If I say : people with IQ lower than 70. Do you think about noodles or about people with IQ lower than 70?

If I say : People with intellectual-disability. Do you think about beans or about people with IQ lower than 70?

If I say : People with Mental Retardation. Do you think about pop corn or about people with IQ lower than 70?

Words carry meaning. Making them illegal to use doesn't stop them from carring meanings.

The sole purposes of a words is to make someone who's listenning understand the idea of the person who's talking.

If I use pop corn. You'll think of pop corn. It's important that I use a word which you can understand.

The truth is that since the word Mental Retardation carry a meaning that is clear for everyone, you understood right away that I was talking about people with IQ lower than 70.

When you create a law that say : Now we use the word XYZ to define the meaning. You are creating a word which is less known to the public and you are making your own speech more unclear and confusing. If your intent is for the public to understand what you are saying, you should use words they use.

As a professional, it's important to be able to use simple word to explain complexe idea.

If I say mental Retardation, Every one who can speak english will know what I'm talking about.

If I say Intelelctual-disability, the people won't know if I am talking about an umbrela term which might or might not include dislexia or other kind of disability which affect the cognitive process because normal people are not robots with a live updated dictionnary implented in their brain.

​

There is no justifyable reason for me not to use Mental Retardation as it is a word everyone understand, no mater their degree of education.

​

And something being a law doesn't make it right. The Soviet goulag where a law, the Nazi jew killing shower were in the law. So something being a law isn't viable argument.