not the people

The state is supposed to be the people, but when it is bloated, full of special interests coming into BOTH political parties, when it is running massive deficits- yep, I will vote against it. It won't work well here, period.

6)Republicans try try block both regulation and the social safety net at every turn.

Democrats created at least part of the conditions where we have poor people borrowing money for homes when they should not have been able to. Clinton did welfare reform in this country- and it was a good thing he did. Obamacare is a massive bill that will make our demise that much faster. Can't afford it.

7) Ignored my comments about California. you have 30 million people with less immigration, plenty of natural resources, and it is much easier to do that model up there when you can close the system- which we don't- we let any Tom , Dick and Harry come in and live off the federal/state dole.

Obviously you don't know the scriptures or the vast differences between our two countries.

Who is Yael9??

Schaum,

You're out of luck. I can find no surfing in Austria.

But plenty of the next best thing. Powder snowboarding.

Back on topic,

Yael9 is a retarded retard from the land of Retardia.

Back to the topic:

"Several traditional terms denoting varying degrees of mental deficiency long predate psychiatry, but have since been subject to the euphemism treadmill. In common usage they are simple forms of abuse. Their now-obsolete use as psychiatric technical definitions is of purely historical interest.

They are often encountered in old documents such as books, academic papers, and census forms (for example, the British census of 1901 has a column heading including the terms imbecile and feeble-minded)."

Persiflage,

Thanks for the kind words and links. Agree about WPA.

Also, I keep wondering why the President isn't calling upon Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini.
They're both brilliant, particularly, Krugman, and there are others of their caliber.

This is not the time to play politics. (LOL!)

Farnaz, all good ideas!

I've been hung up on the idea of a new WPA for awhile. Naturally there's considerable resistance and plenty of naysayers from different quarters.

The crumbling infrastructure issue has been with us for years now, and no solutions in sight - the states claim not to have sufficient money to re-build roads, bridges, sewer and water lines, etc., but nevertheless rely to a considerable degree on federal funding for this purpose to begin with.

Many on the right and the left have got a 'reasonable' excuse to resist another WPA, but offer no other workable solution to such an entrenched national problem!

To imagine that the economy and unemployment rates will be back to 'normal' in a couple of years is probably delusional thinking, and the kind of hyper-optimism that used to work when 'attitude' was everything. 'Jobless' recovery will continue to be the operative concept in the near term.

We won't get by on a wing and a prayer these days. Not while Wall Street and it's corporate/ banking minions are still sucking us dry.......

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/why-not-a-wpa/

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/23/new-deal-depression-roosevelt-opinions-columnists-wpa.html

Hope and Change: A New Day in Washington

Agenda (continued)

XV Education

A. All Americans begin school at age four, the critical year.

B. Education must be reformed from bottom to top. Period. End of discussion. Like, manage it, and throw the incompetent administrators out. Make schools safe and clean. Etc. Stop the bull. Just do it.

Counterww:

"Do you treat your students like this too?"

Never needed to. I've never had a student who said and believed things as flat out stupid as you do. Graduate students in computer science tend to be rational and logical and focused.

"You comments just confirm what I thought about you from the beginning - a lofty, elitist snob that thinks he know everything."

Elitist snob? Certainly possible. I'll give that some thought. But lets face it...there is no elitist snob like a rethuglican christer. As Timmy2 makes plain, you (like most christers) "obey" your jesusgod's teaching when it serves your self-interests. Otherwise, not so much.

Back to the topic:

"There have been some efforts made among mental health professionals to discourage use of these terms. Nevertheless their use persists. In addition to the terms below, the abbreviation retard or tard is still used as a generic insult.

A BBC survey in 2003 ranked retard as the most offensive disability-related word, ahead of terms such as spastic (not considered offensive in America[14]) and mong.[15]"

Hope and Change: A New Day in Washington

Agenda

I. Disband presidential faith councils and the like

II. End prayers in Congress

III. Congress does what it can to stop the already disastrous effects of the recent SCOTUS ruling.

A. Disastrous effect: MOney from foreign nations has been pouring into Chambers of Commerce

IV. Investigate the personal finances and campaign contribution sources of all Senators and Congressmen. Throw out many, and prosecute.

V. End tax exemptions for religious institutions.

VI. Prohibit lobbying by religious institutions. (Separate church and state.)

VII. End faith-based funding.

VIII. Set up committee to monitor the debt.

IX. Bring back WPA

X. Re-do the health care bill, once the corrupt Congressmen are out of Congress.

XI. Ban Tiger Woods articles from all major media corporation sites and the blogs of said sites. (This, probably, should be first on the agenda.)

XII. End discrimination in the United States.

XIII. Do not get into any more wars in the foreseeable future.

XIV. Tell WaPo journalists to stop considering alternative employment for Obama. (He's not qualified to serve on SCOTUS, and anyway he's not leaving yet. Next time, WaPo, report on the candidates, instead of celebritizing and demonizing; then you won't have to do career counseling for presidents and the like.)

Timmy2:

Re: Counterww Part 1 and Counterww Part 2--looks like he looses again. Talk about elitist snobs!

CounterWW Part One

"Right Timmy, a country of 20 million that is dependent on the US economy like no other"

30 million thanks. And your economy is also dependent on ours as is every economy dependent on all others. Currently, China owns you.

"Jesus said to GIVE to the poor. He did not say- TAX the people more and more, and the supposedly efficient government will make sure that the poor will get their due"

He said give all of your money to the poor and you won't listen to him. He didn't say 10%. He said all of it. And he's God. You are defying God.

"Paul also said when it came to the commune type Christian churches at the time , those that don't work , don't eat"

Paul? Was Paul the messiah? Are the words of Jesus retractable by Paul?

"You are attempting to mix statism with what Jesus preached"

You are attempting to avoid answering the question, "What would Jesus do if he were president?" Would his policies be to the right or left of Obama? What do you think, CounterW?

"Jesus was all about solving the primary problem of sin"

No that was Constantine's version of Jesus. Jesus' primary goal was ending the divide between the rich and the poor. All of the people sharing all of the world. One giant commune.

"Of course we should have the state involved to a degree, but the argument there is to what degree"

You talk like someone who thinks that the state is not the people.

"Capitalism works, if it is regulated properly and if we have the proper social safety net"

Republicans try try block both regulation and the social safety net at every turn.

"If you want to see where socialism in the US- come see my former fine state of California,where socialist democrats have ruined the state"

I live in a country far more socialist than the state of California, and we are happy and our economy is steady.

CounterWW Part two

"You form of government won't work here"

Why? Are Americans born fundamentally different than Canadians?

"I am glad it works for you, but we a much different, diverse, and yes, screwed up country in many ways"

Yes I can see how god belief has screwed up your country in a big way.

"It is much easier to execute on the socialistic model with so few people"

No the opposite is true. The larger the collective the better for socialist programs.

"All I want to do is make sure my kids are educated , have good jobs, and don't have to depend on anyone else- especially the government- for their survival"

There is no such thing a a society where people do not need to rely on one another and their government for survival and happiness.

"The socialistic welfare state takes away the ability of individuals to have self determination and puts it on the state to decide everything"

lol. Tell me how my government has taken away my ability to have self determination? What a joke. I have self determined myself into a position of being what I consider rich. Nice try fear monger. I have all of the self determination I want.

"To take Jesus's words and then infer somehow he would be for all of this is a large stretch"

Beyond a stretch is to think that if Jesus were president that his policies would be to the right of Obama's. That's more than a stretch. That's a delusion.

Actually, it is a requirement to at least to try to be nice when you are a "Christer"

"You lose" ! Calling me a fraud does nothing.. are you in elementary school or Junior high-

You sound like a 8th grader, really not a professor. Do you treat your students like this too?

You comments just confirm what I thought about you from the beginning - a lofty, elitist snob that thinks he know everything.

