# Retarded development



## Riding in Circles (14 Jul 2008)

So I snook off early today to get a few miles in, no sooner had I pulled onto the main road than a Corsa with three chavettes, (female chavs), in pulled past, the fat one with a face only a mother could love in the passenger seat was trying to make a witty comment about the trike. Unfortunately for her, her brain is not connected to her mouth so all she can say is "wheel" and make a rocking gesture with her hands, we both pulled up at the lights, she tried again, "wh wh wheeeeeeel" (rocking gesture again). I said "you're a bit of a (word that Magnatom is highly offended by so removed before he calls me f***ing tw*t, which apparently is ok) aren't you dear?", lights changed and I rode off, the Corsa didn't move, I think they were pooling their three brain cells to come up with an appropriate response, didn't see them again.


----------



## ianrauk (14 Jul 2008)

LOL, top retort Sir...


----------



## snorri (15 Jul 2008)

'Tis naughty to mock the afflicted.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

I must admit I really don't like comments like that. Retard isn't a nice word. Sorry Catrike, but comments like that aren't something to boast about in my opinion.


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> I must admit I really don't like comments like that. Retard isn't a nice word. Sorry Catrike, but comments like that aren't something to boast about in my opinion.



Next time I will let go of a stream of expletives like you do old bean, maybe not.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Next time I will let go of a stream of expletives like you do old bean, maybe not.



Actually, the worst I will ever call anyone is an ar$h0le. My expletives are usually just the normal shocked ones.

The thing is, for all you know she may have had learning difficulties. Best not to use terms like that in my opinion.


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Actually, the worst I will ever call anyone is an ar$h0le. My expletives are usually just the normal shocked ones.
> 
> The thing is, for all you know she may have had learning difficulties. Best not to use terms like that in my opinion.



I'm not going to get into this with you, they did not have learning difficulties, other than being a chav. On one of your video's you call someone a tw*t, there is a lot of the f word in there to as well as blasphemy, so while calling someone a retard is not brilliant, getting pulled up by someone with your propensity for obscenity is a bit rich don't you think. I have never criticized your language before but in retrospect maybe you should learn to tone it down, it's not big and it's not clever.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I'm not going to get into this with you, they did not have learning difficulties, other than being a chav. On one of your video's you call someone a tw*t, there is a lot of the f word in there to as well as blasphemy, so while calling someone a retard is not brilliant, getting pulled up by someone with your propensity for obscenity is a bit rich don't you think. I have never criticized your language before but in retrospect maybe you should learn to tone it down, it's not big and it's not clever.



So your not getting into this with me then

As for tw*t I personally think this is a fairly minor expletive. More importantly it, and the other expletives I use are not based on insulting a disadvantaged group of people. 

Part of the reason why I particularly find the word ret@rd bad is that I work with people with mental illness as part of my job whom I know take offense with this particular type of word.

On a number of occasions I have been called a ret@rd myself on youtube. Anyone who uses comments like that gets a very strong rebuttal and usually blocked from posting any further comments on my videos.

I feel very strongly about comments like that towards me, or anyone whom I know, and I would never use comments like this against anyone else. I could also be accused of double standards if I did not make it known, what my views on comments like this, are on cyclechat.

Of course, this is my opinion. It is your choice if you agree with it or disagree with it. Out of interest, would you call someone a sp@stic?


----------



## spindrift (15 Jul 2008)

Your all gay.


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Jul 2008)

spindrift said:


> Your all gay.



I know your cycle route and I have a box of tacks.


----------



## spindrift (15 Jul 2008)

My first job in London was working at the LSE. A very,* VERY* right-on environment, one of the people who interviewed me was the Women's Officer ( a good mate slept with her just before she turned lesbotic, what a blow to the ego!).

Anyway, in the bar a student said:

"Why doesn't pakistan have a very good football team? Cos every time they get a corner they open a newsagents".

The repercussions were frightful.

"You're perpetuating a racist stereotype in a sickening display of overt racist sentiment etc etc etc"


"No"

complained the student:

"I just meant lots of pakistanis have newsagents!"

The debate droned on with no real resolution, the student accepted a reprimand, then an American student started chucking a copy of Playboy round the bar and the whole place went ballistic crazy ape bonkers.


There is no point to this post.


----------



## Origamist (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> As for tw*t I personally think this is a fairly minor expletive. More importantly it, and the other expletives I use are not based on insulting a disadvantaged group of people.



"Twat" is a slightly politer way of calling someone a c***, or, at best, an idiot. I think you should consider "Twit" in future.


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Jul 2008)

Well I am sneaking away again today so I wonder what political incorrect debacle I can start today? I will go past a couple of mosques, one synagogue and a catholic church so I'm sure I can think of something.


----------



## spindrift (15 Jul 2008)

It's ok to be sensitive to others' feelings but let's not get carried away like a bunch of girls.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> So your not getting into this with me then
> 
> As for tw*t I personally think this is a fairly minor expletive. More importantly it, and the other expletives I use are not based on insulting a disadvantaged group of people.
> 
> ...


I think you're being over the top - Catrike was just giving as good as he got (or as good as they'd have liked him to have got).

I know people that would cave your head in for you if you called them a twat, and I also know people with disabled kids that would pay no attention whatsoever to Catrike's 'retard' comment - they'd be sensible enough to consider the circumstances.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> I think you're being over the top - Catrike was just giving as good as he got (or as good as they'd have liked him to have got).
> 
> I know people that would cave your head in for you if you called them a twat, and I also know people with disabled kids that would pay no attention whatsoever to Catrike's 'retard' comment - they'd be sensible enough to consider the circumstances.



Should we consider the circumstances when some makes a racist remark?

I'm not being over the top, just saying my 2p worth that I don't like comments like that. I cannot ever think of a situation where I would feel it necessary to call someone a ret@rd. The fact is there is no need for it and a group of people find its use personally insulting. I just thought I would point that out, nothing more nothing less.

As for people 'caving my head in' for calling them a tw@t. They obviously have anger management issues. Anyway thats assuming that they would be capable of caving my head in......


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Should we consider the circumstances when some makes a racist remark?


Ah, the racist issue - well done.


> I'm not being over the top, just saying my 2p worth that I don't like comments like that. I cannot ever think of a situation where I would feel it necessary to call someone a ret@rd. The fact is there is no need for it and a group of people find its use personally insulting. I just thought I would point that out, nothing more nothing less.


I feel exactly the same way about being called a tw*a*t.


