Ban Mitch?

Into statistics? Curious what everyone else thinks? Then start a poll here.

How bad is Mitch's behavior?

0 = Unacceptable, he should go
6
40%
1 = Horrible, I dread his posts
1
7%
2 = Poor, needs improvement
3
20%
3 = Average
2
13%
4 = Better than most
1
7%
5 = Good, a model member
2
13%
 
Total votes : 15

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby gary_s » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:08 am

NH Baritone wrote:My point is that almost EVERY religious apologist employs tactics common to "jerks," i.e., blatant disregard for human relationships. Darrel Ray has pointed out how "The God Virus" transforms a person's vocabulary, emotional state, posture, etc., when participating in their religion and when responding to challenges to their beliefs. That transformation often takes little account of the connections between speaker and listener. It is the truly rare person who, when confronted with an argument against their religious faith, will respond, "maybe." (And I think that Scott, at times, can be one of those rare people.)


So, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that religious apologists respond to challenges irrationally? And this is directly correlated to their religious beliefs and not just their particular personality? Interesting concept if I understand you correctly. And what if the conversation isn't even religious in nature? Does it affect that as well?
Just trying to get along
User avatar
gary_s
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:08 am
Affiliation: agnostic

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby Keep The Reason » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:23 pm

That quote was taken from KTR, not from me. Because I frequently work with mentally retarded individuals, I have come to an understanding that the term "retard" (or variations thereon) is crude, distasteful, and harmful to those who already face enormous struggles to live on this planet


If the word "retard" (or variations thereon) is crude, distasteful and harmful, then why did you use the term "mentally retarded" above? You got some special dispensation because you work with people so afflicted with mental illness?

"Fucktard" just means extreme jerk. Or asswipe. Or douchebag. It has nothing to do with the mentally handicapped.

Urban Dictionary Defnition for "Fucktard":

A person of unbelieveable, inexcuseable and indescribable stupidity. (Stupidity being defined as "knowing how and doing it wrong anyway")

NOT A CONTRACTION FOR "FUCKING RETARD"! Those who are truly "Retarded" are not responsible for their affliction. True Fucktards are 100% responsible for their situation and provide vast entertainment as they are usually blissfully unaware of their own Fucktardery. Most politicians for example.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10395
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby gary_s » Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:35 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:If the word "retard" (or variations thereon) is crude, distasteful and harmful, then why did you use the term "mentally retarded" above? You got some special dispensation because you work with people so afflicted with mental illness?


:smt005 Very good question.

"Fucktard" just means extreme jerk. Or asswipe. Or douchebag. It has nothing to do with the mentally handicapped.

Urban Dictionary Defnition for "Fucktard":

A person of unbelieveable, inexcuseable and indescribable stupidity. (Stupidity being defined as "knowing how and doing it wrong anyway")

NOT A CONTRACTION FOR "FUCKING RETARD"! Those who are truly "Retarded" are not responsible for their affliction. True Fucktards are 100% responsible for their situation and provide vast entertainment as they are usually blissfully unaware of their own Fucktardery. Most politicians for example.


When you're right, you're right.
Just trying to get along
User avatar
gary_s
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:08 am
Affiliation: agnostic

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby marcuspnw » Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:40 pm

Well, I do think that Mitch went overboard but there have been times in the past when he was correct. The problem for me is that Mitch isn't very effective at being sarcastic. Sarcasm is effective when you combine a couple of funny remarks with some information or instruction and then you stop. As NH Baritone likes to say, you just let go of the rope. Mitch reminds me of a kid that trespasses with his winch-less Jeep, gets stuck and when the landowner complains, just steps on the gas and spins his wheels. The mud is flying but no one is going anywhere. It's a waste of time and energy especially when Mitch has such better tools at his disposal.
Another day, another step closer to the answer. How many more steps do I have I wonder?
User avatar
marcuspnw
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:50 pm
Location: 'Hamster, WA
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby Tim-the-Hermit » Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:35 pm

I think NHB is right; I hate the 'retard' word and variations of it because it's disablist unless used in the scientific/professional way with an '-ed' on the end. I didn't vote in the poll because there are possible things like Asperger syndrome, which can make empathy difficult or impossible.
Tim-the-Hermit
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 903
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:42 pm
Location: Wales, UK.
Affiliation: soft atheist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby gary_s » Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:54 pm

Tim-the-Hermit wrote:I think NHB is right; I hate the 'retard' word and variations of it because it's disablist unless used in the scientific/professional way with an '-ed' on the end. I didn't vote in the poll because there are possible things like Asperger syndrome, which can make empathy difficult or impossible.


So, you suspect Mitch has Arsberger's?