Persiflage:

" I say it's time to resurrect a federally mandated Make Work Project like the one that followed the great depression in the 1930's."

I agree. The nations interstate highways are in disrepair, and our bridges are crumbling. There are two places a federally funded work project, such as FDR established with the WPA, would relieve a lot of the pressure, and take care of two very serious problems.

Given that millions are projected to be out of work for years to come, I say it's time to resurrect a federally mandated Make Work Project like the one that followed the great depression in the 1930's.

This has been suggested more than once as a method of taking up unemployment slack and getting something back for unemployment funds paid out.

For various reasons the idea seems to fail at the state level, time and again. No one wants to help administrate such a potentitally beneficial program - easier to just hand over the money as a gratuity.
This may work as a temporary stopgap, but is no solution to high chronic unemployment.

Of course, funneling some of that Wall Street bonus money to the street would be one idea of how to help fund such a project. Collecting real taxes on corporations and corporate profits for a change, might be another......

The really wealthy in the USA are so thoroughly protected, that their money is pretty much untouchable - although it can be expected that taxation and tax laws at the state and federal levels will be changing. Voters had best be concerned that these changes will effect primarily middle class incomes - particularly true should republicans ever come to power again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration

Right Timmy, a country of 20 million that is dependent on the US economy like no other.

What bunk.

Jesus said to give to Caesar what is due Caesar, and give to God what is God's.... he said to GIVE to the poor. He did not say- TAX the people more and more, and the supposedly efficient government will make sure that the poor will get their due.... Paul also said when it came to the commune type Christian churches at the time , those that don't work , don't eat. You are attempting to mix statism with what Jesus preached, and the two intersect but not to the degree that you think. Jesus was all about solving the primary problem of sin- which atheists obviously ignore.Jesus was about SPIRITUAL renewal... but he did not want us to ignore physical needs. Of course we should have the state involved to a degree, but the argument there is to what degree

Social safety nets are all well and good, but welfare reform was a good thing in this country. You can't be on the dole forever.

He also wanted us to give up our money for the poor.

Capitalism works, if it is regulated properly and if we have the proper social safety net. I also think we spend too much money on the industrial military complex(Eisenhower's warning) but that it is prudent to spend enough to defend ourselves. What Bush did was wrong in Iraq, and he was a avg to poor President.

If you want to see where socialism in the US- come see my former fine state of California,where socialist democrats have ruined the state. You form of government won't work here. I am glad it works for you, but we a much different, diverse, and yes, screwed up country in many ways. It is much easier to execute on the socialistic model with so few people.

As far as me being a hoarder, far from it . All I want to do is make sure my kids are educated , have good jobs, and don't have to depend on anyone else- especially the government- for their survival. The socialistic welfare state takes away the ability of individuals to have self determination and puts it on the state to decide everything. God is about taking care of others, but also empowering them to take care of themselves under His guidance, not the government's. To take Jesus's words and then infer somehow he would be for all of this is a large stretch, .

....The capital gains rate of 18%...

- should have read 15%! Apologies to all dividends beneficiaries and recipients...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

The USA is a great place to be rich, taxwise. The 50% tax bracket went the way of the dodo bird quite some years back. With a little creative tax prep, folks in the very top 1% are known to pay little or no tax at all.

The capital gains rate of 18% is pretty much a national disgrace, but supported by several democrats of note, including Sen. Charles Shumer of New York and a few others. If you're a corporate guy/gal at heart, it's hard to get non-corporate sympathies or thinking from congressional members of either party.

http://www.moneybluebook.com/2009-federal-income-tax-brackets-official-irs-tax-rates/

Timmy2:

"All the best in Australia, Schaum."

Thanks...but I'm going to Austria, not Australia.

Well, beginning university teachers are certainly NOT in the top income brackets, so obviously they were not taking 50% of my pay.

Schaum,

"and saw a large part of my paycheck taken by the government, although I don't recall whether it was 50%. I didn't object"

50% is the highest tax bracket here and I am blessed to be in it. If they're taking 50% of your check, it means you're doing pretty damn well. I owe for doing so well. I owe the society which provides me a place and a system where I can do well. Giving back to that through taxes falls under the "well duh" category.

Taxes are not government imposed they are self imposed. Because we ARE the government. We vote for tax increases and a reasonable amount of wealth distribution. We impose it on ourselves through government because it is the charitable thing to do. It is the right thing to do.

All the best in Australia, Schaum. Another one of my favorite countries with more atheists and a higher social conscience than the Christer ruled America. Thanks to the internet we do not have to lose you here in this forum when you make the move. Will you be looking up Onofrio when you get there? You two will have to meet for a coffee.

I highly recommend taking up Surfing. I learned in Australia and continue to hang ten up here in Canada. That's right. We surf in Canada. We're pretty tough. We can take cold water and high taxes without whining about either.

Timmy2:

"I live in Canada where I, the atheist/agnostic have no problem with the government taking 50% of my paycheck to provide health care and social programs for the poor."

I taught at the university in Guelph for a couple of years, and saw a large part of my paycheck taken by the government, although I don't recall whether it was 50%. I didn't object. It was worth it to live in a society so much more compassionate, healthy and human-oriented than the US is.. . I'm moving to Austria in August, where I can have citizenship in 6 years, while it is still possible to escape this christer driven mess.

CounterWW:

"Typical "Schaum" attitude. You are not capable of rational, NICE discourse.

Shows what a real jerk you are...."

When I see an idiot, and incompetent, a fraud, and a fool, I call him what I see. If the truth offends you, so what. I've never claimed to be nice. It was not a requirement when I became a christer, and it is not a requirement when exposing the real nature of that pagan religion.

Once again, you lose.

Here's how Wall Street commiserates with ordinary folks that were devastated by the long-standing wave of corporate greed that brought the economy to it's knees - enabled by a conspicuous lack government oversight during several republican administrations.

The truly unscrupulous nature of the Bush administration and his mouthy idiot VP in particular, has not yet been measured. Hopefully some day there will be an accounting, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

http://themoderatevoice.com/54417/wall-street-bonuses-%E2%80%94-are-you-angry-yet/

An atheist does not believe in God.

An agnostic does not pretend to know for certain if there is or is not a god.

The two are not in conflict. Most atheists are also agnostic.

CCNL

"One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God"

That's me.

"One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism"

That's me. And Bill Gates. And Warren Buffet.

Atheist/Agnostics. Do not believe in God. Do not believe in this thing you call atheism. Do not claim to "know" there is no God.

CounterW 1

CounterW Part 1

"Timmy- Socialist policies are not charity"

Correct. They are better than charity. They eliminate the need for most charity.

"As far as policies I do or don't vote for, your assertions are asinine"

Christers overwhelmingly support the capitalist party. Without Christers, the republican party would never win another election.

"If you believe that our government and society is so bad, why stay?"

I live in Canada where I, the atheist/agnostic have no problem with the government taking 50% of my paycheck to provide health care and social programs for the poor. I vote in favor of these policies and so do my fellow Canadians. Even our conservative party is in favor of universal health care. That is because most of us have no religious doctrines that force us to make bedfellows with the capitalists and the corporations.

"We are involved in the political process and have different OPINIONS about where it should go"

That's correct. The atheists want universal healthcare and the Christers do not. The atheists want to pay higher taxes to support the disadvantaged and the Christers want taxes for the rich lowered.

"The difference between me and you and this- YOU want to tell me what to do with my money"

Jesus already told you what to do with your money and you didn't listen. So yes, the government of the people who provide you with an ordered society in which to thrive and make money need to tell you how much of the money you make off of the backs of our infrastructure you can keep and how much you should give back since you won't listen to Jesus. If any of you listened to Jesus there would be no need for taxes at all. But alas none of you listen to Jesus. You vote for capitalism. You are all hypocrites.

