Originally Posted by Robert Williams

Irregardless

Originally Posted by davidmash

I could not let this one pass. Too funny.

Originally Posted by Idle

The term 'Dunce' was, and still is, a technical term.

The source of the term is an English 'scholar' named Duns Soctus who died in 1306. He wrote a book that covered all the knowledge in the known world and it became the accepted standard in English education.

Once you had mastered Duns' book you were qualified to be addressed as a 'Dunsman'. This was considered the highest level of education attainable and was a necessary title to hold if one desired a teaching position. Dunsmen, and only Dunsmen, were entitled to wear the pointed cap that signified their rank in society.

By the 1500's it had become clear that not just much of what Duns' had put down was wrong but that all of it was. But Dunsmen continued to teach from Duns' book as they had spent their lives working towards their positions and did not wish to give them up.

By the 1600's all the Dunsmen had died out. The Dunce Cap lived on and became the symbol we know today: That of a person who is wrong and yet continues to make the same mistakes even after they have been corrected.

The term 'Dunce's table' first appears in print in 1624.

The term 'Retard' is a slur and has always been a slur. The term 'Dunce' is a description and has always been a description.

To quote the ancient Greeks: If the shoe fits, wear it.

Originally Posted by Idle

You are wrong. I do not know this 'Phil' person.

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Now Phil, you're getting way ahead of yourself. Your departure as "Robert Williams" hasn't even occurred and you now show up with the new moniker "Idle".

You do know that that's against the forum rules, don't you?

But, I suppose there is no rule regarding a banned member holding more than one alias on here............

Originally Posted by Idle

The term 'Retard' is a slur and has always been a slur. The term 'Dunce' is a description and has always been a description.

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

When used in this context, it's never meant as anything other than an insult.

Originally Posted by Botnst

Mommy, make the bad man go away!

Originally Posted by Robert Williams

There is a recent thread about the use of the word "retard" being used by Ann Coulter to describe Obama, wherein there is much discussion and some violent bunching of panties about how Coulter using the word to describe Obama is hateful and offensive to people who exhibit diminished intellectual capacity and people who support them.

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/open-discussion/328023-coulter-gets-called-out.html

What once was clinically referred to as "developmental retardation" or "developmentally retarded" has been given a new kindler and gentler terminology of "cognitive disability" or "cognitively disabled". The old terminology has been declared "verboten" by some because it is argued that using such an unflattering descriptor in any negative way is an insult to everyone who is the embodiment of such a descriptor.

Using the descriptor "retard" is an insult and disparaging to those who actually are "cognitively disabled - formerly known as developmentally retarded" and no one who suffers from a condition they have been inflicted with due to reasons beyond their control should be disparaged in such a way, and everyone who doesn't agree and stand up for the victims of such disparagment is complicit in the hating.

Historically the word "dunce" has been used to describe slow learners, in today's politically correct language now referred to as "special needs or learning impared" and the "dunce cap" was once a fixture in education used to publicly identify and mock the "slow learners". Now you might think that the "slow learner" now referred to as "learning impared" community and its supporters would be decrying the use of the "dunce cap" descriptor imagery implication being applied to Obama's rival Mitt Romney. Because if we follow the logic that the use of unflattering descriptors in any negative way is equal to disparaging those among us who through no fault of their own may be the embodiment of such a descriptor must also be equally verboten!

Ann Coulter called Obama a "retard" and that is unacceptable and anyone who does not agree is perpetuating hate.

Obama's official campaign makes use of imagery that has Mitt Rimney wearing a "dunce cap" an obvious and blatant affront to the "learning impared" of today who have historically suffered public mocking and ridicule because through no fault of their own they where "slow learners".

Obama and his Obamphant horde scream in agony when he's called a "retard" and a couple days later Obama and his campaign officially call Mitt Romney a "learning impaired" dunce cap wearer!

http://barackobama.tumblr.com/post/34165736532/sums-it-up

It's obvious there are more than a few "learning impared" and their supporters who post in the Open Discussion, will the "cognitively disabled" and their supporters raise their voices rallying to the cause of their intellectually afflicted brothers and sisters in arms and denouce the hate and the Hater in Chief and all those who remain silent in the face of hate.

Is it finally time for society to draw the line in the sand demarcating what is unacceptable? Or does Obama get a pass on this also?

Originally Posted by Can't Know

You still don't get it. This is really simple.

Anything the annointed one does is acceptable (if not applause-worthy).

By implying otherwise (or even suggesting the possibility), you are clearly a racist.

Now do you understand?