Lovely, I would’ve expected better, more refined, less offensive terminology. Noticed that the quote not only didn’t attract any negative attention it attracted this
Yeah perfect you insensitive pricks.
Notice all these things? But it’s okay I suppose since “retards” cannot properly defend themselves. Or is okay to insult a class of people when you can make it into such a nice quote?
Would saying “special needs” or “mentally handicapped” really have made the overall message any better? Is the problem the reference, or the word? Seems to me it’s just a crass statement in general, regardless of the word(s) used to describe the type of child the nameless poster was referring to.
One presumes a retarded child would indeed require excess supervision and care. Perhaps the poster quoted in the OP could be accused of bad taste in similes, but hate speech? Hardly.
Yeah, no kidding. “Retarded” is a word widely seen even in scientific literature to describe the effects of a multitude of developmental disorders. It carries no particular negative connotation, despite its usurpation by puerile pop culture. So, your comparison to “retard” (which is offensive) is inexact and misleading.
In short, saying “Your kid is a retard” might be roughly comparable to “Your kid is a spic/fag/kike.” Saying “Your child is retarded” (depending on the context, it may be insensitive, but not bigoted) is more like saying “Your child is Hispanic/homosexual/Jewish.”
I think he/she is saying that likening your boat to a retarded child is just as offensive as likening it to a homosexual. So, in the analogy in question:
That’s right, unless you think it’s a proper way to classify something. Would you like it if someone said, hey you remember that Miller? The fag? Descriptive right? But offensive correct?