> As for people 'caving my head in' for calling them a tw@t. They obviously have anger management issues. Anyway thats assuming that they would be capable of caving my head in......


Just trying to illustrate how diferently people interpret insults - you've missed the point entirely with you anger management comment.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

One man's twat is another man's buffoon.


Errr, what I meant was... errmmm, I've forgotten now.


----------



## spindrift (15 Jul 2008)

One man's bassoon is another man's wizard's sleeve, and the only good Pole is a deed poll, errrr, um.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Ah, the racist issue - well done.I feel exactly the same way about being called a tw*a*t.Just trying to illustrate how diferently people interpret insults - you've missed the point entirely with you anger management comment.



So what is the difference in making a comment that is insulting in a racist way and one that is insulting to someone with a mental illness? Please explain this one for me?

Tw@t is a general insult which as someone else mentioned equates to idiot. That is very different from a term that is insulting to a group of people who have the misfortune to suffer from mental illness.

I didn't miss the point I knew exactly what you were trying to say, but I think you have missed the very significant difference in terms such as tw@t and ret@rd. Would you agree that they are very different?


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jul 2008)

I think it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Magna and Catrike are no better than each other w.r.t. this language issue. For that matter, I'm no angel myself, LOL!


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Well spotted beancounter. 

So AM, your happy to call others tw*t but you don't like it yourself?


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> So what is the difference in making a comment that is insulting in a racist way and one that is insulting to someone with a mental illness? Please explain this one for me?


Well, there is only one way to take a racist insult, whereas others can be taken differently (as illustrated earlier).


> Tw@t is a general insult which as someone else mentioned equates to idiot. That is very different from a term that is insulting to a group of people who have the misfortune to suffer from mental illness.


No, "T*w*at" means worse than idiot - see Orgamist's post. As he says, you are thinking of "Twit", which is entirely different.


> I didn't miss the point I knew exactly what you were trying to say, but I think you have missed the very significant difference in terms such as tw@t and ret@rd. Would you agree that they are very different?


No, you misunderstand "T*w*at".


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Wait a minute, where did beancounters reply go?

Bentmikey,

Nice diplomacy, but I have to disagree. Bias against mental illness is a bugbear of mine. People used to use the word sp@astic a lot, (I probably did as a child) but now most folk have come to realise that it is very insulting to disabled people. Ret@art is the equivalent word with respect to mental illness. In general (yes a generalisation, I know) just don't have the same attitude to mental illness as they have to to physical disability and so words like this are still seen as acceptable. 

I think there is a world of difference in my language compared to terms like this.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> So AM, your happy to call others tw*t but you don't like it yourself?


Yes, that's what insults are for. What do you want me to call somebody I want to insult; something that I myself would like being called? You're being silly.


----------



## beancounter (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Wait a minute, where did beancounters reply go?



Sorry - I deleted it - the link didn't look right.

Here it is again:-

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=14960&page=9

Apologies.

bc


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Well, there is only one way to take a racist insult, whereas others can be taken differently (as illustrated earlier).No, "T*w*at" means worse than idiot - see Orgamist's post. As he says, you are thinking of "Twit", which is entirely different.No, you misunderstand "T*w*at".



Tw*t is a reference to a part of a ladies body. Terms like this are meant to be generally offensive. Suer I should not use it, but it is not aimed at being derogatory to any particular group.

Ret@rd is a reference to a person suffering from a learning disability. It is particularly offensive to people who suffer from such afflictions. 

AM, in what other way could ret@rd be taken?


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Yes, that's what insults are for. What do you want me to call somebody I want to insult; something that I myself would like being called? You're being silly.



Of course, I didn't not mean that you would be happy if someone called you it! What I am suggesting is that you have double standards. 

Do you use the terms ret@rd and sp@stic AM?


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

beancounter said:


> Sorry - I deleted it - the link didn't look right.
> 
> Here it is again:-
> 
> ...



Phew! I thought I was seeing things!


----------



## beancounter (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Phew! I thought I was seeing things!



You were too quick!

bc


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Tw*t is a reference to a part of a ladies body. *Terms like this are meant to be generally offensive.* Suer I should not use it, but it is not aimed at being derogatory to any particular group.
> 
> Ret@rd is a reference to a person suffering from a learning disability. *It is particularly offensive* to people who suffer from such afflictions.
> 
> AM, in what other way could ret@rd be taken?


There, they're both offensive, in your own words. This is why it's wrong for you to pull Catrike.

Have you read many of his posts? Do you seriously think that he has an issue against those with a learning disability? You need to cop on to yourself.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Of course, I didn't not mean that you would be happy if someone called you it! What I am suggesting is that you have double standards.
> 
> Do you use the terms ret@rd and sp@stic AM?


Double standards? No. When I insult someone, I use insulting language and they don't like it. Similarly, when others insult me, they use insulting language and I don't like it.

Do you need a picture?


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> There, they're both offensive, in your own words. This is why it's wrong for you to pull Catrike.
> 
> Have you read many of his posts? Do you seriously think that he has an issue against those with a learning disability? You need to cop on to yourself.



Of course I do not think Catrike has an issue or a problem, I just think at the moment words like ret@rd are still socially acceptable to use when they shouldn't be. 

Of course both words are offensive, but one word is offensive to the individual it is aimed at, and the other is offensive to a large group of innocent individuals who have the misfortune of having a mental illness.

Do you use the words ret@rd or sp@stic? Please answer this question, honestly.


----------



## domtyler (15 Jul 2008)

I find, when it comes to expletives, it is best to use either those describing the male organ, prick, dick, cock, even fiddle stain or self-gratification artist. Otherwise, if it is to be directed toward an errant female member of the population, to make suggestions as to her loose attitude to choosing her sexual partners, whore, slag, slapper and so on. You can't go too far wrong then.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

You are of course the expert in this area dom....


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Of course I do not think Catrike has an issue or a problem, I just think at the moment words like ret@rd are still socially acceptable to use when they shouldn't be.
> 
> Of course both words are offensive, but one word is offensive to the individual it is aimed at, and the other is offensive to a large group of innocent individuals who have the misfortune of having a mental illness.
> 
> Do you use the words ret@rd or sp@stic? Please answer this question, honestly.


Retard, yes - I've used that before, but I'd only ever use it on someone that clearly isn't retarded. But this isn't about me, it's about whether or not it's right for you to pull Catrike for throwing insults, when you go around doing it yourself. Doesn't matter if the word is offensive to an individual, or a group, it's still offensive.


