With the growing support to ban the word “retard” more and more people have come to the defence of both sides. Patricia Bauer’s “A Movie, a Word and My Family’s Battle” and Christopher Fairman’s “The Case Against Banning the Word ‘Retard’ ” are 2 such examples. Patricia Bauer, a mother of a mentally disabled child, and Christopher Fairman, a professor at the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University, have two completely different ideas on weather is should be banned. Bauer argues to ban it, while Fairman is against banning it. Thanks to Christopher Fairman’s good reasoning and convincing evidence, trustworthy tone, and use of background information, his points come across stronger and lead to a better argument. To make a strong and defensible argument one's points must have good reasoning and …show more content…
This lack of correlation between facts and her claim happens throughout her entire article and really hurts the article's credibility. After listing a slew of facts and anecdotes her response was “I find these facts and statistics terrifying”, this explanation does not give any insight on why on I should stop saying “retard” or the consequences that saying has. Throughout her entire article the only real point that states why we shouldn't say the R-word is because it hurts her feelings. I belive that hurt feelings are not what I would call a good reason in an argument to ban the word retard. Her entire article is based on appealing to people's emotions rather than appealing to people’s logic. A great contrast to Patricia Bauer’s article is Christopher Fairman’s “The Case Against Banning the Word ‘Retard’. Although he uses less facts and statistics than Bauer’s article, he uses them in a more impactful way and states how the fact is connected on the use of the word. One such example of this is when he talks about the N-word as an
The two essays “On Being a Cripple” by Nancy Mairs and “A Plague of Tics” by David Sedaris are excellent pieces of work that share many similarities. This paper would reflect on these similarities particularly in terms of the author, message and the targeted audience. On an everyday basis, people view those with disabilities in a different light and make them conscious at every step. This may be done without a conscious realisation but then it is probably human nature to observe and notice things that deviate from the normal in a society. In a way people are conditioned to look negatively at those individuals who are different in the conventional
Labeling theory is an issue that has been raised that deserves a closer look. Labeling theory, the impression that the public labels certain people as different from the normal conduct. (Popple and Leighninger, 2011) Everyone labels in society. An actor can be labeled into a certain part thought out his/her career. A boss is labeled horrible for firing one individual. Society uses labels and it defines people. The book brought up two points of labeling that should be explored. The first point is the label of developmental disabilities will give a diagnosis. People who have developmental disabilities have it, and they cannot change the situation. It can be manageable, but there will always be the label. The second point is that the society label and perception of the label. There is a stigma in the public about developmental disabilities. Although more accepted than mental illness, developmental disability has a label of individuals being stupid and slow. Labeling theory can be seen throughout history. Chapter thirteen points out that history can shape individual’s label of developmentally disabilities.
It is true that retard people will feel uncomfortable and insulting when they hear the word “retard” because retard people deem that the word “retard” contains mock, disdain and discrimination from others. However, actually most of people only see “retard” as a word to describe a kind of mental sickness. Fairman, the author of “saying it is hurtful, banning it is worse” also argues that some bad words such as “retard” mostly are used as an academic word, he says that “he found nothing wrong with ‘calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards”(168). R-word is used to describe an academic mental illness most of time, and people do need a word like “retard” to functions as the name of this kind of mental disability. Before the appearance of “retard”, “idiot”,a word with worse meaning, did the same job and after the death of “retard” there must be a new word which also may be attached similar insulting meaning, accepting the same duty. Not only academic functions, some bad languages also can bring people senses of belonging. Although using new language more often instead of people’s original language can assist people more easily integrate into the new country, only motherland language contains an intimate feeling because original language
Stupid, retarded, crazy, insane; throughout time, these words are used to explain the behaviors of the mentally ill. These are just words, right? Actually, these words can have hurtful connotations. Since the first individual with a mental illness walked this earth until now, hurtful labels have been assigned to them. But society does not stop with just words, there are also unfavorable mannerisms used to explain visually, stupid, retarded, crazy, or insane. These descriptive words and mannerisms used in jest amongst friends can cause distress to anyone who bears witnesses to include an individual who is intellectually disabled or mentally fragile. If we look at it from the perspective of the intellectually disabled, they have been
In “A Movie, A Word, and My Family’s Battle,” by Patricia Bauer makes an emotional argument that you cannot use the word “retard”, no matter how you mean it, without offending a large group of people while also setting back years of progress.