"I don't want to have the government involved as much as Western Europe does"

I know. Because they would make it too hard for the rich to get richer and the poor t get poorer. You like things the way they are now where no one forces you to do what Jesus told you to do.

"If you bothered to look at the European Union you'd know their economy is in shambles too They cannot afford the welfare state they are in , where Obama wants to take us"

I don't need to look at the EU. I look at each country individually. And I live in Canada. Our economy is fine. And our people get free healthcare. And we also have rich people. Somehow providing healthcare to everyone didn't destroy our ability to thrive.

CounterW 2

"I believe in helping others - and DO- but won't be told or asked to give to others"

Then you should throw out your new testament. It's one bossy book. Jesus tells you directly to give away all of your money to the poor. But you ignore for reasons of selfish greed.

"Your assertion is this- since people of Western Europe TELL their citizens they WILL take their taxes and redistribute the monies"

This is the disconnect of the typical republican. You think that the government is an entity that tells the people what to do. The government IS the people. And the people collectively decide how they shall act as a society.

"that is the same as charity. It is NOT. It is socialism , I don't believe that model works all that well"

You believe wrong. Come to Canada and see socialism in thriving action. And it's not complete socialism. It's a combo pack of regulated free market exchange with a social safety net so we can live in a society without tripping over the desolate.

Please re-read Jesus. They don't come any pinker. Are you saying that Obama is more socialist than Jesus? In Obama's wildest dreams, he could never make the US even close to as socialist as Jesus would have it. Not even close.

CounterW, would you vote for Jesus for President? What do you suppose his policies might be like? To the right of Obama?

Get real you hypocritical hoarder.

"An Agnostic-

a.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

b.One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."

'Our model is corrupted due to money influencing politicians in BOTH parties that don't care really about the people, but about being in power.'
______________

And particularly true of a republican-dominated SCOTUS, that just voted 5-4 to overturn campaign funding restrictions - thus completely screwing the general voting public and flinging the door wide open to even greater corporate abuse and economic hegemony on every front.

The democrats are screw-ups no doubt, but republicans can simply never be trusted again to represent the common public interest. There are in fact too many democrats that are possessed of a republican mentality, while hiding out as democrats - and a very few republicans that go the other way.

Combined with across-the-board GOP obstructionism in congress, this has made any kind of forward motion on public policy development near impossible. Republicans simply wait to regain power positions, with no other goal in mind.

Nor will the public ever benefit from a single piece of legislation offered by future republicans that hope to hold office. The course of history bears this out without fail........and this will not change.

Nevertheless, too many voters are uninformed, uneducated, and unrealistically hopeful of immediate changes that will benefit their own (recently distressed) interests. With the GOP this will never happen, but you can't tell anyone this that doesn't already know it.

Here's an easy prediction - governments and societies in the West will continue to become increasingly socialized in every way, and corporate entities/interests will continue to resist this movement at every turn. Let the battle rage!

'Our model is corrupted due to money influencing politicians in BOTH parties that don't care really about the people, but about being in power.'
______________

And particularly true of a republican-dominated SCOTUS, that just voted 5-4 to overturn campaign funding restrictions - thus completely screwing the general voting public and flinging the door wide open to even greater corporate abuse and economic hegemony on every front.

The democrats are screw-ups no doubt, but republicans can simply never be trusted again to represent the common public interest. There are in fact too many democrats that are possessed of a republican mentality, while hiding out as democrats - and a very few republicans that go the other way.

Combined with across-the-board GOP obstructionism in congress, this has made any kind of forward motion on public policy development near impossible. Republicans simply wait to regain power positions, with no other goal in mind.

Nor will the public ever benefit from a single piece of legislation offered by future republicans that hope to hold office. The course of history bears this out without fail........and this will not change.

Nevertheless, too many voters are uninformed, uneducated, and unrealistically hopeful of immediate changes that will benefit their own (recently distressed) interests. With the GOP this will never happen, but you can't tell anyone this that doesn't already know it.

Here's an easy prediction - governments and societies in the West will continue to become increasingly socialized in every way, and corporate entities/interests will continue to resist this movement at every turn. Let the battle rage!

"Bill Gates is thought to be an Agnostic"

"Warren Buffett is believed to be an Agnostic"

Timmy 2 is an agnostic. And an atheist, just like Buffet and Gates.

Schaum-

Typical "Schaum" attitude. You are not capable of rational, NICE discourse.

Shows what a real jerk you are....

Timmy- Socialist policies are not charity. They are taxes. Very high ones, and in Europe they afforded this due to the US's protecting them from the Warsaw pact for years- they were under our defensive unbrella. As far as policies I do or don't vote for, your assertions are asinine. If you believe that our government and society is so bad, why stay? We are involved in the political process and have different OPINIONS about where it should go.

The difference between me and you and this- YOU want to tell me what to do with my money. I don't want to have the government involved as much as Western Europe does. If you bothered to look at the European Union you'd know their economy is in shambles too They cannot afford the welfare state they are in , where Obama wants to take us.

I believe in helping others - and DO- but won't be told or asked to give to others. Your assertion is this- since people of Western Europe TELL their citizens they WILL take their taxes and redistribute the monies, that is the same as charity. It is NOT. It is socialism , I don't believe that model works all that well.

Our model works well as long as the govt does its job and does correct legislation and regulation, which it failed at the last 20 years. Our model is corrupted due to money influencing politicians in BOTH parties that don't care really about the people, but about being in power.

For you to try to correlate who someone votes for with your beliefs on where we are- well that is a opinion and you know, many of them stink.

To your last statement- Jesus had something to say about charity. The poor or middle class schulb that gives when it really hurts them- they the ones that really do charity. I am sure if Gates or Turner give billions, that is all well and nice, but they are not hurting and probably don't give in total what Christians and religious folks do. Nice try, but beeeeeep- YOU LOSE again.

is is = he is

I definitely need an editor.

Persiflage:

"D12 would realize that he's getting a tutored course in creative writing free gratis.....if he wasn't so busy writing."

I assure you he IS paying attention -- he is to obsessive-compulsive not to. Whether is is, or is even capable of, learning is another question.

Schaum:

'These are likely to be long. Interested in proofing them for me?'

Always a pleasure to read what you write, but I don't think you're particulary prone to editorial gaffs :^)

I'm personally on the lazy side when it comes to written extemporization but enjoy reading it when very well done -

D12 would realize that he's getting a tutored course in creative writing free gratis.....if he wasn't so busy writing.

CounterWW:

"I happen to agree with your definitions of moral principles to a a degree, Schaum."

I happen to not give a sh!t what you agree with.

Yeal9/CCNL1:

"Deprived of meaningful work, men and women lose their reason for existence; they go stark, raving mad."
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Surely Dostoevsky had you firmly in his mind.

Off topic but since the issue was raised:

"Bill Gates is thought to be an Agnostic.[6]
Warren Buffett is believed to be an Agnostic.[7]

But the biggest US philantropist by far is the US taxpayer and the majority of these types have some religious beliefs.

"The Washington National Cathedral, in Washington, D.C., is a cathedral of the Episcopal Church.Religion in the United States is remarkable both in its high adherence level compared to other developed countries as well as its diversity. The First Amendment to the country's Constitution prevents the government from having any authority in religion, and guarantees the free exercise of religion. A majority of Americans report that religion plays a "very important" role in their lives, a proportion unusual among developed nations, though similar to other nations in the Americas.[1]

Many faiths have flourished in the United States, including imports spanning the country's multicultural heritage as well as those founded within the country, and have led the United States to become the most religiously diverse country in the world.[2]

The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians (76%), while non-Christian religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and others) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population.[3] Another 15% of the adult population identified as having no religious affiliation.[4]

According to the American Religious Identification Survey, religious belief varies considerably across the country: 59% of Americans living in Western states (the "Unchurched Belt") report a belief in God, yet in the South (the "Bible Belt") the figure is as high as 86%.[5]"

CounterW

Not so fast sneaky.