----------



## Maz (15 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> So I snook off early today to get a few miles in, no sooner had I pulled onto the main road than a Corsa with *three chavettes*...


Three Chavettes, you say? It's rare enough to see just one of them these days...


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Retard, yes - I've used that before, but I'd only ever use it on someone that clearly isn't retarded. But this isn't about me, it's about whether or not it's right for you to pull Catrike for throwing insults, when you go around doing it yourself. Doesn't matter if the word is offensive to an individual, or a group, it's still offensive.



Have you, or would you use sp@stic?


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Have you, or would you use sp@stic?


I don't think so.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> I don't think so.



So what is the difference? Why would you say one term that refers to a physical disability, but not one that refers to a mental disability. This is my point exactly. Both are as insulting as the other. Why should we allow one and not the other? Are mental illnesses not as serious as physical disabilities?


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Jul 2008)

I have changed the original post now to satisfy political correctness, so we can all move on now.

Thank you, nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> So what is the difference? Why would you say one term that refers to a physical disability, but not one that refers to a mental disability. This is my point exactly. Both are as insulting as the other. Why should we allow one and not the other? Are mental illnesses not as serious as physical disabilities?


This is not what the debate is about; I am asking you why you think it's OK for you to insult people and not OK for Catrike to do it.

Stop trying to divert debate and stick to the original topic.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I have changed the original post now to satisfy political correctness, so we can all move on now.
> 
> Thank you, nothing to see here, move along.


Well, thanks for the support...


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Well, thanks for the support...



I would read it first if I were you.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I would read it first if I were you.


Ha ha ha, what a retard I am (Ooops). Nice one.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> This is not what the debate is about; I am asking you why you think it's OK for you to insult people and not OK for Catrike to do it.
> 
> Stop trying to divert debate and stick to the original topic.



I think it is you trying to change the topic! I have no problems with Catrike insulting individuals, but I do have problems with the use of the term ret@rd. That is what started all of this. It had nothing to do with the fact that he was insulting the individual, but the term used to do it.

You have agreed that you would use one term and not the other, which makes my point quite nicely. Double standards when it comes to mental illness. I am not suggesting that this is Catrike's problem in particular, but a general problem. I just hope that this discussion might make people think twice about using such terms.

I am not and in the past in particular, have not been perfect. Our local shop where I lived when I was a child was run by some chaps from Pakistan. Very nice they were too, and I worked for them for a while, packing potatoes! However, through my ignorance, among friends I would call the shop the p@kis.

Thinking back to this, makes me cringe. It was particularly insulting, but at the time I just did not realise that, until it was pointed out to me. If I hear someone saying that now I will make a comment about it. I don't just do it online.

It is entirely possible that Catrike and others (possibly yourself) have just not fully appreciated the insulting nature of the term ret@rd in the same way. I just felt it necessary to point this out.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I would read it first if I were you.



It would appear that you just haven't understand the point that I have tried to make, or you have chose to ignore it. I'm sorry that that is the case.


----------



## Fnaar (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Tw*t is a reference to a part of a ladies body.


PE lesson I was a pupil in, circa 1979... one player misses a basket in basketball...teammate calls him "twat". Teacher (angry man) say "Does he look like a woman's vagina? Eh?". Offending pupil says: "Don't know sir, I've never seen one". You had to be there, but it was funny!


----------



## cisamcgu (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Do you use the words ret@rd or sp@stic?



Why are you using an "@" ? Does it magically make the word less offensive ?


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

cisamcgu said:


> Why are you using an "@" ? Does it magically make the word less offensive ?



It does not, but I don't like typing the word never mind saying it. I suppose it just makes the point that it is an offensive word.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (15 Jul 2008)

I never understood why paki (or p@ki) was offensive in its own right (i.e. not in a derogatory context).


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> It would appear that you just haven't understand the point that I have tried to make, or you have chose to ignore it. I'm sorry that that is the case.



I understand what you are trying to say, but you are ignoring what I and others have said, I have made a joke out of it, why don't you just laugh and move on? Next time I will call them an idiot, ok? You can continue to swear and curse, it makes no never mind to me.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I never understood why paki (or p@ki) was offensive in its own right (i.e. not in a derogatory context).



I must admit, I don't entirely know why either, however, I assume it is related to its use at some point as a derogatory term. Probably in the same way I don't quite understand why some racist terms are particularly offensive. I know they are and I am sure there are good reasons why they are, but I don't know the historical detail.


----------



## jely (15 Jul 2008)

spindrift said:


> One man's bassoon is another man's wizard's sleeve, and the only good Pole is a deed poll, errrr, um.



what i'm finding pure gold is the term wizard sleeve has been written on a cycle forum... never thought i'd see that!!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (15 Jul 2008)

Where does the term "mad" come into all this? Does that class as insulting in terms of those with mental illness? I think you know why I'm asking...


----------



## jely (15 Jul 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I never understood why paki (or p@ki) was offensive in its own right (i.e. not in a derogatory context).



true - it's like saying Aussie... Kiwi... Saffa... etc, etc... 

i think people are just taking political correctness a little too far.


----------



## snapper_37 (15 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> "wheel" and make a rocking gesture with her hands, we both pulled up at the lights, she tried again, "wh wh wheeeeeeel" (rocking gesture again)



What did she mean by doing this? Was she implying that the trike was a wheelchair?


----------



## snapper_37 (15 Jul 2008)

jely said:


> true - it's like saying Aussie... Kiwi... Saffa... etc, etc...
> 
> i think people are just taking political correctness a little too far.



It may be do to some people continually adding an expletive at the back of paki which didn't help but make the word derogatory. I do find it amusing when 'paki' is used to describe someone from India or Iraq etc.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I understand what you are trying to say, but you are ignoring what I and others have said, I have made a joke out of it, why don't you just laugh and move on? Next time I will call them an idiot, ok? You can continue to swear and curse, it makes no never mind to me.



I honestly don't think I have ignored anything. If I have please let me know what it is. I generally always try and answer all points put to me (I'm not being sarcastic here. I understand that reading that, it might come across that way).

I also realise that you are trying to make light of it. Fair enough, but you haven't conceded the point that I am trying to make which is that my swearing at someone using a term aimed purely at them is different to using terms which describe an unfortunate group of individuals (of course a lot of them don't feel unfortunate!)