I still don't see that as an excuse. I still say he should be banned. He's very lucky I'm not the forum admin.
Just trying to get along
User avatar
gary_s
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:08 am
Affiliation: agnostic

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:20 pm

Tim-the-Hermit wrote:I think NHB is right; I hate the 'retard' word and variations of it because it's disablist unless used in the scientific/professional way with an '-ed' on the end.


It's not considered proper here in the professional sense either anymore, as this article from Feb 2010 attests:

Mentally disabled 'self-advocates' oppose use of word 'retarded'

In short, NHB's use of "mentally retarded" is every bit as politically incorrect as those he tries to say are politically incorrect for using the "tard" aspect in newly fabricated words.

It may be different elsewhere, but it's that way here in the States. I don't know where NHB is from-- maybe he's from a place that still accepts "mentally retarded" but if it's from the USA -- it's not so accepted anymore. (And anyone working with the mentally disabled or handicapped would most likely know that).

Anyway, NHB doesn't seem inclined to stand up to defend his double standard, but I know Tim is from the British Isles and so I thought I'd let him know how our culture sees the term.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10395
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby NH Baritone » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:40 am

Keep The Reason wrote:
Tim-the-Hermit wrote:I think NHB is right; I hate the 'retard' word and variations of it because it's disablist unless used in the scientific/professional way with an '-ed' on the end.


It's not considered proper here in the professional sense either anymore, as this article from Feb 2010 attests:

Mentally disabled 'self-advocates' oppose use of word 'retarded'

In short, NHB's use of "mentally retarded" is every bit as politically incorrect as those he tries to say are politically incorrect for using the "tard" aspect in newly fabricated words.

It may be different elsewhere, but it's that way here in the States. I don't know where NHB is from-- maybe he's from a place that still accepts "mentally retarded" but if it's from the USA -- it's not so accepted anymore. (And anyone working with the mentally disabled or handicapped would most likely know that).

Anyway, NHB doesn't seem inclined to stand up to defend his double standard, but I know Tim is from the British Isles and so I thought I'd let him know how our culture sees the term.

I only occasionally stop into this forum any longer. Without regular podcast episodes, this forum seems far less relevant. I'm spending my time discussing philosophy elsewhere, plus re-learning German, writing music, grieving various recent deaths, and preparing for a trip to Switzerland.

My explanation for using the term is that the current diagnostic manual (DSM-IV) continues to have the term "mental retardation" as a diagnosis. I have to write it down regularly to document assessments and treatment. The new diagnostic manual will revise the term to "Intellectual Developmental Disorder (IDD)." I don't think it will take more than about 10 seconds for jerks worldwide to start referring to those carrying that diagnosis as "IDD-iots."
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby Keep The Reason » Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:35 am

NH Baritone wrote:My explanation for using the term is that the current diagnostic manual (DSM-IV) continues to have the term "mental retardation" as a diagnosis. I have to write it down regularly to document assessments and treatment. The new diagnostic manual will revise the term to "Intellectual Developmental Disorder (IDD)." I don't think it will take more than about 10 seconds for jerks worldwide to start referring to those carrying that diagnosis as "IDD-iots."


Probably, but I won't be one of them.

In fact though, you are confirming that the use of the term "retardation" (or "Retarded") is no longer acceptable.

I do not use the term, even when I say "fucktards". I never said "mentally retarded". Not flogging this harder than it needs to be floggeed but you did use the term even though you know it will not be used in favor of this new IDD term.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10395
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Ban Mitch?

Postby NH Baritone » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:16 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:
NH Baritone wrote:My explanation for using the term is that the current diagnostic manual (DSM-IV) continues to have the term "mental retardation" as a diagnosis. I have to write it down regularly to document assessments and treatment. The new diagnostic manual will revise the term to "Intellectual Developmental Disorder (IDD)." I don't think it will take more than about 10 seconds for jerks worldwide to start referring to those carrying that diagnosis as "IDD-iots."


Probably, but I won't be one of them.

In fact though, you are confirming that the use of the term "retardation" (or "Retarded") is no longer acceptable.

I do not use the term, even when I say "fucktards". I never said "mentally retarded". Not flogging this harder than it needs to be floggeed but you did use the term even though you know it will not be used in favor of this new IDD term.

Just to clarify, I did not know until this morning, when I looked it up, that the change was in the offing.
Diversity is the offspring of Liberty. Nonetheless, frightened, mainstream ideologues treat diversity like a bastard stepchild, instead of like a welcome indicator of our overall well-being.
User avatar
NH Baritone
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:38 am
Affiliation: Agnostic Atheistic Meditator

Previous

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest