Irony. Heh.
…and for shits and giggles, m-w.com
has
Cambridge dictionary says
IOW…the “slow mental development” definition is recognized as offensive and old fashioned… NOT a standard advocated definition.
As a matter of fact, Waverly…since YOU made the assertion…can you provide an example of a definition of “retard” that you claim? One that is not categorized as offensive or outdated…but in current standard use?
I’ll be waiting.
How about the entire dictionary, not just the part that supports your malformed opinion? Cripes, talk about intellectual dishonesty.
Your second post is bit more accurate, but you had me laughing when I saw you were using the Advanced Learner’s dictionary. Do you really think you are in the advanced class? It’s one thing for a dictionary to tell you a usage is archaic, slang, or vulgar, it’s another for it to admonish you that it is offensive. Kind of silly, don’t you think? Well maybe not, but I think it’s a silly thing for a dictionary to offer an opinion like that.
Retard, in this usage, is short for retarded, or more specifically, mentally retarded.
NOUN: 1. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay. 2. Music A slackening of tempo.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English retarden, from Old French retarder, from Latin retard re : re-, re- + tard re, to delay (from tardus, slow).
The etymology is pretty clear here, if we can avoid playing dictionary wars and word parsing games. Every of the many usages stem from the original Latin, and the accepted English definition. [Mentally] slow.
You are free to take offensive if suits you, but don’t assume the word itself is universally offensive.
I take offense at your deriding me as “old,” you scurrilous snack cracker.
You calling me a cracker?!
Ummm you began the “dictionary wars”…and you still have yet to provide a cite for
Your reference to “slowing down” is generally accepted for usage outside of decriptions of people. (Hence the “offensive/outdated” label for descriptions of people).
So again, do you have a cite for “a person of sub-normal intelligence” for standard (read NOT offensive and NOT outdated) usage. I don’t mean retard as in slowing down of musical tempo…or slowing the rate of infection…I mean as in describing a person.
I note that you chided me for using the “Advanced Learners Dictionary”…fine, it’s the default search dictionary.
If I use the “dictionary of American English” at the same site (golly…hope thats ok for you)…we get
beagledave, do you really see a difference between “having a slower mental development than other people of the same age” and “a person of sub-normal intelligence” other than the latter usage is a noun?
My paraphrasing is shortened from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate. A worn desk copy I’ve kept around. Please let us all know what you are getting at. For my part, I’m happy with your latest definition if you prefer it - at least until they depart from offering definitions. You may want to note when you add your own emphasis. I think they’ve gone into enough conjecture without you highlighting it for them.
This would be illegal, wouldn’t it? I don’t know any enterprising computer geeks that have distribution rights to major label recordings.
Even if it was legal, that extra $5 for each disc would add up pretty quick. A new 52x CD-R/W drive can now be had for a mere $34 (including shipping), and the discs themselves cost 30 cents or less apiece (free if you happen upon a mail-in rebate).
Nice try, but it’s looking like a lost cause.
My mind boggles that you parachute into the thread to defend the use of the word “retard,” then somehow think that pointing out that "retarded**" can be a legitmate reference for the mentally retarded somehow supports your position. Um, OK. Really, your dancing in this thread has been quite amusing, actually. Wouldn’t it be more honest to say that you understand this is an offensive term, but you just don’t care?
Right, that’s what I do. That’s what I’ve been arguing for all along. :rolleyes:
I know I see that this is not a definition for “retard,” which is what beagledave requested you provide a cite for. Keep trying, bub…
:dubious:
There have been several provided (albeit not all nouns, though it is still easy enough to draw meaning,) including one from an old fashioned paper dictionary. Ask your mom, maybe she has one. Your family may refer to it as ‘the thingie that props up the wobbly leg of the coffee table.’
I believe it could be done legally, thanks to the AHRA, as long as:
-
You only used AHRA-sanctioned devices (stereo component CD burners) and media (“music CD-R”).
-
You had a legitimate copy of every song you wanted to distribute.
-
And the kicker… you didn’t make a profit from it. The AHRA only exempts noncommercial copying from prosecution.
My mom uses the Sears catalog, thank you. And, just for the record, “retard,” the noun, is inherently offensive when it is in that form. It is the very word you defined (as a noun, sparky) in trying unsuccessfully to show that the word had a simple, unloaded meaning, a definition for which you can apparently find no support. Pointing out that the phrase “mentally retarded” and the verb “retard” are probably the origin(s) of the offensive slang noun, “retard,” is neither a great revelation nor support for your assertion, which was:
**The word “homosexual” is not the same as the word “homo,” and the fact that the latter has its origins in the former does not change that fact. This sinking in, bub? If you say that “Jap” simply means a person of Japanese origin, and someone asks you to find a cite that doesn’t categorize the word as offensive, citing “Japanese” or “Japan” won’t do the trick. Pointing out that “Japanese” is another form of the word is not relevant. If you use the word “Jew” as a verb, providing the definition of the word when used as a noun will not even slightly change the fact that when used a verb, it is a disgraceful slur.
So, either retract your baseless contention, or provide a cite for the word in question, in the form you used it, as beagledave requested (without it being categorized as outdated or offensive). Come on, you can do it.
Uhhh… buymusic.com. Right.
If you’re at all fond of underground/indie/classical stuff, check out http://www.emusic.com. It’s 15 bucks/month for unlimited downloads, and you get real live non-DRM VBR MP3s. It ain’t oggs, but it’s something.
I haven’t tried the iTMS, as I don’t have a Mac, but eMusic is the closest thing to free-n-legal p2p that I’ve been able to find. You won’t find complete catalogs or the most up-to-date stuff, but I’m more of a nugget-hunter than a slave to release dates.
Please consider this message formal notification of my request to be added to the distribution for future revisions of Bob’s Inherently Offensive Words List.
I defer to Bob’s morally superior extra sensory subjective knowledge of what is, and is not offensive in this, any, and all matters. Amen.
sigh
The usage here is calling someone stupid.
The word basically means stupid.
Thus the word actually applies–the person is implying that the person is stupid. True, they probably aren’t actually, literally stupid, but would you be offended if they’d said stupid or idiot?
If you were using ‘fag’ would you really be saying that the person is a bundle of sticks? The word doesn’t apply. It would be meaningless in that context.
Again: I don’t actually use the word. I never got into the habit, and I also figure that touchy people would spaz on it, so I just use other words instead. However, I don’t get offended when other people use it.
Deal.
*dis·par·age ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sprj)
tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es
To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. See Synonyms at decry.
To reduce in esteem or rank. *
Well duh, you’re insulting someone! Calling them “stupid” would be the same. :rolleyes"
Uh…no? Calling someone “stupid” is offensive. Calling someone a “bitch” is offensive. Lots of things are offensive, and they’re meant to be since you’re insulting the person!
As for “parachuting into the thread” I was simply providing an example that the comment that everyone who had a mentally disabled loved one would think the word was offensive was inaccurate. It was you guys who decided to make a huge big debate out of it.
All right, I suppose that’s enough of that. Seeing as no one is talking about the subject anymore, let’s just close this puppy down.
And OpalCat: is is possible to quote multiple people in one single reply. Thanks.