In countries where the non religious are in the majority, socialist policies prevail. And in fact in the US, it is the atheists who overwhelmingly vote for socialist policies that are closer to the teachings of Jesus than the policies that the pious vote for. While the Christers vote in league with the right wing capitalists, it is the atheists who vote liberal left wing and socialist. It is the atheists who would vote through universal health care if they had a majority. It is the atheists who would vote for more government programs for the poor even if it means raising their taxes. It is the atheists who vote for the environment and animal rights, and labour rights.

It is the Christers who vote for Oil and corporations and capitalism and guns and against the environment and against animal rights and against minimum wage increases and against tax increases for the wealthiest 1% even though Jesus said "easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a man of great possessions to enter the kingdom of heaven.

You better give to the poor. The policies you vote for create them. The truth is, when atheists are in charge of an economy, they give far more to the disadvantaged through social policies than all of the church bake sales and bible thumping missionaries ever could. And we don't need no divine command to do it.

And If I'm not mistaken the two biggest philanthropists in the US are atheists.

counterww:

You're quite mistaken about Jewish philanthropy. A great deal of it is entirely secular. But why get so upset about it all?
There is a great deal of need in this world. Secularists, atheists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, et al--surely are welcome to help those in need.

Oh, and Farnaz- I would bet that if you looked at tax returns- and this has been publicized- religious people give alot more to charity than secular non believers. That is a fact, jack, or miss....

Sorry, Farnaz, I don't see it. There is nothing out there that helps the poor from a charity perspective but religious folk- jews included. Atheists I suppose would be forced to give to organizations that are religious in nature, but that I doubt.

As far as my other comment- it is just a definition or semantics, or a point of view.

You do seem to get quite upset about what Christians call the the older books in the Christian Bible though. It 's nothing to get upset about. You seem to get quite upset about such things.

Counterww:

However, I don't see atheist's doing proactive work or giving to the poor as us awful "Christers" do.
-----------------------
So, you don't mind "christers," then? It doesn't get your "panties all in a bunch"?

At all events, atheists give quite a bit, and that has been documented on this blog. So do Jews, despite being far fewer in number. In fact, every observant Jew has in her home a box in which money (checks, pledges, etc.) goes and is then donated.

A lot of folks also give to secular institutions without necessarily labeling their religious heritage, belief or lack thereof, nationality, height, width, and sartorial preferences! :}

"Beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and devil are fighting there, and the battlefield is the heart of man.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Deprived of meaningful work, men and women lose their reason for existence; they go stark, raving mad.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Happiness does not lie in happiness, but in the achievement of it.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

If there is no God, everything is permitted.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

If you were to destroy the belief in immortality in mankind, not only love but every living force on which the continuation of all life in the world depended, would dry up at once.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

It seems, in fact, as though the second half of a man's life is made up of nothing, but the habits he has accumulated during the first half.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Man is fond of counting his troubles, but he does not count his joys. If he counted them up as he ought to, he would see that every lot has enough happiness provided for it.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Man only likes to count his troubles, but he does not count his joys.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than find as quickly as possible someone to worship.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Men do not accept their prophets and slay them, but they love their martyrs and worship those whom they have tortured to death.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Much unhappiness has come into the world because of bewilderment and things left unsaid.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

One can know a man from his laugh, and if you like a man's laugh before you know anything of him, you may confidently say that he is a good man.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Power is given only to those who dare to lower themselves and pick it up. Only one thing matters, one thing; to be able to dare!
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Realists do not fear the results of their study.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

The greatest happiness is to know the source of unhappiness.
Fyodor Dostoevsky "

The soul is healed by being with children.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

There are things which a man is afraid to tell even to himself, and every decent man has a number of such things stored away in his mind.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

There is no subject so old that something new cannot be said about it.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

To live without Hope is to Cease to live.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

To love someone means to see him as God intended him.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

We sometimes encounter people, even perfect strangers, who begin to interest us at first sight, somehow suddenly, all at once, before a word has been spoken.
Fyodor Dostoevsky "

I happen to agree with your definitions of moral principles to a a degree, Schaum.

However, I don't see atheist's doing proactive work or giving to the poor as us awful "Christers" do. If they do, it is not prevalent in society or documented much. Many know that the lesson of the good samaritan is what Christianity teaches. You don't need to follow the bible to know that helping others is right and good. However, what you fail to see, and reject, and I am sure I will get a emotional reaction from you on this comment, is that the sinfulness of man prevents mankind from seeing how to help and love mankind in a consistent manner and to the highest degree possible.

Another aspect I feel you feel to understand is that to love your neighbor, you have to love God first. It is set up in the human spirit that way- if we choose to love God and put Him first, it allows us to have the power and motivation to help others and treat then with respect and love to the utmost of our abilities.

Fundamentally what we disagree on is the existence of God, so there can't be any compromise between my position and yours on this topic. It boils down to what is truth, and we also disagree on that topic also.

Side note- I note on another Jacoby comments section you gave out your personal info. It illustrated your transparency but I don't think it was prudent.

Persiflage:

I'm fed up with the "problem of evil" references made by people who don't have a clue. I'm planning two different essays, "The Nature of Evil by Deduction" and "The Nature of Evil by Induction." These are likely to be long. Interested in proofing them for me?

Back to the topic:

"A BBC survey in 2003 ranked "retard" as the most offensive disability-related word, ahead of terms such as spastic (not considered offensive in America[14]) and mong.[15]"

A research article that fully supports Schaum's treatment here of reciprocity as the primary glue that holds individual groups of every size together, and binds disparate groups to one another on every scale. Social equilibrium is in the end an economic phenomenon, as much as any force can be said to be primary to the greater good of all.

Using Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a basic paradigm, humans generally find the freedom and motivation to pursue higher personal goals, only after life's basic biological needs are satisfied.

It's worth a read......

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1518/791.full.pdf+html

THE NATURE OF A-THEIST MORALITY AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR (1)

Regardless of the common christer assertion that, without their god, there can be no morality or ethics. II can think of several reasons why atheists, and agnostics, can and do behave morality, and promote morality. I will use the term ‘non-theists’, in order to include those non-atheists who do not believe in the christer’s god. This will include the often-misquoted and often-misinterpreted Thomas Jefferson.

I’ll start with the concept of self defense, which is after all the core of the so-called “Golden Rule”. As Robert Ingersol, 19th century agnostic, often explained, one basis for nontheistic morality is simply the idea of self-defense. Because nontheists do not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, they support laws prohibiting those types of harmful acts. By the same reasoning, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to advocate laws and rules of conduct that promote fair, honest, and respectful treatment of people. In this way, manner, the concept of and need for self-defense produces a just system of laws and social standards.

Another basis for nontheistic morality is the principle of enlightened self-interest. Under this principle, it makes perfectly good sense for a person to treat others kindly and helpfully. That behavior will likely cause them to reciprocate with similar behavior, thereby increasing the happiness of fellow humans. If a person treats people selfishly and abusively, he will likely be worse off in the long run. Sooner or later, the victims will realize the injustice being done to them. The usual response is to retaliate against, ostracize, or otherwise punish the wrongdoer. And it is not just the victims who recognize the wrongdoer as a dangerous person who should be avoided. Those who witness or learn about the wrongdoing are likely to feel the same way.

