Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-24011918-20131214001227/@comment-5946174-20131217161221

Noothgrush: I understand the difference between shock value and the writer's fetishisms. This is why I refuse to read A Game of Thrones. Jokes aside, rape is not something to be trivialized, and I am aware of this. However, the word "rape" has various applications that aren't archaic. For instance, "rape of the earth" is depleting it of its resources for human use and polluting it while doing so. This doesn't trivialize rape by any means. In fact, the phrase acknowledges how horrible rape is, and uses it to draw attention to a serious issue. This is the kind of application I do not have a problem with.

CalasanX: The main problem with your blog post is that you said "You write like a five year old who was dropped on his head intentionally as a baby," and all the while are crusading against usage of the word "retarded" and encouraging harsh penalties for its use. However, this is irrelevant to the conversation.

The reason I linked you to the Slippery Slope fallacy page is because you essentially said that if we permit the use of "retarded" to describe an object or an idea, then there is nothing stopping us from calling a person that, and should thus be against the rules. I am not justifying use of the word "retarded" simply because other people say it; that would be exhibiting the Tu Quoque fallacy. No, I am simply saying that as long as it isn't directed towards a person, the word simply cannot refer to mental retardation.