posted
Sorry i'm a little new about all of this and i might be bringing up old topics htat i haven't seen but i was hoping someone could help recouncile my thoughts a little.
I'm a little disconcerted that some of the recent writings don't seem reflective of the ender series of which i have prized a lot.
the series seemed to be written by someone very compassionate and looking for the meaning behind what people truly do or say and understanding that as a tactic for military. but as of late, it seems like the voice writing seems sort of provoking and threatening which i suppose was somewhat used in the books but as a means of getting someone to truly say what they mean. but it seems like Card seems to be invoking a lot of the mormon church or not considering the opposite side much. His essay that i recenlty read concerning homosexuality disconcerted me a lot. I can understand about it not agreeing entirely with nature or that the essay is not a piece of homophobia but to condemn it as a sin when he says that he is tolerant of other religious beliefs seems a bit contradictory. what i mean is.. what a sin is to one reliigon is not a sin to another. Isn't it a personal choice of who we love? maybe it's not a choice for me or Card but isn't that something Ender might argue? I intended to write to him directly and ask him but the form seems rather short although i may try again later. I just want to express my thoughts as coherently as possible. My meaning being I don't understand how the voices seem so different from the ender series and more recent writings. Please direct me to another post if this has been discussed already. Thank you.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is something Ender would say necessarily something OSC would say? What does that say about his views when based off of Achilles, Peter, Graff or many of the other characters that he writes for?
If you use the search function- you'll find that there are a lot of topics on this subject.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i understand that OSC isn't ender but i guess i'm having trouble reconciling the fact that to write these characters, it should seem you would look through their eyes and as for the other characters. from my understanding it seemed like the book thought there was always a reason and everyone always means to be good? and call me naive but i did try looking. could you give me an example of what to enter the search function? I"ll try again Thank you though.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aeros, I often find myself in a similar bewilderment over OSC's political commentary. It seems to me to be nearly polar opposite of his literary and religious voice.
In this case however, I chalk it up to my very close identification with the social aims and spiritual struggles that he deals with magnificently in fiction, whereas I do not at all identify with the practical application of them he sees in politics.
To me this mirrors exactly what we have in the world today - many intelligent good (as vague a word as that is) people desiring identical hopes and wishes for a better world, but arriving at solutions and and political factions in direct opposition to one another.
Hard to imagine peace ever emerging, but hope springs eternal.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orson reminds me of Pete, a very conservative friend I have. He and his wife home-school their 5 kids, (the oldest goes to a private Christian high school), own milk goats, and raise a fair amount of their own food. This guy is a Young Earth Creationist, and has some fairly whacked-out theories about things. He is, however, incredibly intelligent, much like OSC, and the way OSC sounded on the podcast interview was exactly the way my friend Pete sounds. The theories don't sound so aggressively insane when these guys actually speak them. "Leftaliban" and other such things sound very different, depending on the tone.
This doesn't mean I'm not a major social liberal. I am. However, I realize that even a tiny amount of ignorance can lead a very smart person to very foolish conclusions, at least temporarily. It's like they say in China "a wise man is not one who never makes mistakes. A wise man is one who corrects his mistakes immediately." I think OSC is fairly wise, given that definition. I don't think he's a idiot. I think if you show him good proof that he's wrong, he'll change. His extremism, is, I think, largely a result of having lived a pretty sheltered life. I feel the same way about my friend Pete.
Folks, please don't flame me for this. The shrill tone people take sometimes around here can only be heard by dogs, it seems like. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are, Scott, by this working definition that I am using. So is OSC. So are most Mormons who grow up LDS versus converting. So are almost all home-schooled kids. So was I, to a lesser degree, although my mind was opened by college and my own willfulness.
It's a working definition. Sheltered is, of course, relative and situational.
How about, "Sheltered compared to the average American?"
I think that might be what I'm driving at, mas o meno. Mmm? Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are, Scott, by this working definition that I am using. So is OSC. So are most Mormons who grow up LDS versus converting. So are almost all home-schooled kids. So was I, to a lesser degree, although my mind was opened by college and my own willfulness.