I'm not trying to get at you Catrike, I'm sure your a sound bloke, and I certainly appreciate the fact that you won't use the term again, but I just hate the fact that mental illness is generally regarded as the poor cousin of physical illness. Just a sore point with me (work related). It also annoys me slightly that you are taking the piss out of me for trying to highlight one of my principles (people take the piss out of me for many other reasons and that doesn't bother me at all!)

Hey ho. I've said my bit. I have no hard feelings, although I think I may have just lost my cyclechat member discount on the POV.1.....


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Where does the term "mad" come into all this? Does that class as insulting in terms of those with mental illness? I think you know why I'm asking...



It's a good point tetdelacourse. I think what matters is what the group themselves think. I know many people who suffer from mental illness who quite openly call themselves mad (usually as a joke). I don't know any that would call themselves ret@rded. 

It's about what is acceptable to the group being referenced. I think that is why p@ki is not acceptable because people with a Pakistani origin (or as snapper has pointed out from many other countries!) find the term derogatory.

At least that is my take on it. I'm no expert! Is there anyone from Pakistan on here?


----------



## biking_fox (15 Jul 2008)

I would suspect that "mad" is seen as differently normal which is a very different beast from the *sub*normal that retarded implies.

paki is insulting because it is meant as an insult. There is nothing inherently offensive about a vagina - often associated with pleasurably feelings after all, but being called a cnt often offends for the same reason as paki, it is meant to offend.


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> I honestly don't think I have ignored anything. If I have please let me know what it is. I generally always try and answer all points put to me (I'm not being sarcastic here. I understand that reading that, it might come across that way).
> 
> I also realise that you are trying to make light of it. Fair enough, but you haven't conceded the point that I am trying to make which is that my swearing at someone using a term aimed purely at them is different to using terms which describe an unfortunate group of individuals (of course a lot of them don't feel unfortunate!)
> 
> ...



You can have a POV 1 no problem, special price £700, just for you.


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Jul 2008)

Also folks, make allowances for the fact that magnatom has the added burden of being jockinese.


(what do you mean, that isn't helping?)


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jul 2008)

I'm not surprised Catrike ignored your point that retard is more offensive than twat, because like him I don't think it is. I think twat is probably rather worse in the context of your videos, not that I'm any better of course. Like you using twat to describe a person, retard is used here to describe someone who isn't in order to offend them, not a real mentally handicapped person or an actual vagina.

I'm sure we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Also folks, make allowances for the fact that magnatom has the added burden of being jockinese.
> 
> 
> (what do you mean, that isn't helping?)



What's that, half Scottish half Japanese? Actually I do do judo so you might be on to something there.....


----------



## Riding in Circles (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> What's that, half Scottish half Japanese? Actually I do do judo so you might be on to something there.....



A term used by a scottish friend who describes himself as jockinese living in walthamstan east London.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not surprised Catrike ignored your point that retard is more offensive than twat, because like him I don't think it is. I think twat is probably rather worse in the context of your videos, not that I'm any better of course. Like you using twat to describe a person, retard is used here to describe someone who isn't in order to offend them, not a real mentally handicapped person or an actual vagina.
> 
> I'm sure we'll just have to agree to disagree.



I understand that. The problem is, how others see the use of the word. In this case people with mental disability. Of course you and catrike don't mean it to cause offense to the mentally ill, but its use does. 

I agree that we will probably have to agree to disagree on this. Do you agree. 

Now can I think of any particularly insulting words for someone from the Netherlands.......


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom;334278]I think it is you trying to change the topic! I have no problems with Catrike insulting individuals said:


> [/FONT]
> 
> 
> Catrike UK said:
> ...


Believe me, I've had my fair share of experience here - the difference between you and I is that I know when to take things as a joke, and when to be offended. You don't.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> No, I've been referring to this all along:No, I have admitted to using one term and have been unsure as to whether or not I've used the other.Believe me, I've had my fair share of experience here - the difference between you and I is that I know when to take things as a joke, and when to be offended. You don't.



This has nothing to do with me being offended. Why would I be offended by anyone calling anyone else a ret@rd? I am lucky as I do not have a learning disability. It is those who have such disabilities or live with such disabilities that are offended. Would you like to ask them if they *get the joke*?


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> This has nothing to do with me being offended. Why would I be offended by anyone calling anyone else a ret@rd? I am lucky as I do not have a learning disability. It is those who have such disabilities or live with such disabilities that are offended. Would you like to ask them if they *get the joke*?


No, this has to do with you being offended on someone else's behalf, which is worse. If the girl Catrike called a retard actually had a learning disability, his comment would have been in bad taste. Since she didn't, it's meant in an entirely different way. It's a bit like me calling one of my mates a twat in the pub, and me saying "up yours, Magnatom - you're talking a load of bo*l*locks, you big twat".


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> No, this has to do with you being offended on someone else's behalf, which is worse. If the girl Catrike called a retard actually had a learning disability, his comment would have been in bad taste. Since she didn't, it's meant in an entirely different way. It's a bit like me calling one of my mates a twat in the pub, and me saying "up yours, Magnatom - you're talking a load of bo*l*locks, you big twat".



No. It is know the offense it causes people I work with!

Anyway, there is actually no way of knowing if the girl in question did have a learning difficulty or not. Do you honestly think that you could correctly label someone as normal of mentally disabled in the sort of timescales where you meet drivers on your bike? You should publish your method in Nature!


----------



## fossyant (15 Jul 2008)

8 pages and counting.......


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> No. It is know the offense it causes people I work with!
> 
> Anyway, there is actually no way of knowing if the girl in question did have a learning difficulty or not. Do you honestly think that you could correctly label someone as normal of mentally disabled in the sort of timescales where you meet drivers on your bike? You should publish your method in Nature!


For the purpose of argument, and from Catrike's comments, I'm assuming that she wasn't.


----------



## Maz (15 Jul 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I never understood why paki (or p@ki) was offensive in its own right (i.e. not in a derogatory context).


It varies from country to country, tbh. 

In the UK, it is inextricably linked to the language of 1970/80s Fascist groups, and still carries those connotations today, more so for those of us that lived through it.

In Australia, on the other hand, I don't think it's viewed as offensive.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

fossyant said:


> 8 pages and counting.......


Thank goodness you're here to keep count.


----------



## stephenb (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> No. It is know the offense it causes people I work with!
> 
> Anyway, there is actually no way of knowing if the girl in question did have a learning difficulty or not. Do you honestly think that you could correctly label someone as normal of mentally disabled in the sort of timescales where you meet drivers on your bike? You should publish your method in Nature!



suggest you don't call the next chav who cuts you up an idiot unless you've taken the time to look it up in the dictionary ("a person affected with extreme mental retardation")


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> For the purpose of argument, and from Catrike's comments, can we assume that she wasn't?



