-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.6 Nov 2005

I prefer to call it gay. Firstly, thanks ever so much for pointing out that 'spastics are people too!' It was beside the point, however. I don't care how clever the average spastic is; everyone knows that 'spastic' is a common, amusingly obnoxious term for a generic retard. This is just another classic example of you instantly pouncing on every throwaway, deliberately offensive remark -=Dark_Angel=- makes, and explaining, in the most ernest tones you can muster, exactly why the remark betrayed a dreadful ignorance.

The appalling thing is that even if I *was* trying to say something about spastics in particular, your 'point' would merely constitute a short diversion from the argument, because for every intelligent spastic you can find, I can find a dozen, cosmically stupid mega-disableds, who definitely would fly into the nearest mountain. So my point about genetic inferiority stands, and yours ends up in the nearest spastics home.

As for the main thrust of your response, suppose:

(1) On average, Negroes are inferior to Normals at X, Y, and Z.
(2) On average Normals are inferior to Negroes at A, B, and C.

Then in the field of X, is it not sensible to favour Normals over Negroes given no other information? And is that not a DISCRIMINATION on the basis of RACE?