:DL Two things.

First, my grandfather called himself a cripple (one leg, one lung, one eye), and referred to himself as "Huckepeter". Let a more capable translator than me explain what that term means, but I can tell you despite his fate he was a man of great humour and good heart.

Second, as former psychologist and when working for limited time in a psychiatry, I learned one thing: disabled people, mentally or physically, often do not want at all a special way of being dealt with: with special care, special foresight in wording, special respect - to them right this often appears as not dealing normally with them, but to sort them out by treating them "special". My grandfather also did not want that, he said "I'm a cripple, so why shouldn'T I called like that?" This political "sensitivity" about different words for the obvious thing is like psychology'S attempt to heal the hysteric by stopping to use the term"hysteria " in diagnostics (today it is called "histrionic", since that is less discrminative, they argue - but it means the same thing.)

I mean you can use most terms in a "normal" and in a "derogatory" way, it depends on the rest of your behaviour, your voice, the situation.

To me, somebody with two lost legs, is disabled, or a cripple, and I use both terms and do not think twice about it. And the PC crowd certainly can kiss me where the sun never shines.

BTW, what is currently the politically correct term to refer to Americans of African skin-colour, to put it this way (no offence meant)? Is it negro? Black? Coloured? Afro-American? It seems terms change with fashions, and get phased in and out. The only thing I am certain of is to not call somebody "******", for historic reasons the connotation with that one is obvious. But the other terms I mentioned - I see no problem with them at all. But some do. Well - who am I to need to understand everything...?:D My master, mentor and trainer often referred to me as "der Freak", and often called me a "Raufbold" (ruffian). Was that an offence - or a compliment? He continued to train me. I call a cripple a cripple - and continue to deal with him and talk to him like to any other. So what? I once called a German gay not "Schwuler" (=gay), but homosexual. He took offence from that, and insisted to be called "schwul" (gay). Oh dear, heaven save me please!

I think the intellectually handicapped people that claim moral superiority in political issues these days are a much bigger problem than this issue of which terms and labels are acceptable, and which not. And if "cripple" is understood to be derogatory - then what to t hink of people who politically correctly call them "handicapped" or "disabled" or whatever - and still mean the other term, and deal with them accordingly, sorting them out - and by that preventing the normality that they insist should be installed?

Words. Ha!

Yes, words. You do so much debating here in GT and much of the time the discussions are over exactly that....words or semantics. You know of their subtle importance.

It does not matter what you think in your head that no one can control, know, or comment on. It matters what you put on paper or type in a forum for all to see.





My salutes to your grandfather. I think I would have liked him had I met him.

Normal hurdles the disabled community struggles to overcome and change on a daily basis.

Think I need to go to spec savers, when I first saw the title of this thread I thought it said your thoughts on runners with prostitutes :oops: :doh:

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Rick, on this topic in particular, I wonder if anyone else noticed your signature.

Here's the thing with anyone who's suffered a disabling injury, or is born with a disabling condition: Your life is, by the very nature of that disability, now different from what the able-bodied consider "normal" living. That's just the way it is; things are going to be different for you for the rest of your life. That statement, in and of itself, is not discriminatory, it's just reality.

I'm not saying this well, because I'm not finding the words well. It's the difference between skill and innate ability. I can throw a ball, and so can a major league pitcher. For both of us, a casual toss is just that, a casual toss. But that pitcher has a skill I don't have - since I don't have the practice to develop the skill he has, he will always be able to throw better than I, even though we both share the same innate ability (the act of moving our arm to propel a ball.) For a disabled person, the loss of the limb (the dominant arm, in this example) limits or eliminates the innate ability (moving the arm to propel a ball - without the arm, you just can't throw a ball with it), to replace it solely with a learned skill (manipulating the prosthetic to throw a ball).

If the prosthetic is capable of more than the limb replacing it was capable of, then learning to use it grants an unfair advantage, the same as cork in a baseball bat provides an unfair advantage to a hitter.

If the prosthetics were, on a point-by-point basis, identical to and on par with the limbs replaced, then he should be allowed to run wherever he wishes. But if the limbs are, in any manner, superior to the ability of a healthy, developed limb, then they're No-Go.

It's a tribute to the man's skill that he can run on prosthetic limbs, and he provides great hope for disabled people worldwide. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that he is disabled. He has learned to live with his disability remarkably well, better than some able-bodied people, for sure. That fact does not confer upon him the right to any special advantages.

Well said Growler.

Please see my post #20.

yes, but is the process in Colorado the same as the EU one or the german one or Skybirds fictional one:03:

Spot on.

This was basically the crux of my argument.

This almost takes us into the debate of cyborgism. When humans and robots are combined to extend the ability of the body to fit it with the fullest extent of the mind.

Is there such? :03:

Rick,

actually I am uncertain whether or not you have an argument with me or not!? Might be my English as foreign langauge, I am not sure. I have noted your sig for sure, already longer time ago, but still I said what I said, and in the way I did. Hope this tells you something about me in case you see a problem. To me you are a voice on the web like all the others in this forum - not more, not less, not better, not worse. Period. I make no knot in my tongue for any of them - and not for you.

Hope this is normality and equality enough!? It's either the full deal, or none. Special deals ask somebody else for.

Nichts für ungut! ;)

I have no issues with you Sky, none at all. I stated my case the best I could to you and you did not agree. I accept that fact and now move on. I am 60 years old and experienced enough to retreat from a battle that cannot be won. :ping:

I don't discuss my disability openly here in the forums because it is irrelevant here.