Yes, but we have every reason to believe that that definition exists precisely because the people with that disability were viewed in that way. It's not even as if such discrimination and problems are a thing of the past. People who actually are lame often do have to fight preconceptions that they are weak and ineffectual in other ways. Choosing to strengthen the mental association between a physical disability and a completely unrelated negative trait makes life more difficult for the disabled. It also makes it more difficult for people with those disabilities to discuss their disabilities.
As to "moron", I do not overly object on the same grounds as nobody should currently be labeled with that, however, you still should not be using the term. If somebody is of below average intelligence then it is extremely rude. If somebody is not, you should be properly distinguishing between that, stupid actions, and ignorance. I dislike when people call people things like "retarded" or say that something was a "retarded action", because it is insulting. It implies that someone who is mentally retarded would always choose poorly in their actions; this is not true. It means that they have less overall intelligence to work with, but says nothing for how they have actually used it. Their individual choices might be wiser or better chosen than someone who is smarter than them. Sure, on average, you would expect them to be lower, but that's not the point. When someone of average or higher intelligence uses their intelligence poorly that is very different from having low intelligence, which is what you are saying they did. They do not; they acted poorly. When someone has less intelligence, it says little about how that potential will be used; you have to look to what they then do with it. I would like to see people acknowledging those distinctions and it bothers me that people imply that every single action a person of low intelligence does would be poor when the evidence does not show that to be the case. They clearly are not using their intelligence when they imply this.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2011-02-02 06:35 am (UTC)From:As to "moron", I do not overly object on the same grounds as nobody should currently be labeled with that, however, you still should not be using the term. If somebody is of below average intelligence then it is extremely rude. If somebody is not, you should be properly distinguishing between that, stupid actions, and ignorance. I dislike when people call people things like "retarded" or say that something was a "retarded action", because it is insulting. It implies that someone who is mentally retarded would always choose poorly in their actions; this is not true. It means that they have less overall intelligence to work with, but says nothing for how they have actually used it. Their individual choices might be wiser or better chosen than someone who is smarter than them. Sure, on average, you would expect them to be lower, but that's not the point. When someone of average or higher intelligence uses their intelligence poorly that is very different from having low intelligence, which is what you are saying they did. They do not; they acted poorly. When someone has less intelligence, it says little about how that potential will be used; you have to look to what they then do with it. I would like to see people acknowledging those distinctions and it bothers me that people imply that every single action a person of low intelligence does would be poor when the evidence does not show that to be the case. They clearly are not using their intelligence when they imply this.