I find that disappointing, but since it's open anyway...Reopened thread because I don't think the discussion is over.
I think before I go any farther, no, it isn't any more "ok" to "make fun of" people who are mentally impaired or less intelligent than you than it is to make fun of anyone else. I've never really understood why so many people seem to try to rationalize groups that is or isn't acceptable to mock since it's pretty pathetic to have this apparent need to mock people in that way to begin with.This is something that has been troubling me for a while now. Why is it considered 'okay' to make fun of morons for their stupidity but not retards? Is stupidity not a trait that one is born with in just the same way as retardation?
What's your take, and why?
The point is, a 'retard' I'm assuming is a person with a mental disability, disallowing them to develop any sort of intelligence. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn't get a triple figure IQ, it's a physiological disorder.
Stupid people or morons, more likely than not, could become intelligent if they just got off their arse and tried.
One group cannot become smart, the other are just too lazy. You decide which is more worthy of your insults.
Edit: Your OP sounds like you're assuming that intelligence is hereditary, when environmental factors are also very key.
I think when it comes to mocking stupidity, people realize that it's a very useless thing to do when it comes to the mentally challenged, as they really can't help themselves. Still, that logic does not extend to the mentally-lazy or what have you, since you assume that "Oh, they're just lazy and don't care to learn so they make such dumb mistakes, morons, amiright." Although I can't say that I've always been an outlier from this behavior, it frankly is stupid to make fun of other people for being/seeming less knowledgable/intelligent/whathaveyou than you are. Like other posters have said, environment is a big key factor, and lack of knowledge isn't entirely fault of a lack of will to learn, the simple inability to do so is also key (poor family, can't afford basic schooling, whatever).This is something that has been troubling me for a while now. Why is it considered 'okay' to make fun of morons for their stupidity but not retards? Is stupidity not a trait that one is born with in just the same way as retardation?
What's your take, and why?
What do you mean by "unfair discrimination"? There exist people who are not intelligent enough to work in most jobs, because they can't understand instructions, or the tasks required, etc. If I'm an employer, that lack of intelligence alone should be enough reason for me not to hire the person. That is discrimination, but I would say it is entirely fair. As an analogy, consider this: you will never be hired as a medical doctor without the appropriate credentials, not just because it's typically not legal, but also because not having those credentials is an excellent predictor of your lack of medical knowledge. Employers need to make use of predictors to decide who to hire.I don't have a problem with jokes about stupidity (and race and religion and anything else), but to discriminate against someone unfairly for their inabilities or handicaps (or race or religion or anything else) is not something I think is great behaviour.
This is a very flawed philosophy. It's not hard to imagine somebody who is genetically predispositioned to murder. If that person kills somebody, I still want him locked up, even if he "couldn't help it". Similarly, if you were an employer, would you really hire somebody too stupid to do the job, and also pay that person the same wage as anybody else? Obviously, it is not "wrong" to discriminate on the basis of things that aren't choices. The real reason for not discriminating on certain grounds is that those grounds are irrelevant to how they are being applied.MrIndigo is right, sice it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something they can't help but do.
I agree with this; when I say unfairly discriminate, I mean discriminate in a way where the distinguishing factor is not relevant. For instance, to ban stupid people from a particular location, where they're not going to cause harm to anybody.What do you mean by "unfair discrimination"? There exist people who are not intelligent enough to work in most jobs, because they can't understand instructions, or the tasks required, etc. If I'm an employer, that lack of intelligence alone should be enough reason for me not to hire the person. That is discrimination, but I would say it is entirely fair. As an analogy, consider this: you will never be hired as a medical doctor without the appropriate credentials, not just because it's typically not legal, but also because not having those credentials is an excellent predictor of your lack of medical knowledge. Employers need to make use of predictors to decide who to hire.
Skin colour isn't a good predictor of a person's behaviours, which is the main reason that analogy doesn't work. Ignoring for a moment the definition of "intelligence", intelligence is a good predictor of aspects of a person relevant to things like employment, and as such, I would expect employers to use this information to discriminate against these people, and I would support their doing so. Especially for a minimum wage job (where the employer cannot simply pay less legally), it makes no sense to hire somebody with severe intelligence problems. (Indeed, the existence of very low-skilled workers is an argument against minimum-wage.)
Also, assuming that intelligence is actually some intrinsic quantity, and not simply a description of a person's emergent behaviour attributes, rarely is anybody discriminated against on the basis of intelligence: they're discriminated against on the basis of their behaviour. The only "unfair" discrimination here I could imagine would be if, for example, stupid people did not have the same rights in proceedings against them. This would be a very real possibility if it weren't for things like competency hearings and court-appointed attorneys.
This is a very flawed philosophy. It's not hard to imagine somebody who is genetically predispositioned to murder. If that person kills somebody, I still want him locked up, even if he "couldn't help it". Similarly, if you were an employer, would you really hire somebody too stupid to do the job, and also pay that person the same wage as anybody else? Obviously, it is not "wrong" to discriminate on the basis of things that aren't choices. The real reason for not discriminating on certain grounds is that those grounds are irrelevant to how they are being applied.
To repeat again the earlier example: skin colour is not a very good predictor of anything interesting about a person. As such, it makes no sense to use this as a factor in how you treat the person, especially for employment. Discrimination on the basis of skin colour is wrong because it is a poor predictor of behaviour, not because people can't choose their skin colour.
This is something that has been troubling me for a while now. Why is it considered 'okay' to make fun of morons for their stupidity but not retards? Is stupidity not a trait that one is born with in just the same way as retardation?
You can instruct the ignorant, but you can't fix stupid. ~Ron White.Stupidity is ultimately something you can fix through hard work.
No hard work is going to fix a handicap.
Of course all slang terms have valid histories. You can call anything and everything "lame" these days, but keep in mind you're disparaging people with physical disabilities. "Idiot" and "moron" were words that were originally used to denote a person of low IQ, and obviously, once the people of the world get hold of those words their meanings and uses change to suit the users.As it happens, both of these terms were actually technical terms originally. I have a book downstairs on etymology and historical origins of strange words or phrases, I'll post the moron/retard excerpt later.
IQ tests are accurate within one standard deviation, like most normalised statistical distributions. It's just that the bell curve is extremely narrow. Outside of the range 75-125 or so, the accuracy of IQ tests starts dropping rapidly, because so few people score in that region (130 IQ is roughly the top 1% of the population), so a person's position is more strongly influenced by shot noise.My point of view seems to differ from a lot of others on this thread. First of all, it seems obvious to me that intelligence is somewhat hereditary, because unless you deny the process of evolution, it's the genetics of intelligence that allow humans to excel. Thus, everyone is born with a set potential for intelligence.
IMO, the only time i call someone stupid is when they're doing stupid things- if they are actually a stupid person (IQ below, say, 100) I would never make fun of them. after all, IQs below 70, iirc, belong to the "clinically retarded". It is, rightly so, unacceptable to make fun of them for their disability. Then, there are the "idiots" above them, who have IQs somewhere between 70 and 100. Granted, there are people in this area who are just lazy asses, but I would go so far as to say that the far majority are unable to reverse their lack of luck, in that they were not graced with high intelligence. In this case, it's just as mean to make fun of this group of people (70 -100) as it is "retards" (70-).
Sorry if this sounded arrogant, I'm just stating my opinions.
Also, I don't really buy into the accuracy of IQ tests (or lack thereof), but my point still stands, i think.