Christopher Fairman's Argument Against Banning The Word

There is a children’s rhyme that includes a sentence about how words will never hurt them. However, Christopher Fairman explains in his argument, “The Case Against Banning the Word “Retard”, that it’s not the words that need to be removed it’s the way that people use them that needs to be banned. He believes that certain campaigns may cause people to be aware of the consequences of their word choices and that it could eventually lead to people censoring themselves over it. Christopher Fairman states that “Inherent in this idea is the realization that words have multiple meanings and that those meanings depend on the context and circumstances surrounding any particular statement.” Fairman argues that certain words have become taboo and it’s the culture that surrounds these words that have caused people to want to avoid them all together. Fairmen’s argument states the obvious truth that people need to use words the way that they were intended to be used. His examples are clear and he proves that using multiple examples only strengthened his argument against the ban certain words. The points that he makes show how his argument is valid because he backed

The largest advocacy group for the intellectually disabled, the Association for Retarded Citzens,is now simply ARC (Fairman). The term mental retardation is being replaced with intellectual disability by The Center for Disease Control and Prevention because this word has become so taboo. People have managed to turn innocent words into hateful speech so much so that professional establishments and groups will no longer use those words because they are deemed as a negative term. Even if someone disagrees with Fairman’s argument about not banning certain words, his paper and his assumptions are acceptable because people have heard for themselves just how these words are being used