Wow. Just wow. What an abysmal yardstick for whether or not a person has led a "sheltered" life. What then of people who were born into a Mormon home, "grow up LDS" as you say, and yet somehow manage to hold jobs as early as 14 to help support the family's struggling finances while still maintaining their schoolwork and being an active member in church, pursuing hobbies and interests, all while silently enduring the ridicule of people who would have them think that they are "ignorant" or "whacked out" for clinging steadfastly to beliefs.
I mean, I do thank my lucky stars that you have chosen to bestow thy enlightenment upon the poor misguided "religious" among us who have not yet gone to college and "willed" ourselves to proper enlightenment. It makes me feel so good to know that in your infinite open-mindedness you have seen fit to be merciful in your judgement of OSC and give him the label of "aggressively insane" versus "idiot". It just makes my bosom swell with pride to know that a worldly and wholly educated seeker such as yourself with a resume' that extends as far as college and your "own willfullness" thinks that even people who you deem foolishly ignorant, and even the truly wacky folks who raise goats or *gasp* grow plants (for EATING of all things!) can right themselves if only shown proof of their hideous wrongdoing. (Clearly the technology that you use each day sprung fully formed from the heads of your ancestors, negating the possiblity of such ignorant farming or raising of livestock in your lineage).
Now, i don't know you, but I am quite certain that you have led a very "unsheltered" life that gives you claim to painting judgement with such broad strokes.
I mean, you must certainly have come from a divorced household, been subject to physical and mental abuse, led men in combat, sacrificed your time and effort to guide and educate children and teenagers who were not your own but needed help, fought your way through bankruptcy, moved to a different country with 20 dollars in your pocket to find a better life, watched your family members lose to cancer, held a dying child in your arms, served your country honorably at great personal cost (I'm sure that you are actively, right this moment, missing ANOTHER christmas with your family as you serve in your duties. You may even have missed an anniversary or FOUR in a ROW), slayed a dragon, saved shrek and donkey, and all with enough time left to go to class for self-willed-open-mindedness day.
It's a wonder you have patience for misguided "Christians" with their goats and private schools.
I am just relieved to know that we have you we can count on to go out and face the dangers of the world: violence, crime, drugs, sexual prurience, and all of the choices associated with these things. That way you can enlighten the rest of us with your wand of unsheltered college life.
Because clearly, if a person is born into an LDS family, they do not walk out of their home into the same world as real people like you. They are whisked off into another realm, a "whacked out" religious dimension of gumdrops and lillies, and only survive by their own delusions until they are old enough to pass on their sheltered fantasies to their children, and their children after them; and they should all be ignored. Their opinions have no merit. Too much shelter there. Can't be taken seriously.
quote:You are, Scott, by this working definition that I am using. So is OSC. So are most Mormons who grow up LDS versus converting. So are almost all home-schooled kids. So was I, to a lesser degree, although my mind was opened by college and my own willfulness.
It's a working definition. Sheltered is, of course, relative and situational.
How about, "Sheltered compared to the average American?"
I think that might be what I'm driving at, mas o meno. Mmm? [Smile]
You still have yet to define what you mean by sheltered. You merely respond that your working definition includes "Scott, by this working definition that I am using. So is OSC. So are most Mormons who grow up LDS versus converting. So are almost all home-schooled kids."
If that's your definition then yes I guess that would make OSC sheltered, since your definition of having lived a sheltered life is being like OSC.
???
Please define it for us- I personally am quite curious about this. What is your working definition?
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...and as long as I'm spitting bile here, what on earth is wrong with living a sheltered life? Hmm...Parents who love you shielded you from most of the world's cruelty, hatred, and immorality. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me, considering the alternative. A person could do MUCH worse than to be raised by loving parents in a home full of kindness, love, and strong morals.
posted
Steven, you didn't really answer the question.
But maybe I didn't make my question clear-- can you list the qualities of a sheltered person according to your point of view?
Also why do you think you know enough about anyone's life (not to mention mine or OSC's) do draw this conclusion?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The working definition I'm going with is along the lines of "someone whose upbringing/subculture/religion shelters them from awareness/experience of other lifestyles, political points of view, religions, races, cultures or traditions more than the average American's". I have three points that I see that are part of the definition-as-it-stands :
1. OSC was really PO'd by the Clinton/Lewinsky affair putting oral sex in the "legit, part of public school classes" news. He wasn't the only one, but wow, he won't let it GO. I think this is complicated, and speaks just as much to his personality as it does his upbringing, but yeah.
