-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2024 Smog Awards!
Moral Inconsistency: Idiots and Retards
- Thread starter Zach
- Start date
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.
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.
chrisisme is right, intelligence is hereditary; knowledge is the result of learning. when i call someone a moron, i'm not making fun of their intelligence but their knowledge. high intelligence can aid and speed up the pursuit of knowledge but it's not essential, unlike being 'sound of mind'
Reopened thread because I don't think the discussion is over.
Where are you getting this idea that intelligence is entirely inherited? There is absolutely no data to support that claim, unless you are defining intelligence as those things that make someone "smart" that are genetic.
You'll have to define "moron" and "retard" before we can really have a useful discussion here.
I think the best way to avoid any inconsistency in your beliefs is to avoid mockery all together.
Where are you getting this idea that intelligence is entirely inherited? There is absolutely no data to support that claim, unless you are defining intelligence as those things that make someone "smart" that are genetic.
You'll have to define "moron" and "retard" before we can really have a useful discussion here.
I think the best way to avoid any inconsistency in your beliefs is to avoid mockery all together.
I find that disappointing, but since it's open anyway...
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.
I think I agree with the general jist of the above post and Obi's above me (especially Obi's last line) for sake of the discussion. I think the correct answer to the original question posed is that most people perceive it(most people who can get you in trouble, if I can extrapolate a bit?) the way Mountain Dewgong wrote it. It is "more wrong" to make fun of people with mental disabilities since there's very little they can do about it since it is almost always genetic and unchanging, at least with modern understanding of the brain. Whereas with people who are "stupid"(which is a pretty imprecise word), the thought is... you know, I don't think I can rationalize why people think this is more ok, actually.
I mean, looking at this as objectively as I can, we know genetics play a part in intelligence, that's obviously not something where everyone is on a fair playing ground. Environment, too, is a huge factor, and for a great part of the part of life where your brain is developing most you have very little impact on that, so that's hardly something people can effect, either. It seems just as silly to make fun of someone based on intelligence as anything else they can't really change, but to go back to a previous point, I think if you needed to mock someone, knowledge would probably be the right course. Knowledge for the most part is something everyone can seek out, and there is an almost unending supply of people who are too intellectually lazy to do so, regardless of their intelligence.
Maybe the best response to the OP is that there has been a strong political correctness movement to cut down on people treating people with mental disabilities unfairly, but there hasn't been similarly pressure for people who are less intelligent, so fools enjoy targeting the next available group?
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).
I myself sometimes feel "stupid" because I cannot remember important dates in history, though I can at least recall the events. I'm hardly aware of politics aside from Obama being the president and shit still occurring in Iraq/Iran/moving to Afghanistan, etc, but I don't think that I am STUPID because of it. Yes, I have an obvious lack of knowledge, but I am knowledgeable in what I care to be knowledgeable in, and in those regards, I could be considered "smart."
Now, for the special cases where someone clearly has the ability to obtain and flourish in knowledge, but simply chooses not to do so because of their own laziness and disinterest, I think this is silly and a misuse of most of your time (not like learning should be your optimal activity 24/7, but don't you want to grow and learn throughout your life?) but I guess it's not right of me to just call you "stupid" because you're far more easily satisfied with life than I am. That's my take I guess.
Retardation/mental handicap is generally considered to be an IQ of less than 75. They are usually incapable of managing their lives without aid.
The 'stupid' are those within the IQ range of around 75-85.
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.
I think the prevailing scientific belief about intelligence is that fundamentally, there is a strong genetic component, hereditary from parents; the Nature aspect. But there is also a Nurture aspect, which is how the child is brought up, whether they're engaged and stimulated when they're young and develop thinking processes that serve them later in life. In a sense, "Nature" gives you your potential, "Nurture" gives you your outcome based on that potential.
If you're interested in the science of intelligence, I recommend looking up Michael Hanlon's "8 Questions Science Can't Answer (Yet)", and also the work of Simon Baron Cohen (cousin to Borat's Sacha Baron Cohen, as I recall), who is a world leader in autism and intelligence studies.
The 'stupid' are those within the IQ range of around 75-85.
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.
I think the prevailing scientific belief about intelligence is that fundamentally, there is a strong genetic component, hereditary from parents; the Nature aspect. But there is also a Nurture aspect, which is how the child is brought up, whether they're engaged and stimulated when they're young and develop thinking processes that serve them later in life. In a sense, "Nature" gives you your potential, "Nurture" gives you your outcome based on that potential.
If you're interested in the science of intelligence, I recommend looking up Michael Hanlon's "8 Questions Science Can't Answer (Yet)", and also the work of Simon Baron Cohen (cousin to Borat's Sacha Baron Cohen, as I recall), who is a world leader in autism and intelligence studies.
RETARD:
n. Offensive Slang 1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.
