2 ms·

I understand this response, but can't still see how that relates to how you stated your first response.

• thaumasiotes 12y ago
  My first response is phrased as an argument against your point, using what I thought was a well-known example that strongly supports your point. It's facetious. I've read of a philosopher who made the argument, "the theory of evolution can't be true, because if it were true, that would imply that someone could make a lot of money by replicating images of Elvis Presley." My comment has the same structure, but I'm already aware that the evidence directly contradicts the stated point. So "your theory of terms having negative valence based on their meaning (instead of arbitrarily) is incorrect, as can be seen by how the slow of wit gained new respect from society when the socially-enlightened term 'retarded' replaced the old, denigratory 'stupid'. According to your model, 'retarded' would be an insult because of its negative meaning."