Goad27 Mar 2005

Your premise is: these people are capable and worthy of love and friendship, therefore they are not retarded.

Think about the presupposition of your premise. The presupposition of your premise is that retarded people AREN'T capable and worthy of love, affection, and friendship. This is bullshit.

(in case you don't follow the logic: let R represent "retarded". let C represent "capable and worthy of love and friendship". You say "C implies ~R":

C -> ~R
~C | ~R
~R | ~C
R -> ~C
C -> ~R |- R -> ~C

Q.E.D. your poem presupposes that retarded people are not capable and worthy of love and friendship.

But retarded people CAN love and ARE worthy of being loved. Therefore the premise of your pome is incorrect.

Retarded people are labeled retarded because they are retarded. To treat them like average people -- ie, to hold them to the same standards of behaviour as ordinary people -- would be cruel and unjust.

If you had a roommate who, intellectually & developmentally, was an average adult and had all the capabilities of an average adult, but behaved like a retarded person, you would kick them the fuck out. That would not be considered cruel. To demand that a retarded person be held to the same standards of social behaviour would be cruel, and unreasonable.

That is the exact meaning of the label retarded: "person who through no fault of their own but because of genetic or developmental or trauma-caused anomalies is not capable of the full range of responsibilities and behaviours as the average person of their age, and should therefore not be held to the same standards for social behaviour".

Attempting to tell society at large that we ought not to label an obvious condition is foolish and misguided, and if actually implemented would result in much more harm than good to the people you are trying to benefit. Your poem shows no evidence of your having thought this through. It contains some lovely imagery of your interactions with the people you worked with, spoiled by preaching about your emotional reaction to the stigma associated with the label. Instead of being, as it could be, an affirmation of the triumph of innate humanity over disability, it comes off as scolding the reader (or perhaps trying to buddy up to the reader in mutual scolding of "everybody else who does the labelling")

But there are virtually no labels for identifying groupings of people that do not have a stigma in at least some other groupings of people. Therefore, your demand that this particular label be outlawed is inane.

I believe this is what hendrimike means, although he is rather more succinct than I.