MORON:
n.
A moron, and I'll bet that we all were one once, or will be:naughty:, is a person whop does stupid things or acts stupid.
MrIndigo is right, sice it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something they can't help but do.
n. Offensive Slang 1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.
MORON:
n.
- A stupid person; a dolt.
A moron, and I'll bet that we all were one once, or will be:naughty:, is a person whop does stupid things or acts stupid.
MrIndigo is right, sice it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something they can't help but do.
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.
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.
Obviously, if someone is not capable of performing a job, you shouldn't have to hire them; this is the same for ALL disabilities. Out here, one of the last cases the HREOC dealt with was a partially blind man who had been prevented from going into the police beat. The court held that he could not fulfill the job's functions and that it was not unfair to discriminate on the basis of his disability in this case.
A retard is technically somebody born naturally with that mental problem, and more often than not, that mental problem can translate into physical disorder.
Like people in wheelchairs who drool and can't speak. That's a retard in the non-offensive use of the term.
An idiot/moron/whatever word you desire is someone who has no natural problems (no down syndrome, no autism, etc.) and yet is just of either very low intelligence/maturity/both.
Stupid people that work hard enough can actually get good education and do well, but being the idiots they are, they don't bother. Retards are doomed from birth to be an invalid, so when you make fun of a retard, you are making fun of the fact that they could not prevent a specific aspect of their life happening the way it did. Make fun of an idiot, and you're just rubbing it in his face that he never tried hard enough.
Like people in wheelchairs who drool and can't speak. That's a retard in the non-offensive use of the term.
An idiot/moron/whatever word you desire is someone who has no natural problems (no down syndrome, no autism, etc.) and yet is just of either very low intelligence/maturity/both.
Stupid people that work hard enough can actually get good education and do well, but being the idiots they are, they don't bother. Retards are doomed from birth to be an invalid, so when you make fun of a retard, you are making fun of the fact that they could not prevent a specific aspect of their life happening the way it did. Make fun of an idiot, and you're just rubbing it in his face that he never tried hard enough.
Stupidity is ultimately something you can fix through hard work.
No hard work is going to fix a handicap.
You can instruct the ignorant, but you can't fix stupid. ~Ron White.
The difference is in the person's actual mental competence. Mentally retarded people are mentally incapable of processing some or many complex tasks. Morons are those who could, with more focus, training, and discipline, competently complete a task in question.
They may of course just be unsuited to that task, which means they should be working somewhere that fits their particular skills better. Most of the time when you call someone stupid it is based on an action they have taken, not a general statement of their intellectual capability.
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.
I sometimes call things retarded, although I know I shouldn't. It's a very easy way to offend someone who has a retarded person in their family that you don't know about. What I highly disagree with is the movement to stop calling actual mentally retarded people retarded. Because the word is used in a pejorative way by some, advocates are saying we should stop using it altogether. I find this very silly, because no matter what label you give these unfortunate people, it will be appropriated by the masses and used in less-than-kosher ways.
I think that when the word 'retard' is properly used, it refers to someone with a low IQ (usually under 70) that is unable to perform the mental functions of normal human beings. An idiot is someone who does or says stupid things, but is not necessarily less intelligent than anyone else. An idiot has potential for change if they are willing while a retard does not, therefore it is less incorrect (for lack of a better word) to make fun of them.
Similarly, think of running ability in terms of intelligence. A person with no legs cannot run, no matter how hard they tried or how powerfully they wanted to. We can't make fun of them for that. A person who is just slow or weak can become fast through effort and time, so we find it ok to ridicule them.
I'm not saying I make fun of idiots or anything, but this is how I think the system works.
Similarly, think of running ability in terms of intelligence. A person with no legs cannot run, no matter how hard they tried or how powerfully they wanted to. We can't make fun of them for that. A person who is just slow or weak can become fast through effort and time, so we find it ok to ridicule them.
I'm not saying I make fun of idiots or anything, but this is how I think the system works.
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.
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.
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.
Otherwise, I agree with you except with a reverse philosophy. I don't believe anything is exempt from humour under any circumstances.
A perfect example of a retard is a redneck (George W Bush, Sarah Palin etc)
A perfect example of a moron is Joe Biden
No but seriously in our society, retard not only refers to people below a certain IQ level, but also people who have mental illnesses. Both of these are incorrect. Originally Retard was meant to be used to refer to people with Down Syndrome. However, over the years the definition has changed
Also for those that didnt get it, the first two lines waaay up there was a joke....
A perfect example of a moron is Joe Biden
No but seriously in our society, retard not only refers to people below a certain IQ level, but also people who have mental illnesses. Both of these are incorrect. Originally Retard was meant to be used to refer to people with Down Syndrome. However, over the years the definition has changed
Also for those that didnt get it, the first two lines waaay up there was a joke....