You are assuming that we have not read the entire thread. This would be a mistake.
You are not being picked on, but are hearing from people that do not share your point of view.
Printable View
Tough? How 'bout this - some words have a particular meaning. Then society takes it and turns it into a derogatory term. Now you have a 2 year old that this formally normal word applies to, except you hear everyone and their mother calling each other this term pejoratively. Furthermore, in the time since this term was used in it's original form we have expanded our knowledge and have developed classifications that allow us to better treat people who are not as fully developed instead of lumping them all into one class (retarded) and treating them all the same, even if their needs are different. So, do you really want to call your 2 year old retarded?
There are some things that never change - language is not one of them., you would do well to know that. If language and usage didn't change, we'd all still be calling people of African descent by several names that are no longer in use (or at least shouldn't be) - one of which used to mean "ignorant" and could possibly be applied to a "retarded" child. So, you up for calling a 2 year old N***er?
Sorry about your dad, it's hell dealing with the failing health of a parent, but that doesn't mean you're right in this instance.
No one was called retarded. It was a word that appeared in a signature line of the person who started this thread. Yes we do have more terms to describe conditions that used to be blanketed by the term retarded, and while it provides a way to classify the origin and possible treatment of the condition, it doesn't change the condition. People tend to call each other names when they run out of other choices, giving them power by getting upset over their lack of choices certainly doesn't seem like a well thought out decision. The name caller will only feel more empowered and continue the usage of the word, because it has some power over the other person.
I agree that the usage of words within a language can change over time. Instead of getting offended or teaching someone else to be offended by the word, try teaching them all of the meanings of the word, how the word evolved and remind them that the person calling them that name may have a very limited vocabulary and simply be out of choices. Better yet, address the person who is calling someone a name and find out if they even know what the word means, if they don't teach them. Each of the fore mentioned examples is a much better solution than getting upset. The difference is that it puts the onus on the receiver of the word to accept responsibility for how they respond, instead rationalizing their indignation by thinking they have the right to choose the words other people use. To the best of my knowledge nobody has the right to not be offended and you will do well to learn this.
As for the 2 year old child example I've found a really simple formula that works across all age groups, races, religions and gender preferences. Simply address the person by using their name (ie. “Hello “ + <Insert Name Here>). There is one important piece to this. If someone doesn't address me by my name, whether they use a derogatory term or not, I don't get upset. Their opinion of me is not a driving force in my life and I base no part of my self-esteem on their vocabulary choices.
My fathers health was not the point. It was an example to illustrate that the word chosen to describe his condition did not change his condition or the impact it has on those around him. A friend of mine inquired about him last week and asked, “Is he still going mad?” and “has he had anymore nut-case outbursts lately?”. If had asked “Is his condition deteriorating?” and “has he had anymore delusional episodes lately?”, the answer would still have been “Yes” to both questions with no more or less thought about the issue.
It's easy to point fingers at another person and think they are the problem, because of how you responded to something they may have said. It is far more difficult to try to understand why you responded the way you did and address those issues. The former is a cop out that allows you to avoid any responsibility for you own reactions. They later will lead you on a far more interesting journey.
Thank you for the long over-extended social science lesson.
The ONLY reason why I brought up the OP's signature line is because he went out of his way not only to have it, but to also refer back to it.
No one is perfect, Ive been guilty of laughing at a bad joke or using similar phrases.
But I know of 3 specific Industry members who post on this forum who do have Special Needs children, and I know we strive for a little more "professionalism" here on this forum, at least thats what i've been told.
I've worked with children suffering from Autism/Down syndrome/Cerebral palsy for several years, and regardless of your views on political correctness or how Americans label things, it is an accepted label across the board. Using the word "retarded" while not an direct insult, used in the phrase of the OPs signature line, it was. And using the term "Special Needs" encompasses the several million children who are working through the disorders above on top of many more.
I am surprised this thread has gone on as long as it has...
I have long been guilty of buying cheap scopes . :-(
Recently , I have tried to move up in quality ( and price ) , some what .
My biggest peoblem with cheap scopes is not so much the optics as the repeatability of the adjustments .
If I go 3 clicks up , I do not expect it to go up some unpredictable amount and also to the right or left . And so on .
So far , ( with limited testing ) I have been quite satisfied with a Burris Fullfield II and a Leupold I & a Leupold II .
But , seriously , a young person with good eyes can do just about as well at 100 yards with Irons as with glass . However , I do not fall into either category .
God bless
Wyr