No we can't. We don't know, do we. Unlikely, perhaps, but it is a possibility? So if you wouldn't say it to someone who is disabled and you can't know if they are or not, would you agree that it is probably better not to say it at all?


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

stephenb said:


> suggest you don't call the next chav who cuts you up an idiot unless you've taken the time to look it up in the dictionary ("a person affected with extreme mental retardation")



That's one use of the word. The other definition in the dictionary (the one I have just glanced at) is *an utterly foolish or senseless person*. You were a bit selective, weren't you.... you idiot!


----------



## joebe (15 Jul 2008)

What about the 'Special Bus'? 

Should I pass it on the left?


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> No we can't. We don't know, do we. Unlikely, perhaps, but it is a possibility? So if you wouldn't say it to someone who is disabled and you can't know if they are or not, would you agree that it is probably better not to say it at all?


And you can't know if somebody might take you calling them a twat as meaning 'idiot', or 'c*u*nt', so would you agree it's better not to say it at all?


----------



## stephenb (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> That's one use of the word. The other definition in the dictionary (the one I have just glanced at) is *an utterly foolish or senseless person*. You were a bit selective, weren't you.... you idiot!



irrelevant - the question is whether a person afflicted by the condition would be offended. 
*leading with chin*

the racist thing is a bit visceral - "paki" is invariably offensive (mrs stephenb is mixed race and has copped it ) but "Aussie" never is. Not sure why.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> And you can't know if somebody might take you calling them a twat as meaning 'idiot', or 'c*u*nt', so would you agree it's better not to say it at all?



But we are talking about (remember it is I that started this discussion) the fact that the comment is insulting to people who are mentally ill. You have said that you would not call someone that is mentally ill a ret@rd and I am suggesting that you can't always know. So I am suggesting that you should not say it at all. You have avoided the question.

As for reaction. The whole point of an insult is to get a reaction or at least make a point. I can deal with reactions. However, the insult need only be aimed at the individual and not at some innocent group. Agreed?


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> But we are talking about (remember it is I that started this discussion) the fact that the comment is insulting to people who are mentally ill. You have said that you would not call someone that is mentally ill a ret@rd and I am suggesting that you can't always know. So I am suggesting that you should not say it at all. You have avoided the question.


It doesn't matter who started the discussion - I interjected to agree with Catrike in that you shouldn't be offending people and then telling others not to do it, I stand by that. Also, I do know the people I call retards to be mentally sound - cause they're mates of mine, or mates of mates.


> As for reaction. The whole point of an insult is to get a reaction or at least make a point. I can deal with reactions. However, the insult need only be aimed at the individual and not at some innocent group. Agreed?


Again, see above for what I'm arguing with you.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> It doesn't matter who started the discussion - I interjected to agree with Catrike in that you shouldn't be offending people and then telling others not to do it, I stand by that. Also, I do know the people I call retards to be mentally sound - cause they're mates of mine, or mates of mates.Again, see above for what I'm arguing with you.


<sigh> I think that's part of the point Mags is trying to get across - you *know* the people you are calling are not in the 'mental illness' category (I'm sure there's a better way of saying that) but shouting it at some random fool in a car is a different kettle of fish.

Put it this way - would you shout it across the pub to your mates if there were others there who may have learning difficulties to hear you?

I suspect not. 

You may, however, shout and call them (your mate) a tw@t as people don't associate this with any particular group of people and would just think you are a bit of a cock for shouting it across the pub, but not see it as offensive to others...

I think that's right.


----------



## jely (15 Jul 2008)

i admit, ashamedly (although it's fun at the time) that i often call my mates retarded or usually worse ... but if only you knew my mates.... 

i think it's a case of people can say whatever they want - if someone gets offended once, then don't use it in front of them twice... everyone has their own degree of sensitivity or tolerance and you have to gauge that and act accordingly. 

it's not like when we say "retard", that we're purposefully going out of our way to insult an innocent group...


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> It doesn't matter who started the discussion - I interjected to agree with Catrike in that you shouldn't be offending people and then telling others not to do it, I stand by that. Also, I do know the people I call retards to be mentally sound - cause they're mates of mine, or mates of mates.Again, see above for what I'm arguing with you.



So you wouldn't call someone you didn't know a ret@rd then?

I'll happily answer your question, in fact I think I have answered it before. Notice on a couple of my videos, where I swear that I have an apology for the swearing. I am not proud of it and it would be better if I didn't do it. But in the heat of the moment, it comes out. Thinking about it though, it does serve a purpose, it lets the other road user know how affected you were by their bad road use. If I said, 'please don't do that old chap' they would not realise that I felt in danger because of what they did. So, to answer your question, I probably shouldn't swear, but it is effective in getting the message across.

*However*, there is no need for any expletive that is derogatory towards the disabled, is there?


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

jely said:


> i admit, ashamedly (although it's fun at the time) that i often call my mates retarded or usually worse ... but if only you knew my mates....
> 
> i think it's a case of people can say whatever they want - if someone gets offended once, then don't use it in front of them twice... everyone has their own degree of sensitivity or tolerance and you have to gauge that and act accordingly.
> 
> it's not like when we say "retard", that we're purposefully going out of our way to insult an innocent group...



I have often thought in an ideal world we could all make jokes about anything, about colour, religion, disability etc. However, this could only happen if there was never any intent behind it, i.e. if no-one was racist biggoted etc. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in, and as a result, people take offense, rightly or wrongly.

Let me bring up the race card (yes I hear the big sighs). I'm sure you wouldn't use racist terms to your friends. That is generally accepted as being wrong. Why, because it is insulting to race it was originally aimed at. It doesn't matter if there is anyone of that race in earshot or not, we still know it is wrong and don't do it. Why is it any different with regards to the disabled? By classing it differently it is almost like we are saying that disabled people have less rights etc.

Now, jely, I am in no way suggesting that you are bigoted, racist, disabilist (?), etc. It's just that for some reason at the moment, it isn't as socially unacceptable to use terms that are insulting to the mentally disabled as it is to use terms that are insulting to certain races of people (some would say race doesn't exist, but thats for another day!).

Just my 2p!


