Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-24561237-20140810223709/@comment-5381241-20140814150156

Goggles99 wrote: The point is not whether it was once an accepted medical term or not. The point is that it's not an official medical or term anymore, and if it's not an official medical term anymore, then there would be no one in the world that is classified as having it, and if there's no one in the world who classifies as having it, then there should be no one in the world that can realistically take offence to it, right?

Hence the term becomes redundant. There's no such thing as "a retard". It doesn't mean anything real. As ridiculous as it might sound, you might as well call someone a "pixie" and have them take offence to it... (that being said, there are probably some in the world who think themselves pixies, and should I across such a person, I would refrain from calling them that name if it offended them). Disclaimer: Goggles99 supports the right of anyone who wishes to consider themselves pixies and holds nothing against any who do so! He also apologies if any pixies were harmed in the reading of this message. Long live pixies everywhere. Do you know why it's no longer a medical term? Because, as the word evolved and changed (as words tend to do, of course), "retard" and "retarded" have evolved into insults. Actually, in 2010, Congress itself replaced “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded” in federal health, education and labor laws with the term “intellectual disability.” The words "retarded" and "retard" have changed into a slur—the sole reason why people oppose the word.

Let me ask you, would you jokingly call your friend a retard if there was a person with an intellectual disability/mental retardation within hearing's range? Whether or not you knew that they had an intellectual disability, would you?