Ever encountered someone who has no qualms about telling friends or coworkers of how they cheated, lied to, or stole from others?. When awake persons hear this, they know that because the person was willing to mistreat others in the past, he will almost certainly be willing to mistreat them if he perceives a similar benefit to be gained from it. As a result, they view the immoral person as a threat and danger, and they are not likely to trust or associate with him. At the very least, they will not do so in situations offering him a chance to

THE NATURE OF A-THEIST MORALITY AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR (2)

defraud or otherwise harm them. They will guard themselves from giving him opportunities to abuse them. And, in the work environment, such an immoral person's ability to qualify for raises and promotions is reduced. His continued employment may be jeopardized. And in his personal life, the ability to develop meaningful relationships is seriously narrowed. Because of the possible undesirable consequences of mistreating others, it is not in a person's long-term interest to do so.

Then there is the human to love and be loved by others. Besides avoiding the wrath of those who have been mistreated, nontheists behave morally for a more positive reason: their love for others such as family and friends. For normal people, such love is a source of great pleasure and satisfaction. And hate produces the opposite feelings. Love for others includes a desire to see that the objects of the love are happy. Fulfilling the desire often entails unselfishness and self-sacrifice. When done in a spirit of love, those efforts can be quite pleasurable to the one making them.

As Albert Einstein said: "From the standpoint of daily life . . . there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends." Love for others likewise, I infer, includes pain at seeing their unhappiness. Work and self-denial stem from a desire to avoid that pain.

Thus, caring and helpful behavior towards others results in the pleasure of feeling love for others and the motivations naturally accompanying the feeling. Another self-interest that promotes moral behavior.

Nontheists also have reasons for doing good to those they do not know and probably never will know: some research indicating a person's emotional and physical health can improve by performing good works. Alan Luks explains in “The Healing Power of Doing Good”, science is revealing that helping others can produce many benefits for the helper. The benefits include, but are not limited to, experiencing a "helper's high" involving an initial rush of good feelings followed by a longer-lasting period of emotional well-being. The emotional benefits of

THE NATURE OF A-THEIST MORALITY AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR (3)

being kind to others are similarly described in Richard Carlson's book “Don't Sweat the Small Stuff”: "Perhaps the greatest reason to practice random kindness is that it brings great contentment into your life. Each act of kindness rewards you with positive feelings and reminds you of the important aspects of life - service, kindness, and love."

These benefits make sense in terms of human evolutionary history. Early societies that were able to develop compassion, concern for the welfare of others, and cooperation, would have had a competitive advantage over those that didn't. As Charles Darwin said: "Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected."
Using some of these reasons for behaving ethically and morally, Thomas Jefferson assured his nephew Peter Carr that belief in god is not necessary for morality. His letter to Carr states: "Fix Reason firmly in her seat . . . . Question with boldness even the existence of a God . . . . Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."

So claims about human societies needing a "divine" morality suffer from a number of very fundamental flaws, all stemming from the fact that a functioning moral system must operate within human relationships and thus cannot be created outside the context of human relationships. What's more, there's just no need for us to have any "divine" authority behind our morals because human relationships are more than enough to ground the authority of reciprocal demands we make on each other in our relationships.

The fact that secular moral claims can be subjected to criticism, dispute, and debate is precisely what makes them superior to religious, supernatural, and allegedly "divine" moral claims. Some Christians are likely to see this as

THE NATURE OF A-THEIST MORALITY AND ETHICAL BEHAVIOR (4)

evidence of "relativism" and thus a weakness, but this is masking the fact that they are trying to remove their moral claims from any debate and, therefore, are trying to exempt any harm caused by their claims from criticism or reform.

Notice that irrational belief in an unprovable, non-existent, god, or any of the myths and superstitions surrounding him, are not required to be an ethical and moral person.

Any non-theists disagree?

Part one.

On the future of retarded people.

The foreground view of society seems to favor retarded people. Society becoming more technologically sophisticated seems to open opportunities to people, which makes people more compassionate, more willing to tolerate people that in ruder ages would have had a more difficult time.

But the background tells a different story. Although life was difficult in ruder ages--for all not to mention people with disabilities--the ruder ages were ages of the sacred, when a person was not as calculated by a utilitarian calculus as today. In the sacred ages a person could be quite useless, stupid, retarded, but if with innocence considered just as close to salvation as any man--in fact retarded people have often been considered more likely to be saved by God than the average man. Not for nothing has Christ sometimes been compared to an idiot.

Part two.

The modern ages although with an easier life are times separated from the conception of the sacred and consequently the emphasis becomes on what benefits society in a strictly material sense, ensures society goes on in a material sense, what helps society become more sophisticated and successful apart from any notion of salvation in God. We moderns suffer from a peculiar hypocrisy when it comes to retarded people. We have pity on them as never before but no one wants to marry a retarded person; no one wants to be friends with a retarded person; the educational system demands precisely the opposite of the retarded; and we cannot even claim the innocence of the retarded has any special claim to be recognized.

Life in the modern ages is life in the extended history of man--the opened history of man--by natural science, which destroys the closed in sacred view of existence which, for example, as in Christianity is a simple world of man just needing to be relatively good and he will be saved by God. The modern age by natural science--especially biology--is a world in which man understands himself as a species, and needing to survive as such, which means a scorn for the less intelligent and capable. One only has to take a look at the media to see the good-looking, the intelligent, the athletic and so on are dramatically favored. What person will make a movie with a retarded person as the hero? No one.

Part three.

Life is better, yes, the opportunities for sympathy are many, but people desperately try to get ahead, alter themselves by plastic surgery, look for any intellectual advantage (drugs for cognition and memory are more and more being focused on), and in general want to be as far as possible from the retarded. Just look at the word retarded. BACKWARD. STOPPED. BROUGHT UP SHORT. NOT FULLY FORMED. SLOWED. Time races ahead, things are changing more rapidly than ever. Being retarded a blessing? Not at all.

The innocence often coming with being retarded is perhaps the only advantage to being retarded. And that advantage is utterly gone when we destroy the sacred character of existence, have no narrative of man before God and needing to get in his good graces. The innocent retarded were often thought of as easily finding a place with God. With no God innocence alone is not enough. Sure we might pity a retarded person, even have him as a pet. But no one believes the retarded have any moral advantage anymore. What moral advantage when more more morality means at least being useful?

And more and more morality means what ensures species survival. This is the consequence of modern science and the modern economic mentality. The price of progress. We recognize more and more that progress has come about by particular individuals and we seek to replicate and improve on that success. This does not mean retarded people but creative people. And it is only a matter of time before we eliminate retarded people from being born. We become willing to tamper with God's creation when the task is no longer to get in good graces of God but become a better animal. We once sought to be saved by God but now we seek to create a better human animal in the strictly material sense, the animal that will make life better NOW ON EARTH, and not an animal which is useful for only pleasing God, being innocent in his eyes.

We are more sympathetic than ever to retarded people. And with a smile we will remove them forever from the sight of our eyes.

Hi YEAL9,

YEAL: "One wonders why On Faith topics are not first reviewed in libraries and/or online at such sites like Wikipedia? Maybe then commentators would then stick to the topic? Maybe panel members (those few that are still active) would make better observations?"

I think the reason is because the topics lead into a deeper discussion on underlying values and worldviews, the very nature of an on faith forum, and with the statue of limitations on any given forum only lasting two weeks a raging debate is never given the opportunity to run its course. Hence, the desire to finish it on another forum with a different topic.

On any topic what we are looking at is the underlying worldviews that govern any particular persons views on any particular topic. An atheist and a Christian are going to look at values from two opposite extremes, one natural and material, the other supernatural and immaterial in nature.

I feel what the 'New Atheist' is fighting for is not only the right to express a particular opinion, but also the deep seated power politics of making it the most sensible and most relied upon opinion, the only one that counts.

In order to do that hopefully the foundational values need looking at and how these can be justified. Without looking at these core values of a worldview it is just the blind leading the blind. No opinion is any better than any other unless it is girded and guarded in truth.

It is the old 'everyone has a right to their opinion but not every opinion is right.' Some are definitely more derogatory and racial than others. But in making a claim there is very little push to make the person accountable for what they believe and say.