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> <sigh> I think that's part of the point Mags is trying to get across - you *know* the people you are calling are not in the 'mental illness' category (I'm sure there's a better way of saying that) but shouting it at some random fool in a car is a different kettle of fish.
> 
> Put it this way - would you shout it across the pub to your mates if there were others there who may have learning difficulties to hear you?
> 
> ...


<sigh> I'm arguing that if Magnatom doesn't like Catrike insulting people, he shouldn't do it himself.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> <sigh> I'm arguing that if Magnatom doesn't like Catrike insulting people, he shouldn't do it himself.



<sigh> and I have already said that I have no problem with Catrike insulting people, I just don't like the use of terms like ret@rd.

What exactly are you arguing AM? Your going around in circles now.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> So you wouldn't call someone you didn't know a ret@rd then?


No, I'd do my best not to.


> I'll happily answer your question, in fact I think I have answered it before. Notice on a couple of my videos, where I swear that I have an apology for the swearing. I am not proud of it and it would be better if I didn't do it. But in the heat of the moment, it comes out. Thinking about it though, it does serve a purpose, it lets the other road user know how affected you were by their bad road use. If I said, 'please don't do that old chap' they would not realise that I felt in danger because of what they did. So, to answer your question, I probably shouldn't swear, but it is effective in getting the message across.


Oh, so as long as it's in the heat of the moment, and you think it serves a purpose, that's OK?


> *However*, there is no need for any expletive that is derogatory towards the disabled, is there?


There's no need for expletives that are derogatory to anyone, but s*h*it happens.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

Seems clear to me that Mags doesn't give two hoots whether anyone insults anyone else... just the word(s) that are used.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> <sigh> and I have already said that I have no problem with Catrike insulting people, I just don't like the use of terms like ret@rd.
> 
> What exactly are you arguing AM? Your going around in circles now.


I'm arguing that, whilst you don't like the term 'retard', others don't like the term 'twat'. So, it's not really on for you to give out about a word that you find offensive, without curbing your own colourful language to protect the sensitivities of others'.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Seems clear to me that Mags doesn't give two hoots whether anyone insults anyone else... just the word(s) that are used.



Exactly.... well it would be ideal if no one had to insult anyone else. But a fact of life is that in a short space of time, when you need someone to know that they have done something wrong or dangerous, that an insult does the job. I've tried quoting cyclecraft and found it doesn't work


----------



## domtyler (15 Jul 2008)

Fnaar said:


> PE lesson I was a pupil in, circa 1979... one player misses a basket in basketball...teammate calls him "twat". Teacher (angry man) say "Does he look like a woman's vagina? Eh?". Offending pupil says: "Don't know sir, I've never seen one". You had to be there, but it was funny!



You are Jonny Briggs and ICMFP! 


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwg8RURF_qI


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> I'm arguing that, whilst you don't like the term 'retard', others don't like the term 'twat'. So, it's not really on for you to give out about a word that you find offensive, without curbing your own colourful language to protect the sensitivities of others'.


Explain to me which disadvantaged group are generally labelled with the word "twat". I suspect a group of vaginas would not be too bothered.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> I'm arguing that, whilst you don't like the term 'retard', others don't like the term 'twat'. So, it's not really on for you to give out about a word that you find offensive, without curbing your own colourful language to protect the sensitivities of others'.



Oh for *&^% sake! AM. Shut the *&^% up! 

(Just making the point that sometimes an expletive can do what pages and pages of reasoning can't!)

Look, I'll try and explain this in simple terms. 

You shout tw@t at someone. They get offended. Everyone else hears it, but doesn't get personally offended (they might not like the word, but there is no personal offense).

You shout ret@rd at someone. They get offended. Everyone else hears it and if someone who has a mental illness, has a relative who has an illness or they work with mental illness they might be offended also.

Do you see the difference here?


----------



## 4F (15 Jul 2008)

<sigh> FFS <sigh> a bit more


----------



## Tetedelacourse (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Explain to me which disadvantaged group are generally labelled with the word "twat". I suspect a group of vaginas would not be too bothered.



A group of twats might be though. e.g. Big Brother contestants.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Explain to me which disadvantaged group are generally labelled with the word "twat". I suspect a group of vaginas would not be too bothered.



I suppose you could shout tw@t if a lady were to wander into the pub with nothing on her bottom half.....


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Explain to me which disadvantaged group are generally labelled with the word "twat". I suspect a group of vaginas would not be too bothered.


I didn't mention a disadvantaged group. Do you have to be in a disadvantaged group in order to feel insulted?


----------



## jely (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> I have often thought in an ideal world we could all make jokes about anything, about colour, religion, disability etc. However, this could only happen if there was never any intent behind it, i.e. if no-one was racist biggoted etc. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in, and as a result, people take offense, rightly or wrongly.
> 
> Let me bring up the race card (yes I hear the big sighs). I'm sure you wouldn't use racist terms to your friends. That is generally accepted as being wrong. Why, because it is insulting to race it was originally aimed at. It doesn't matter if there is anyone of that race in earshot or not, we still know it is wrong and don't do it. Why is it any different with regards to the disabled? By classing it differently it is almost like we are saying that disabled people have less rights etc.
> 
> ...




people are _searching _for intent behind actions and words ... that's what makes it so sad! 

and for the race card - i live with an Indian/English guy and we always tease each other about our heritage.... in fact, only last night i told him that the other flatmate wanted to leave cause he was brown and malted too much in the shower... I'm half Filipino/English and he turned around and said i was only half way there girl! And that's the example for last night only ... and just to make sure everyone's clear, it was all in fun!

Why is it wrong??? It's not... it's only people's perceptions that it is... and what society has dictated what right and wrong should be... what people have to do is start laughing a bit... lighten up...

my friend once called my nieces chernobyl babies (cause of the angle i took a photo - their heads were a lot bigger than their bodies)... but i say hats off to him for thinking of something so funny so quickly and even though i love my nieces, it was true - they did look a little chernobyl(ish)!


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> I didn't mention a disadvantaged group. Do you have to be in a disadvantaged group in order to feel insulted?



Whoosh!


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Oh for *&^% sake! AM. Shut the *&^% up!
> 
> (Just making the point that sometimes an expletive can do what pages and pages of reasoning can't!)
> 
> ...


Did Catrike shout it to a louder audience? Don't think he said he did.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

You'd use the word 'retard' as a way to suggest that you thought them to be of nominal intelligence / having the IQ of a pot plant etc. You've already said you wouldn't use it if you thought they *were* actually mentally deficient/challenged... that seems to suggest you know it is offensive to a particular group of people.