2. He's not a Young-Earth Creationist. This doesn't automatically imply that he's able to change his mind in the presence of new info, but it doesn't imply the opposite, either.
3. He sounds a lot calmer and more fair on the podcast than the tone I read him with on his World Watch columns. A lot. In fact, he sounds eerily similar to my buddy Pete, who is calm, usually, intelligent, and just happens to have had a very, very sheltered life. Pete's a great guy and a fine friend, and I like him and find him sane, or at least would-be-sane-if-taught.
I really used to couldn't figure out where OSC is coming from. I figured you simply had to encounter things in life that would open your mind unless you had both an upbringing/lifestyle along the lines of being homeschooled/homeschooling in a rural area. But, I think this is not 100% true. At least, that's the theory that I'm going with.
Maybe others have different thoughts on some of this. I'm sure some do.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many of my friends are homeschooled- and I make the same accusation about how sheltered they are. But actually- they generally think more than the average American.
And since when did not being a YEC mean you are sheltered? Pretty much every single person I've ever met says that being a YEC means that you are sheltered.
And because he's calm and intelligent that makes him sheltered. He reminds you of your friend Pete who you say is sheltered- so that makes OSC sheltered too?
And I know a girl that was homeschooled her whole life (except she did go to a very small Christian school for a couple of years) in rural Tennessee. Now not all TN is rural- her house in the middle of nowhere. She happens to be one of my most favorite people on the earth. She doesn't get angry or moody all the time- she doesn't understand how cruel this world can be. I've gone through traumatic things- she hasn't and I am glad!
Her parents love her and she gets along fine with her siblings- her home is such a comfort to her- why should she go out of her way to "experience life". She already has the best things this world has to offer.
She's not stupid or dumb- she's a good thinker. A useful thinker- I sit around all day and pontificate about metaphysics and other stuff that doesn't serve me any purpose at all- she'll think on stuff that has value and purpose.
So in conclusion- if being raised in a loving Christian home and being homeschooled your whole life in a rural area can make one as decent a person, as good a friend, and as smart as my friend is- then I would suggest that we need a lot more people homeschooled.
Sorry I didn't mean for this to turn into a rant- but it happened. And I'm not that sorry.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: So in conclusion- if being raised in a loving Christian home and being homeschooled your whole life in a rural area can make one as decent a person, as good a friend, and as smart as my friend is- then I would suggest that we need a lot more people homeschooled.
[Honest question, not rhetorical] Do we have meaningful statistics on homeschooling? While there are many examples of the successes of homeschooling, there are also many examples of its failures. Homeschooling has the potential to better teach kids how to think than our current public education system can, but it can also be exploited to indoctrinate kids with extreme world views and factual inaccuracies (ex: kids in Jesus Camp).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know more than my share of homeschooled kids. It was fine for a little over half of them and they turned out great people, plus or minus some oddities
But the other half? They range between ignorant and unloveably bizarre. It makes me think that so many parents who homeschool are homeschooling because they're totally flipping bonkers, or sommat.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately Samprimary, I must agree with you. Homeschooling can work great if done for the right reasons (by the right sort of parents). However, it seems like some do it because they're just plane anti-social and end up with kids just as withdrawn. It's not a great cycle in those cases.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The working definition I'm going with is along the lines of "someone whose upbringing/subculture/religion shelters them from awareness/experience of other lifestyles, political points of view, religions, races, cultures or traditions more than the average American's".
What is the average American's experience, and why do you believe that you have any idea about the specifics of someone's life that would require you to make this judgment?
A great many Mormons (since you brought it up) dedicate two years of their lives interacting vigorously with other cultures, traditions, and view points. You may have heard mention of this. How does a mission fit in your judgment?
quote:Originally posted by steven 1. OSC was really PO'd by the Clinton/Lewinsky affair putting oral sex in the "legit, part of public school classes" news. He wasn't the only one, but wow, he won't let it GO. I think this is complicated, and speaks just as much to his personality as it does his upbringing, but yeah.
