You're doing the same thing everyone does when people explain that a word isn't used in its literal context: You're making up a situation in which you use a word for something other than its literal meaning. You're saying it's the same, but it is not. It is different because, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, in the real world, in social context, the word is often used as Darco described it. It is not the same as your false scenario.bricksarefun wrote:But that doesn't change the fact that it's offensive to a large group of people. If I went around calling things mexican, and said that it meant they hopped the border, and not that they are actually mexican, that would offend mexicans. If someone says you're ***, they're usually trying to point out your sexual preference, and being called *** isnt a bad thing, being *** isn't a bad thing, no matter what some crazy guy with a book says. I personally am not ***, but I know some, and my uncle was ***.
The world isn't literal all the time, and creating a fake situation does not make for a good argument, it just exposes your own ignorance to how the world really functions. Yes, it is offensive, but it is not used being used literally, and thus it is not the same. I don't know how to explain it really, but to say that those situations are the same is the furthest from the truth and denying that would be nothing short of idiotic.
I'm now leaving this argument because I don't want to listen to some bullshit explanation for why I'm not correct, because I know, if that happens, I'd just end up getting pissed off at the overwhelming ignorance. It would be best to admit that making that comparison was a bad example.
![[x]](http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/3713/fearck7.jpg){kind=link}
![[x]](http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/8220/rb6vzo3.jpg){kind=link}
![[x]](http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7088/bustawolfrb3.jpg){kind=link}