You'd use the word 'twat' to suggest you thought them to be a complete idiot bereft of any common-sense and it is only offensive in that it is still regarded as being slightly taboo in common language... it is not offensive to any group of people, and I suspect that there's no single person you wouldn't use it against (hence the classification of 'general insult').

Is that any clearer?


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Did Catrike shout it to a louder audience? Don't think he said he did.



Shall we rewind to the bit where you were about to agree that you cold not know for certain that the 'lady' in question had a learning disability or not....


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Sharky,

What say we leave this thread and go off for a pint instead.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

F*ck off, you tw@t.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> You'd use the word 'retard' as a way to suggest that you thought them to be of nominal intelligence / having the IQ of a pot plant etc. You've already said you wouldn't use it if you thought they *were* actually mentally deficient/challenged... that seems to suggest you know it is offensive to a particular group of people.
> 
> You'd use the word 'twat' to suggest you thought them to be a complete idiot bereft of any common-sense and it is only offensive in that it is still regarded as being slightly taboo in common language... it is not offensive to any group of people, and I suspect that there's no single person you wouldn't use it against (hence the classification of 'general insult').
> 
> Is that any clearer?


Oh right, so it's OK to insult so long as you don't insult people that belong to a group.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

Ooops - forgot the smiley!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Oh right, so it's OK to insult so long as you don't insult people that belong to a group.


Yes. That's it. Exactly that. Well done. Bravo. Top marks to you.


----------



## Joe24 (15 Jul 2008)

About the only i get from this is that you have to ask questions before you insult somebody to make sure it doesnt offend them.What a load of bollocks. 
I have been called retarded and have called friends retards. They take no offence. Infact, most people in my school wont know the true meaning to the word, i doubt the chav even knew the real meaning, she probably just thought she was being called thick, which she probably is. Why we have to have so many pages on about this, for no good reason, to cover all points again, and then again is beyond me. 
I do not take the word retard as offensive, and i know people who do have learning disabilities that dont even consider it offensive. 
Ok Magna, you work with mentally disabled people, so do many other people on here. Whats the point is that ment to be?
Infact, if i was called a twat that would annoy me more. How it all links up to being the 'c' word makes it worse i find. And, that is the most offensive word that a women can be called. So how you would call her a twat, i think she might find that more offensive.
The top number one meaning on here of retard has been copyed, but look at the more casual meanings that have been put down. No matter what the rest will say, this will be what she would think it ment.
Twat however, is understood as meaning vagina.
So really, they can both be seen as very offensive. that is fact. 
I dont see how you, Magnatom think thats its fine to swear in public and call people twats(the 'c' word really) and think its bad to call people retards. OK, i wouldnt shout out retard in public, nor would i shout out twat. Why does the public want to hear this language? Why? Dont you think that people that have mental disabilities want to keep being reminded of it. I know if i had a mental disabilty i wouldnt want someone reminding me, but the new meaning of retard i know isnt there for calling mentaly disabled people. However, spaz is.
Infact this thread has really annoyed me. If you dont like the words used, then why read it? Why bother replying?


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Ooops - forgot the smiley!



...and to think I was just about to challenge you to a duel or was it a duet 

Karaoke bar anyone?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

What you having, Mags?

Mine's a pint of Lager and a pint of Coke, please.

Pork scratchings anyone?


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> Shall we rewind to the bit where you were about to agree that you cold not know for certain that the 'lady' in question had a learning disability or not....


I'd put money on the fact she wasn't, and you know I'd have a good chance of taking yours off you.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Joe24 said:


> About the only i get from this is that you have to ask questions before you insult somebody to make sure it doesnt offend them.What a load of bollocks.
> I have been called retarded and have called friends retards. They take no offence. Infact, most people in my school wont know the true meaning to the word, i doubt the chav even knew the real meaning, she probably just thought she was being called thick, which she probably is. Why we have to have so many pages on about this, for no good reason, to cover all points again, and then again is beyond me.
> I do not take the word retard as offensive, and i know people who do have learning disabilities that dont even consider it offensive.
> Ok Magna, you work with mentally disabled people, so do many other people on here. Whats the point is that ment to be?
> ...


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> What you having, Mags?
> 
> Mine's a pint of Lager and a pint of Coke, please.
> 
> Pork scratchings anyone?



Excellent. Let's turn this into a pub thread! 

Do you have any wheat beer on tap love.....


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

Where are Mr Hippo, LLB and Mr Paul... we need some serious arguing in this thread!!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

No wheat beer. Sorry sweetie.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Yes. That's it. Exactly that. Well done. Bravo. Top marks to you.


Good, I'm glad you approve, you duck f*u*cking pile of festering dog s*h*it. I assume there's just the one of you and you don't belong to a group...


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Where are Mr Hippo, LLB and Mr Paul... we need some serious arguing in this thread!!



Mr Hippo and Mr Paul have been unusually quiet recently. It's LLB birthday, so I think he is having the day off!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

<monty python>

Policeman 1: Morning Super
Policeman 2: Morning Wonderful

</monty python>


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jul 2008)

Much as I like you Magnatom, you're acting like a mook on here.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Good, I'm glad you approve, you duck f*u*cking pile of festering dog s*h*it. I assume there's just the one of you and you don't belong to a group...


Oh. My. God.

How offensive is that to Duck ****ers?!?!?!?


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> No wheat beer. Sorry sweetie.



Bummer. I'll just have a lager then and a drink for yourself


----------



## Tetedelacourse (15 Jul 2008)

I've just re-read post number 34 and lol at the image of Dom being carved up by a woman on a school run and shouting out "you fC*king whore".


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

There you go, Squire.

Well, what about that TdF then, eh?

Bunch of tossers in lycra if you ask me.... all poofs.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Much as I like you Magnatom, you're acting like a mook on here.



I had to look up mook! Why?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> I had to look up mook! Why?


... errrm, I'm guessing it's because you didn't know the meaning of the word?

Am I right?


----------



## Joe24 (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


>



The roll of the eyes means nothing. You can ask just about any young person around if they use the term, 'retard' and what they would think if they were called a 'retard'. I could almost gurantee that they woulnt be offended, and that they use the word is the loose sence of the word. 
But, to be completey honest, you have taken things out of proportion again, and made everything seem worse then what it actually is.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Joe24 said:


> The roll of the eyes means nothing. You can ask just about any young person around if they use the term, 'retard' and what they would think if they were called a 'retard'. I could almost gurantee that they woulnt be offended, and that they use the word is the loose sence of the word.
> But, to be completey honest, you have taken things out of proportion again, and made everything seem worse then what it actually is.



