heh.

>i didn't "defend" its use. i pointed out what in my opinion is
>an essential distinction between the use of the word
>"retarded" and "faggot"

making a distinction is response to someone calling you out for using it = defending. FOH with that plea. you shoulda just copped to a bad joke and kept it moving.

>if you couldn't tell that was an obvious, blatant joke then i
>might as well give up now because we won't be able to level on
>any common ground. might not have been as funny as louis c.k.
>dropping "faggot" in his defense of gay marriage routine, but
>the intent was clear in my opinion.

oh, the joke defense. nice. that's always good ground to stand on, right? the bottomline is, neither terms have any justification for being used on a message board. point blank, period. doesn't matter which is awful and which is godawful, neither should be used and claiming humor to justify its use is fucking dumb as shit (notice how I didn't need to use that word to say that?)

>i admit both are dehumanizing. battery is a crime and so is
>homicide. there is a spectrum. whether there is a moral
>distinction between the two is a personal viewpoint.

heh, lawyer talking lawyer for no reason. why u mad?

>conceded that the use of "retard"/"retarded" is wrong AND that
>i often catch myself still saying it and cringe when i do.
>it's something i'm working on rooting out, which isn't
>something some posters on here can say.

and yet you used it in a (terrible) joke on this board and caught feeling for getting called out for said joke. so no, you aren't doing a good job rooting it out.

>nice ad hominem bro. "last word standing" isn't the
>"definition of intellect" at my law school. regardless, i'm
>not going to be a litigator, so i have no idea how this
>applies to me. try to stay on point and not regress into
>fallacious logic.

it was a good ad hominem. lawyers suck. u mad?

>
>>are they both offensive terms? yes. does any arguable
>nuanced
>>difference between the use of two matter? not nearly as much
>>as the fact that they're both offensive terms.
>
>i think this is a personal opinion. i probably shouldn't have
>been so matter-of-fact about it above. but according to your
>logic, the "n-word" and "retard" are on a level playing field
>in terms of magnitude of hate (that is assuming you accept the
>academic consensus of sexual orientation as a genetic
>characteristic/predisposition)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. and before you were saying my logic failed? Words may have different levels of offensiveness, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. the flow chart is simple: Is the word offensive? If no, use. If yes, DON'T USE IT. all that levels of offensiveness stuff is what will first pointed out as unnecessary--this is a categorical issue, not a spectrum issue. If a word fits into the category of "offensive" do not use. not even in a bad joke. mad?

>i guess this conversation has become hilarious, no?

it's been hilarious. you've just made it funny enough to convince me to join. good work.

-----------
It's only funny till someone gets mad. Then it's hilarious.