Haertlein, Lauren L. “Immunizing Against Bad Science: The Vaccine Court and The Autism Test Case.” Law and Contemporary Problems 72 (2012): 211-32. EconLit. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
Recently, controversial changes to the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V) have been the topics of heated discussions in the psychiatric world. The more recent Fifth Edition (DSM V) has been released with changes that now group all of the sub- categories of Autism in to one. Some of the community views this change as a personal attack on their identity while others are welcoming the change.
In his doctoral dissertation, Tom Humphries (1977) defined the term Audism as being, "The notion that one is superior based on one's ability to hear or to behave in the manner of one who hears," (Humphries, as cited by Harrington 2002 ). Humphries explains the negative stigma that has been created based on pathological thinking people have heard from doctors and professionals about anyone who is Deaf, deaf, or hard of hearing. Is it right to limit, judge, or label people on the basis of whether or not a person can hear or on whether or not they choose to speak? For my research project I decided to ask individuals this very question. After posting a number of questions on the Facebook, a social media site, that many people do not know the term audism, confuse it with autism, are afraid to voice their views and do not think it is right to discriminate against people who are Deaf or hard of hearing.
Whilst the concept of autism and what it means to be autistic is still widely unrecognised by many, Mark Haddon’s use of conventions of prose fiction and language amplifies the distinctive qualities of the text. Haddon exemplifies key themes such as the struggle to become independent, the nature of difference and the disorder of life through the strategic placement of literary devices.
Interestingly, the Medical Model of disability starkly contrasts how other forms of discrimination are typically viewed in society. For example, most individuals believe that the social ailments surrounding racial and ethnic minorities, women, and sexual minorities stem not from any sort of physiological abnormality, but rather from societal environments that breed discrimination. Thus, discrimination against these minority groups are often viewed as unreasonable. Moreover, attempts at justifying the discrimination against any of these groups is deemed socially deplorable. In contrast, many people seem to view discrimination against disabled individuals as not only rational, but also morally acceptable (in the RGT context specifically). The result, therefore, is that individuals who strive against discrimination in other contexts may be apt to justify discrimination against disabled
“The word autism still conveys a fixed and dreadful meaning to most people—they visualize a child mute, rocking, screaming, inaccessible, cut off from human contact. And we almost always speak of autistic children, rarely of autistic adults, as if such children never grew up, or were somehow mysteriously spirited off the planet, out of society. Or else we think of an autistic “savant” a strange being with bizarre mannerisms and stereotypies, still cut off from normal life, but with uncanny powers of calculation, memory, drawing, whatever—like the savant portrayed in Rain Man. These pictures are not wholly false, but they fail to indicate that there are forms of autism which do not incapacitate in the same way, but may allow lives that are full of event and achievement, and a special sort of insight and courage too” (Grandin, 12).
The word had been in common use and this group strived to eliminate the inappropriate usage of the word and the phrase “mental retardation” all together and replace it with “intellectual disabilities”. With the beginning of the R-word campaign, in 2009, a group of students created the first annual day of “Spread the Word to End the Word”. The R-word campaign is important when considering the evolution of the way this word is viewed because it is seen as a swear
Perry, David M. "The Anti-Vaccine Movement Endangers the Disabled." Vaccines, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010938207/OVIC?u=j031903001&xid=9cedce92. Originally published as "Destabilizing the Jenny McCarthy Public-Health Industrial Complex: Giving the Anti-Vaccine Advocate a Platform Is Dangerous," www.theatlantic.com, 11 July 2013.
Some call me argumentative- I prefer the term dialectical. It is true, I enjoy debates more than the average person. Nothing compares to the thrill of triumphantly dispelling an opponent’s case and swaying an audience to my side. On top of that, I have a sincere appreciation and talent for writing, reading comprehension, and grammar. With these attributes, I feel destined for a career in law. Yet, it is more than just my personal tastes that have led to my interest in legal services. Growing up with a disorder, I have developed empathy for people with disabilities and a desire to help them by advocating for their rights. As a lawyer, I hope to take action to make the world a better place to live in for people with conditions similar- and maybe not so similar- to mine.
Disability: Any person who has a mental or physical deterioration that initially limits one or more major everyday life activities. Millions of people all over the world, are faced with discrimination, the con of being unprotected by the law, and are not able to participate in the human rights everyone is meant to have. For hundreds of years, humans with disabilities are constantly referred to as different, retarded, or weird. They have been stripped of their basic human rights; born free and are equal in dignity and rights, have the right to life, shall not be a victim of torture or cruelty, right to own property, free in opinion and expression, freedom of taking part in government, right in general education, and right of employment opportunities. Once the 20th century