No. Just because a group of your mates don't find it insulting, does not mean that others don't. I'll ask you the same question as I have asked others

Would you call someone a sp@stic? If not, why not?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

<< repeat thread ad nauseum >>


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Joe24 said:


> The roll of the eyes means nothing. You can ask just about any young person around if they use the term, 'retard' and what they would think if they were called a 'retard'. I could almost gurantee that they woulnt be offended, and that they use the word is the loose sence of the word.
> But, to be completey honest, you have taken things out of proportion again, and made everything seem worse then what it actually is.



I should add that the roll of the eyes was to do with the fact that I didn't want to go through all the arguments again!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

Best to leave it there, Mags. They just don't get it.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

Now about that TdF....


----------



## just jim (15 Jul 2008)

But I think perhaps you're willing to give it a go.


----------



## Joe24 (15 Jul 2008)

Actually, to be truthful i dont use spastic, but i have been called a spaz before.
And, if you go by most of the youth of today, they wont really find retard offensive. If many in my school found it(retard) offensive then i'm sure many fights would break out, lots of argueing. But, from sitting in many lessons when no work gets done and lots of chatting, if there is anyone joking around or acting stupid, retard has been used by many in the class. No-one has ever taken offence.
Oh, the reason i dont use spastic is because i dont have a need to. I dont really go around insulting people, not because it isnt PC like what you are hoping for. Spastic isnt a commonly used word in school. I have head retard used many many times, with no offence being caused. Oh, except this time.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

just jim said:


> But I think perhaps you're willing to give it a go.



No way! I think I've covered just about every angle I could have. If anyone wants to my opinion on it there is plenty of background reading.

It is an emotive subject for me. One of the next studies I am due to work on is on brain injured people, some of which will have learning difficulties. It is very hard for them and their families.


----------



## magnatom (15 Jul 2008)

Joe24 said:


> Actually, to be truthful i dont use spastic, but i have been called a spaz before.
> And, if you go by most of the youth of today, they wont really find retard offensive. If many in my school found it(retard) offensive then i'm sure many fights would break out, lots of argueing. But, from sitting in many lessons when no work gets done and lots of chatting, if there is anyone joking around or acting stupid, retard has been used by many in the class. No-one has ever taken offence.
> Oh, the reason i dont use spastic is because i dont have a need to. I dont really go around insulting people, not because it isnt PC like what you are hoping for. Spastic isnt a commonly used word in school. I have head retard used many many times, with no offence being caused. Oh, except this time.



I think the main reason that you don't use sp@stic is a historical one. People used in more in the past, but as time went on realised that it was a particularly insulting word and so it's use decined. I hope and expect with time the same will happen with ret@rd. I think the delay in removing the use of ret@rd is a result of the bias against mental illness. People in the past have just wanted to ignore mental illness, tell folk to pull their socks up etc. There are still illnesses that some mainstream doctors don't admit are real illnesses. Post traumatic stress disorder being one of them


----------



## jely (15 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Best to leave it there, Mags. They just don't get it.



i find "they just don't get it" more offensive (although offensive is a strong word) than someone calling me any derogatory word under the sun... it's condescending, patronising and you make it sound like you're speaking to a 2 year old... 

we get where you're coming from ... we just don't agree with it. There is a difference. Or perhaps it could just be a generation gap!


----------



## just jim (15 Jul 2008)

Pint of Erdinger Weißbräu please. And some peanuts.


----------



## 4F (15 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> I find, when it comes to expletives, it is best to use either those describing the male organ, prick, dick, cock, even fiddle stain or self-gratification artist. Otherwise, if it is to be directed toward an errant female member of the population, to make suggestions as to her loose attitude to choosing her sexual partners, whore, slag, slapper and so on. You can't go too far wrong then.



So is this a definitive list or open to poetic licence ? I note that you missed off tosser which could of course belong to both groups.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (15 Jul 2008)

jely said:


> i find "they just don't get it" more offensive (although offensive is a strong word) than someone calling me any derogatory word under the sun... it's condescending, patronising and you make it sound like you're speaking to a 2 year old...
> 
> * we get where you're coming from ... we just don't agree with it*. There is a difference. Or perhaps it could just be a generation gap!


It doesn't look like you do "get where we're coming from" as the same old retorts keep coming back which seem to be missing the point. But whatever, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

Now, what are you having?

Lager, Bitter, Mild, OJ?

Salted peanuts (or is it too personal to ask?).


----------



## Absinthe Minded (15 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> No way! I think I've covered just about every angle I could have. If anyone wants to my opinion on it there is plenty of background reading.
> 
> It is an emotive subject for me. One of the next studies I am due to work on is on brain injured people, some of which will have learning difficulties. It is very hard for them and their families.


Yeah, I can see that - and that's a nice quality you have there. What you say about it being hard for their families is also true, but most of these people are still able to realise when words like 'retard' are being used to deliberately attack those with learning difficulties, and when they're just being used as a general insult.


----------



## 4F (15 Jul 2008)

Look Joe you have no time to get involved in all of this, now where is my Nottingham Gazette ?


----------



## jely (15 Jul 2008)

definitely a lager for me thanks!


----------



## fossyant (15 Jul 2008)

7 pages in about 2 hours....argh....I can count.....just...paid to do it !

Ohhh so off topic..............

So what's the correct answer !


----------



## Joe24 (15 Jul 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Look Joe you have no time to get involved in all of this, now where is my Nottingham Gazette ?



Evening post my good man
Infact, i stopped posting and went off because i had to go deliver them.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (15 Jul 2008)

They say it's better to regret something you have done than something you haven't. Having just read all 15 pages of this, I'm inclined to disagree.
Magnatom ... it's "you're" (short for "you are"), not "your".


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jul 2008)

Wrong, it's "Your all gay". Far more insulting than using you're.


----------



## magnatom (16 Jul 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Wrong, it's "Your all gay". Far more insulting than using you're.



I've never understood why this was an insult. I' not gay, but I have no problem with someone thinking that I am.

Anyway this comment comes from a man who's username starts bent.....


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jul 2008)

LOL, it's an internet classic. A geek like you must know that surely? (p.s. that's a compliment!)


----------



## magnatom (16 Jul 2008)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, it's an internet classic. A geek like you must know that surely? (p.s. that's a compliment!)



That proves I'm not a geek. I have no idea what your on about.....


----------