"Yeah," what?
I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. IIRC, OSC and the majority of conservative objections to the Lewinski scandal have to do with how he dishonored the presidential office by committing adultery (as opposed to committing a particular sex act); then perjured himself, further dishonoring the presidency and committing a crime; then used the Baltic military action to cover up his embarassment.
quote:Originally posted by steven 2. He's not a Young-Earth Creationist. This doesn't automatically imply that he's able to change his mind in the presence of new info, but it doesn't imply the opposite, either.
I don't understand what this has to do with anything.
quote:Originally posted by steven 3. He sounds a lot calmer and more fair on the podcast than the tone I read him with on his World Watch columns. A lot. In fact, he sounds eerily similar to my buddy Pete, who is calm, usually, intelligent, and just happens to have had a very, very sheltered life. Pete's a great guy and a fine friend, and I like him and find him sane, or at least would-be-sane-if-taught.
Since you haven't established very well what you mean by "sheltered life" I'm afraid that this argument does you no good.
quote:Originally posted by steven]I really used to couldn't figure out where OSC is coming from. I figured you simply had to encounter things in life that would open your mind unless you had both an upbringing/lifestyle along the lines of being homeschooled/homeschooling in a rural area. But, I think this is not 100% true. At least, that's the theory that I'm going with.
Maybe others have different thoughts on some of this. I'm sure some do.
This statement comes powerfully close to saying, "If you were only intelligent, you'd agree with me." Do you mean for it to come across this way?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In general I have issues with homeschooling too. My best friend was homeschooled and I think for the wrong reasons and it didn't do him any good. But to simply say that just because that you're homeschooled makes you less of a person is well stupid.
Sorry threads- don't have any stats. Just a variety of antecdotes (of good and bad). I must have been in a bad mood earlier- because I was being a little angrier than I'd have like to have been.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With all due respect, I don't think a lot of people understand homosexuality. Especially from a church perspective. Even if they have gay friends, they are not looking at things from the gay perspective but from a strictly religious perspective. At least science and psychology has caught up, which makes things a lot better for gays and lesbians.
quote:A person could do MUCH worse than to be raised by loving parents in a home full of kindness, love, and strong morals.
Depends on what is meant by strong morals and how such things are enforced. The love and kindness should be emphasized more.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're not three separate entities; love is a part of kindness is a portion of strong morality.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But sometimes people can do things in the name of kindness and morality that are wrong.
That whole spare the rod thing comes to mind.
(that line isn't even in the bible, it's from a poem and folks don't even want to know what domestic discipline is. I wish I could wash my brain)
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd rather see the rod in that line (again, it's not spare the rod spoil the child that's from a long poem of Butler http://www.exclassics.com/hudibras/hbcnts.htm) as being like a shepard's rod of GUIDING a sheep. Some people state that shepards break the legs of lambs that wander off, which is one of the stupidest thing I've heard because of you did that and carried a lamb on your neck it would have weak legs and not be able to run from preditors. I refuse to believe that God is actually saying hit your child. Even if it did say that I wouldn't do it because hitting a child, even if it's about discipline is wrong when there are other ways to handle a child besides inflicting pain on them with flexible rods. People like Pearl and Ezzo and other creeps use this to justify abuse and they wouldn't even recognize it, but it's got to be abusive to hit 4 month olds!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Saying being raised in an LDS household = a sheltered life is straight up ridonkulous."
But I never said it. I was merely proposing a theory. I don't even think it, not entirely, anyway. I do postulate that OSC's life has been largely defined by his church and family, more so than most LDS, though. Granted, he goes to writer's forums, teaches classes, and does signings. However, from what I hear him saying, the bulk of his time is spent writing, playing video games, spending family time, and being at his church. Maybe he spends a bunch of time surfing the net, but I don't think so. Why would he do that when he has Hatrack? He's not exactly a regular visitor here, these days.