One wonders why On Faith topics are not first reviewed in libraries and/or online at such sites like Wikipedia? Maybe then commentators would then stick to the topic? Maybe panel members (those few that are still active) would make better observations?

Anyway, from Wikipedia's review of mental retardation:

"Mental retardation is a generalized disorder, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors with onset before the age of 18.

It has historically been defined as an Intelligence Quotient score under 70.[1] Once focused almost entirely on cognition, the definition now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to individuals' functional skills in their environment."

"Several traditional terms denoting varying degrees of mental deficiency long predate psychiatry, but have since been subject to the euphemism treadmill. In common usage they are simple forms of abuse. Their now-obsolete use as psychiatric technical definitions is of purely historical interest. They are often encountered in old documents such as books, academic papers, and census forms (for example, the British census of 1901 has a column heading including the terms imbecile and feeble-minded).

There have been some efforts made among mental health professionals to discourage use of these terms. Nevertheless their use persists. In addition to the terms below, the abbreviation retard or tard is still used as a generic insult.

A BBC survey in 2003 ranked retard as the most offensive disability-related word, ahead of terms such as spastic (not considered offensive in America[14]) and mong.[15]

Cretin is the oldest and comes from a dialectal French word for Christian.[16] The implication was that people with significant intellectual or developmental disabilities were "still human" (or "still Christian") and deserved to be treated with basic human dignity. Individuals with condition were considered to be incapable of sinning, thus "christ-like" in their disposition. This term is not used in scientific endeavors since the middle of the 20th century and is generally considered a term of abuse: notably, in the 1964 movie Becket, King Henry II calls his son and heir a "cretin." "Cretinism" is also used as an obsolescent term to refer to the condition of congenital hypothyroidism, in which there is some degree of mental retardation.

continued below:

Amentia has a long history, mostly associated with dementia. The difference between amentia and dementia was originally defined by time of onset. Amentia was the term used to describe an individual who developed deficits in mental functioning early in life, while dementia described individuals who develop mental deficiencies as adults. During the 1890s, amentia was used to describe someone who was born with mental deficiencies. By 1912, ament was a classification lumping "idiots, imbeciles, and feeble minded" individuals in a category separate from a dement classification, in which the onset is later in life.[17]

Idiot indicated the greatest degree of intellectual disability, where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard himself or herself against common physical dangers. The term was gradually replaced by the term profound mental retardation.

Imbecile indicated an intellectual disability less extreme than idiocy and not necessarily inherited. It is now usually subdivided into two categories, known as severe mental retardation and moderate mental retardation.
Moron was defined by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded in 1910, following work by Henry H. Goddard, as the term for an adult with a mental age between eight and twelve; mild mental retardation is now the term for this condition. Alternative definitions of these terms based on IQ were also used. This group was known in UK law from 1911 to 1959/60 as "feeble-minded".

Mongolism was a medical term used to identify someone with Down syndrome. For obvious reasons, the Mongolian People's Republic requested that the medical community cease use of the term as a description of mental retardation. Their request was granted in the 1960s, when the World Health Organization agreed that the term should cease being used within the medical community.[17]

In the field of special education, educable (or "educable mentally retarded") refers to MR students with IQs of approximately 50-75 who can progress academically to a late elementary level. Trainable (or "trainable mentally retarded") refers to students whose IQs fall below 50 but who are still capable of learning personal hygiene and other living skills in a sheltered setting, such as a group home. In many areas, these terms have been replaced by use of "severe" and "moderate" mental retardation. While the names change, the meaning stays roughly the same in practice.

Retarded comes from the Latin retardare, "to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder."

The term was recorded in 1426 as a "fact or action of making slower in movement or time." The first record of retarded in relation to being mentally slow was in 1895. The term retarded was used to replace terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile because it was not a derogatory term. By the 1960s, however, the term had taken on a partially derogatory meaning as well.[17]"

Schaum 1

"And you do NOT have unlimited license to free speech in a public place when it limits the rights of others, or endangers them"

And this applies to, say, calling George Bush a "retard" how?

"And no, I do not want to see words banned. But what I WANT and what is a CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT" are not necessarily synonymous"

I'm not sure where you got the impression that I didn't know that. I only objected to the movement to "ban the word retard from public discourse". I do not think that I have a constitutional right to call anyone a retard. I just know that words can not be banned from public discourse, therefore movements to "ban" them from public discourse are retarded.

When you yell "fire" in a crowded theater you are not charged with using the word "fire" in public discourse. You are charged with inciting a dangerous situation. The word "fire" was not the issue.

"I don't care about being called a queer or a fag"

That's admirable but I care on your behalf. I am thoroughly disgusted and ashamed to be human when I hear anyone call a gay person those words. Any hateful speech like that is most abhorrent to me. It hurts me deeply whenever I hear it even if directed perfect strangers. It has bothered me since a very early age. I speak up when I hear it. I often want to fight the person who said it. I just hate it.

But all the haters have is a word that you give power to the more you fight against it. You are capable of eliminating all of the power from that word, leaving them with nothing but a completely harmless word. What you are not capable of doing is eliminating that word.

Schaum 2

I'm with Susan that we should call people what they wish to be called. But we can not enforce that. We can not disarm haters of their words. But we can disarm the words.

Sometimes I like hearing someone call another person a fag or queer. I like it when they are friends and doing it with humor because they are removing the hate from the word, thus disarming it. I have many many gay friends and workmates and family members. Most of them use those words jokingly and I love it. That's what we all should be doing. We can;t take away their guns but we can take away their bullets.

"I've seen it myself -- be crushed to death when a peer uses a pejorative like 'fag' or 'queer' to tease him publicly, to publicly humiliate or embarrass him. If you think that is not homophobia, there is a dimension to you I have not seen before"

That is homophobia. Where on earth did you get the impression that I thought that was okay?

"Any use of any word to deliberately hurt, humiliate or marginalize someone is HATE speech"

Are you kidding me? You are like Farnaz here, acting like you are making a statement that not everyone here agrees with. Who the hell doesn't agree with that? I honestly can not think of anyone I've ever known who would disagree with that.

"I will, henceforth, refer to him (D 12) as a person of extremely limited intellectual capacity. Is that better?"

No I prefer idiot. No need to do all that extra typing. The word idiot was disarmed long ago. Now if people could just do the same with retard instead of wasting their time trying to ban it we'd be better off.

msraborn wites on a different thread:

It may sound silly, but it is the difference between being defined by the disability or the disability being only one part of the person. "He is a BOY who is intellectually disabled and has brown hair" vs "a retard with brown hair."
--------------------------------------
At issue is the word "retard" as a noun to describe a certain population. When it is used to insult those outside its original reference domain, the referent is recalled.

So long as it is used as in that way, so long will it be used to insult, hurt, inhibit, molest those with Downs syndrome.

This issue in some ways reminds me of the efforts of many American Indians to end the use by athletic teams of slur names like "REdskins." These usages have led to violence again and again when various teams play at stadiums where Whiteskins and Native Americans sit together in the bleachers. Guess who gets hurt?

This country's Native Americans still lack power, and so we do not hear them. Dr. Shriver is asking us to listen to the voices of those with Downs syndrome.

If THEY do not identify as "retards," then they are not. Period.

Sorry for the multiple posts...I'll get the hang of this thing yet.

Here's the tailend of an article on children with Downs syndrome. It has often been said that people with severe learning disabilities can be quite intuitive and very sensitive emotionally - in my experience this is often the case.

People that are congenitally blind compensate in a number of ways, and one way is the development of a very acute and highly detailed sense of hearing - barring a hearing impairment, this can be quite remarkable to observe.

