 |
 |
'intention' is not a good test for finding out if any action results in discrimination. Ignorance is only a plea for mitigation. Who is "Anyone"? How can you know what any person can think? A disabled person is not less than a person, nor a less skilled person. "Disability" is created from the outside and not the self, other than that internalised. > on the subject. Stupid or dumb fitted better, both are value-laden I > appreciate that but what would you have my use? While the term "stupid" represents an opinion e.g. "George W. Bush is stupid to think intelligent people trust him" or "people with learning difficulties are NOT stupid" The term "dumb" is a historic word to describe someone without speech, it is not a choice. It's negative use represents a negative attitude to people without speech. Do invest in a good dictionary. One NASA space ship project collapsed because someone thought inches equalled centimetres. Definitions that we all can understand are essential for our movement to progress. Keith On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:32:56 +0100 "Michael Peckitt" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > To all > > It was certainly not my intention to cause any offence, but that it was > taken to insult people without speech does to some extent make my point, > which I will amplify. > > Anyone who thinks that just because someone calls > themselves disabled person, that there is nothing else to that person but > the disability is making an error, an error on the side of RECEIVER not the > SENDER. > > Keith, that you may have thought the particular sense in which the word > 'dumb' was being employed insults that group was an assumption on your > part, not on mine when I wrote that sentence. I created no disability, I > was making a point about language, I intended no creation of disability. I > could have used senseless, but it was not sufficient to express my feelings > on the subject. Stupid or dumb fitted better, both are value-laden I > appreciate that but what would you have my use? > > In the right context, as all language is contextual, I have no objection to > handicapped, disability or disabled. It is the sense in which the word is > meant that counts. But that is just my view. > > I apologize for any hurt I may have caused, but it was not my intent. In > the future, when I am passionate about something in which <that word> would > have been grammatically fitting, I will look for another, but there are > times, when there are no words to describe how passionate we are, other than > such a term. It is something akin to Rorty's 'final vocabulary' when there > are simply no other words to put what we want to say into words. > > Once again, I do sincerely apologize, I hope you will accept. > > Michael -- Have you been to: < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Absolutely_Visual > < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BeforeAscii_ART > < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/disabilitystudies > < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Art_in_Context > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecurrentwar/> ________________End of message______________________ Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List are now located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.