In the same fashion, it seems probable that children with severe mental retardation may compensate by developing acute emotional sensitivity that provides a kind of intuitive situational grasp of the unexpressed intentions, feelings, and/or genuine sincerity of others.

So in my view, retarded is not as one is, but as one does....and that usually applies to people of otherwise normal intelligence that do and say stupid-ass things - in my highly enlightened opinion, of course.
________________

'.....finally, we would like to note that the importance for social learning of relations beyond those with primary caregivers, such as relations with siblings and peers, is increasingly being realised.

The roles of emotional expression and sensitivity to others' emotions in the development of empathy, and abilities to learn collaboratively are worthy of more attention in the special context of children with Down syndrome.

With increasing concern around the risks of autism-like behaviours emerging in the development of some children with Down syndrome, issues of relatedness with others must surely be put high on the agenda for future research.'

Here's the tailend of an article on children with Downs syndrome. It has often been said that people with severe learning disabilities can be quite intuitive and very sensitive emotionally - in my experience this is often the case.

People that are congenitally blind compensate in a number of ways, and one way is the development of a very acute and highly detailed sense of hearing - barring a hearing impairment, this can be quite remarkable to observe.

In the same fashion, it seems probable that children with severe mental retardation may compensate by developing acute emotional sensitivity that provides a kind of intuitive situational grasp of the unexpressed intentions, feelings, and/or genuine sincerity of others.

So in my view, retarded is not as one is, but as one does....and that usually applies to people of otherwise normal intelligence that do and say stupid-ass things - in my highly enlightened opinion, of course.
________________

'.....finally, we would like to note that the importance for social learning of relations beyond those with primary caregivers, such as relations with siblings and peers, is increasingly being realised.

The roles of emotional expression and sensitivity to others' emotions in the development of empathy, and abilities to learn collaboratively are worthy of more attention in the special context of children with Down syndrome.

With increasing concern around the risks of autism-like behaviours emerging in the development of some children with Down syndrome, issues of relatedness with others must surely be put high on the agenda for future research.'

Here's the tailend of an article on children with Downs syndrome. It has often been said that people with severe learning disabilities can be quite intuitive and very sensitive emotionally - in my experience this is often the case.

People that are congenitally blind compensate in a number of ways, and one way is the development of a very acute and highly detailed sense of hearing - barring a hearing impairment, this can be quite remarkable to observe.

In the same fashion, it seems probable that children with severe mental retardation may compensate by developing acute emotional sensitivity that provides a kind of intuitive situational grasp of the unexpressed intentions, feelings, and/or genuine sincerity of others.

So in my view, retarded is not as one is, but as one does....and that usually applies to people of otherwise normal intelligence that do and say stupid-ass things - in my highly enlightened opinion, of course.
________________

'.....finally, we would like to note that the importance for social learning of relations beyond those with primary caregivers, such as relations with siblings and peers, is increasingly being realised.

The roles of emotional expression and sensitivity to others' emotions in the development of empathy, and abilities to learn collaboratively are worthy of more attention in the special context of children with Down syndrome.

With increasing concern around the risks of autism-like behaviours emerging in the development of some children with Down syndrome, issues of relatedness with others must surely be put high on the agenda for future research.'

But you are right...notwithstanding his idiotic comments and writing, I should not call Daniel12 an idiot.

I will, henceforth, refer to him as a person of extremely limited intellectual capacity.

Is that better?

Timmy2:

"Not the same as banning the word "Fire" from public discourse is it?"

Oh? Attend a flea market or used book sale or some such thing, held in the public square of your town. Yell "FIRE" when there is none. See what happens to you.

Timmy2:

"You can call Daniel 12 an idiot. He is not a government official nor is his retardation connected to the government in any way."

I call Daniel12 an idiot because of the evidence he has supplied to support that assertion. However, it is NOT my "constitutional right" to call him an idiot on WAPO, if that organization decides such speech is not appropriate for its purposes. If they decide to withhold my posts on those grounds, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. And you do NOT have unlimited license to free speech in a public place when it limits the rights of others, or endangers them.

And no, I do not want to see words banned. But what I WANT and what is a CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT" are not necessarily synonymous.

I don't care about being called a queer or a fag, because I like me, and I can only be hurt by someone whose opinion I value, and there are precious few of those. But a teenager, perhaps feeling insecure about his position with his peers, can be -- I've seen it myself -- be crushed to death when a peer uses a pejorative like 'fag' or 'queer' to tease him publicly, to publicly humiliate or embarrass him. If you think that is not homophobia, there is a dimension to you I have not seen before. Any use of any word to deliberately hurt, humiliate or marginalize someone is HATE speech.

Persiflage,

"As regards people with cognitive/learning deficits, educated folks would hopefully seldom be caught referring to these individuals as 'retarded' - extremely crass and without class, to say the least!"

Hear hear. No ban necessary.

"However, feel free to use this term without retraint when referring to stalwart members of the GOP and their Fox News mouthpieces .... that seems fair enough"

Hear hear. The word has a new meaning now. Virtually no one uses it to refer to the "intellectually disabled" anymore. Nor have they for many many years.

I grew up using the word "fa*got" in school as a play insult with my friends, and sometimes as not such a play insult with my enemies. Never in my whole life have I harbored any ill feelings towards anyone who is gay. In fact quite the opposite. Even as a teenager when I was using that word to insult my buddies for being pansies, I never meant anything derogatory towards gay people. It was a word that took on a new meaning for us teenage boys. None of us were homophobes and all of us would vote for gay marriage in a heartbeat because there is nothing wrong with being gay. I have great admiration and respect for gay people due to the extra challenges they must face in life. I march with them and would defend their rights with my life.

Even someone who is intellectually disabled can understand the concept of stick and stones can break my bones but names will NEVER hurt me.

Banning words gives them power. That is why it is futile and counterproductive. And a violation of free speech.

Note that I had to type "fa*got" to get this post through. That word is obviously banned from this forum. And yet I can write the word "retard" over and over again if I like in any context. I guess the Washington Post cares more about the rights of gay people than the rights of the intellectually disabled.

This is one of the many problems with banning words. Will they ever learn? Sigh.

Schaum,

"However, freedom of speech applies ONLY to your relationship, albeit verbal, with the government"

I was responding to the following statement by Farnaz.

"Dr. Shriver's efforts to ban it from public discourse are to be commended"

Fact: There are no words in the english language that are banned from use in public discourse. This would be an infringement on free speech.

"That freedom does not apply to non-government-related speech"

Of course it does. You can call Daniel 12 an idiot. He is not a government official nor is his retardation connected to the government in any way.

"The truth is that the banning of words is a common occurrence"

Not from public discourse. It's never happened and never will.

Fact: there is no ban from public discourse on any word in the english language.

"Employers have the right to ban "offensive" words in the emails sent by their employees in the course of their work"

This is not "banning a word from public discourse". Neither are any of your other examples.

"Yelling "fire" , when there is none, in a crowded room is banned"

Not the same as banning the word "Fire" from public discourse is it?

Schaum do you really think that we can ban the word "retard" from public discourse? Do you even want such a thing to happen?

Grist for the mill regarding discussions on gender, race, and intelligence. Unfortunately more scholarly websites are not easily available without academic access or a willingness to pay!

Every discussion on intelligence invariably remains unsettled to everyone's satisfaction. As regards people with cognitive/learning deficits, educated folks would hopefully seldom be caught referring to these individuals as 'retarded' - extremely crass and without class, to say the least!

However, feel free to use this term without retraint when referring to stalwart members of the GOP and their Fox News mouthpieces .... that seems fair enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_and_intelligence

Timmy2:

"Ban? Words? How on earth do you ban words in a world where free speech is paramount to a healthy society?"

I identify with your outrage. It seems a short jump from banning words to banning books and ideas.

However, freedom of speech applies ONLY to your relationship, albeit verbal, with the government. You are free to openly criticize and disagree with and challenge the government, thanks to 'freedom of speech'. That freedom does not apply to non-government-related speech. The truth is that the banning of words is a common occurrence and supported by centuries of practice. christers have the right to ban any anti-christer speech, and any speech they consider blasphemous or obscene, in their own places of worship. Employers have the right to ban "offensive" words in the emails sent by their employees in the course of their work. School principals have the right to ban students from using obscene language in school property. Theaters have the right to ban any speech at all in their facilities. Yelling "fire" , when there is none, in a crowded room is banned. Print media, via editors, routinely ban and remove certain words from their publications. And we censor words in our own day-to-day speech, for self-protection if nothing else: telling a cop who has stopped you for speeding to "go fu*k yourself" may not be unlawful, but it certainly is not your best move.

WmarkW
I think you posted on the wrong thread.
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | February 17, 2010 11:46 PM
-------------------------------------------

Is there a nuanced implication in your post that I'm not getting? It seems relevant to this discussion that politeness rules sometimes get confounded with content rules to exclude viewpoints.

"if this is the label they choose, so be it"

It's not. It's chosen for them.

"In any case, it is preferable to "retard."

I have heard many people use that word over the years, and none of them were referring to the "intellectually disabled". They were all referring to someone who was opting out of using their perfectly functioning intellect to educate themselves and not say or do something so stupid. The word has a new meaning now.

"Dr. Shriver's efforts to ban it from public discourse are to be commended"

Ban? Words? How on earth do you ban words in a world where free speech is paramount to a healthy society?

"He, in fact, is to be commended for all the wonderful work he does"

I'm sure he is, but a ban is not only futile but counterproductive.

"Do you, Susan, refer to African Americans as "Negros"?"

Of course she does not and of course she does not refer to intellectually disabled as "retards".

"Shriver and those who stand with him are attempting to enfranchise a segment of this population that deserves to be enfranchised"

Hear hear. Bless them. But attempting to ban a word that people no longer use to refer to them, but rather use to refer to people who are negligent with their fully functioning intellect, will only result in a back lash. As it should given that it is in conflict with free speech.

"Part of that effort is surely to change the way we think of these people and how they think of themselves, to begin a new history"

I don't know anyone who didn't change the way they thought of these people long long ago. That's why the word took on a new meaning.

"The rights of the intellectually disabled are no less important than those of any other group"

Wow. Sticking your neck out here. So many people disagree with that. Everyone who uses the word "retard" to refer to George Bush surely must think that the "intellectually disabled" are less important than other groups. Otherwise they wouldn't use that word.

I don't buy it. People who use that word these days think no less of the intellectually disabled than anyone else. They have compassion for them and respect for their perseverance through such an unimaginable challenge. They are inspirational. I see the new meaning as showing respect for that. The *new meaning* as I take it is "one who is wasting a gift that not all are blessed with".

But even if one does not like the use of that word in any context, how exactly do you ban a word without infringing on free speech?

There is no ban on the "N" word.

And as for an unwritten pseudo social ban on the "N" word, there already is one on the word "retard". It has about as much effect as the one on the "N" word.

The Rappers have the right idea. Change the meaning of the offensive word. It's the only way to combat offensive words. Bans are futile, counterproductive and in conflict with free speech.

Intellectually disabled is not entirely accurate. The population of which we are speaking are often strikingly intuitive and intuition is a function of intellect. However, if this is the label they choose, so be it.

In any case, it is preferable to "retard." Dr. Shriver's efforts to ban it from public discourse are to be commended. He, in fact, is to be commended for all the wonderful work he does.

Language shapes thought. Do you, Susan, refer to African Americans as "Negros"? I would imagine you do not, and I would think you know why. Shriver and those who stand with him are attempting to enfranchise a segment of this population that deserves to be enfranchised. Part of that effort is surely to change the way we think of these people and how they think of themselves, to begin a new history.

This country has done remarkable things with respect to combating racism against African Americans and some other groups. It has done much to combat sexism and is engaged in ending homophobia, agism, etc. The rights of the intellectually disabled are no less important than those of any other group.

WmarkW

I think you posted on the wrong thread.

Ok. Ok. So you're "intellectually disabled" not a /*/tard.

The discussion about "manners" in debate is an important one. Many of our current debates become one-sided because the opposition isn't supposed to say negative things about the other. Why aren't there more women in science? It MUST be glass ceilings or old-boys networks, because only a cretin like Lawrence Summers would suggest that it's rooted in women's interests and aptitudes.

So, please stop claiming that socio-economic disparities between blacks and whites are prima facie evidence of the legacy of slavery; because I'd really rather not have to get into the genetic evidence for a 15-20 point disparity in IQ and its consequential affect on attitudes, works ethics and morals.

... in elementary school ...

I agree with Susan, call people what they want to be called and avoid what insults them. I also remember, like Susan, that the polite term was "mentally retarded." In elementary, this term was even used in official public settings, as in inviting all of the retarded children to the school canteen during recess for free ice cream. Now it seems kind of funny; but then, that is what they said.

The term "intellectually challenged" seems like an inorganic contrivance, that I do not think will ever catch on and become popular. What to call them? It is a balance between being accurate and being polite. People who are not involved with such people through family or friends are not likely ever to be very sensitive on this subject.

Cassie123

I can see how you can associate this topic with your faith (and mine). My point is that, faith or not, the use of the word is tacky. In terms of Christianity, such use is surely a failure to love.

From the Vancouver Sun:

"The party is just starting for Canada," said Bilodeau, who dedicated his (gold medal) triumph to his older brother who has cerebral palsy. "My brother is my inspiration."

Enough said!!

I do think that this discussion is relavent to faith. Christianity calls for me to love everyone. I can disagree with you or even not enjoy your company, but I am to love you! In love, we should see how our words treat other people and make them feel. We can hopefully look beyond the surface meaning of a word like "retard" and see the hurtful deeper meaning (truly even the surface meaning of calling somone dumb is also not something said out of love). Our world needs more love. I am in no way saying to "ban" the word. Like people above mention, the word itself is not the issue. It is the meaning behind the word. My sister is physically and intellectually disabled. I know how hurtful this word is. My sister understands not only the basic meaning of the of word when someone uses it, but she also understands where the word comes from. I do not use this word and my skin crawls everytime I hear someone use it regardless of their intent.

This topic is retarded.

We stopped calling people who have mental handicaps "retarded" long long ago. The word's use is now reserved for those who have no disability mentally, but show a lack of intelligence in their words and actions. It no longer refers to someone with mental disabilities. No one I have ever heard use that word has used it to describe someone with actual mental disabilities. It was dropped by the medical community and left alone for a while, and then it was reclaimed by "the people" to refer to something completely different from mental illness.

Calling someone with full mental capacity, a retard, as an insult used to be offensive because there were actually people with mental disabilities who were called retarded, so to use the term as an insult was offensive because there was nothing the real retarded could do about being retarded. It wasn't their fault.

But the term "retard" was abandoned by the medical community leaving it available to be reclaimed for use as an insult towards those who have full mental capacity but have shown a laziness to use it properly, or to educate themselves.

If I call George Bush a "retard", how is that offensive to people with mental handicaps when that word is never used to describe them, but only to describe people who are being lazy fool hardy with their fully functioning intellect?

The notion that you can ban words is... well... retarded. It just makes them all the more taboo which is what makes people want to use them in the first place.

Go ahead, ban the word "retard". I will simply refer to Daniel 12 from now on as simply "a tard". There, now you have to ban the word "tard". See how futile this gets?

I agree with Susan in that the question is one of good manners, not faith. If people find a term offensive and you persist in using it you are perhaps guilty of poor etiquette. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hi Justillthennow,

I posted on Susan's last forum, but for some reason it is not accepting my most recent post. I'll try again later, but there is something there for you now.

test