My point being, he's kind of a hermit, within his own small universe that includes his family and the LDS church.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That makes sense. Most of us have our tiny little universes. And some of us want to make ours a bit bigger.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the OP, I have said several times that I think OSC is smart, but sometimes fails to realize how different his voice becomes when he talks about current issues. He works very well in a constructed, ficitional environment, in which the consequences of his character's decisions are set out within the motivations they have for making those decisions. ie: a character makes a choice to reveal his or her motivation, and the effect of that choice is further revealing of their relationship with the world. The whole interaction is controlled and reasoned from a single impetus of character building and interaction. In real life, nothing is that simple, and there are real people OSC doesn't get to write, who are perfectly capable of refuting his assertions. I don't think he's as good at dealing with the fact that in real life his decisions and opinions can turn out wrong, and sometimes for no discernable (to him) reason.
edit: As a rather neutral "for example" I have seen several people, including myself, write reactions to OSC's opinions on academic music. A dialog with him on the subject is very difficult because his preconceptions about the field, and his stereotypes of academic people are at odds with my own and a number of people's real world experiences. He has not worked in academic music, but still thinks he knows more than we do about it, or at least about how it "really is." That or we are being coy or misleading when we attempt to explain our field to people like him. How can you convince someone that you aren't in denial about yourself? It's a losing argument, and we all lose. I feel that way about most of OSC's political stuff.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, I'm not arguing with you about whether or not physical discipline is ever appropriate or not. (For one thing, you are completely irrational on the subject. For another, I think we agree more than we disagree.)
My point was, you said that "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is not in the bible. And the fact is, that is one of the ways Proverbs 13:24 is frequently paraphrased (whether or not you -- or I -- consider that accurate). Making false statements undercuts your argument, rather than supporting it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Syn, I'm not arguing with you about whether or not physical discipline is ever appropriate or not. (For one thing, you are completely irrational on the subject. For another, I think we agree more than we disagree.)
My point was, you said that "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is not in the bible. And the fact is, that is one of the ways Proverbs 13:24 is frequently paraphrased (whether or not you -- or I -- consider that accurate). Making false statements undercuts your argument, rather than supporting it.
http://sandradodd.com/s/rod http://ranthonysteele.blogspot.com/2006/08/spare-rod-spoil-child.html It's not a false statement. Other people say it too, that that line comes from a Butler poem and NOT the Bible. And even if it did, there are still people who are abusing that like right now, using it as an excuse to "train" children. There is abolutely nothing irrational about being against children being hit when there are other ways to deal with them in an age appropiate and compassionate manner. Especially when you are dealing with toddlers! I don't know why most of thest people cannot grasp that they are talking about hitting children repeatedly over normal child behavior and that it is unhealthy for both the parent and the child.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Saying being raised in an LDS household = a sheltered life is straight up ridonkulous."
But I never said it. I was merely proposing a theory.
What does this mean:
quote:You are [sheltered], Scott, by this working definition that I am using. So is OSC. So are most Mormons who grow up LDS versus converting.
???
I still don't know what you feel qualifies someone as being sheltered.
quote:My point being, he's kind of a hermit, within his own small universe that includes his family and the LDS church.
...and the signings, classes, and all the other things he does in public. (Almost) weekly columns on culture and political thought. Radio shows. Interviews.
Your point is not valid. Objectively, you are wrong-- unless by "hermit" (or "sheltered") you mean something outside of the common definition of those terms.
Synesthesia:
....
Er...I agree with rivka.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
And, again, even if it is from the Bible it doesn't mean beating kids over the slightest stupid thing like getting out of bed or being less than cheerful. I can't believe how much damage one thing taken out of context can do!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
It really depends on the child, as to whether or not spanking is an effective means of discipline. Some children don't respond to it at all. Some children's response to it is so adverse that even when the behavior that prompted the swat is eliminated, the resulting behavior/attitude is more negative.
Some children do respond to spanking, and it may be the only thing that gets their attention. The option, in my opinion, needs to be available (within reason).
Knowing your child is key. If a disciplinary technique doesn't work, stop using it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Butler was probably playing on that particular scripture, Syn. Poets have been known to do that from time to time.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm talking about is so past spanking it's not even funny. It's like touch football vs a gun fight. These folks believe in "training" a child starting at 4-6 months, extreme cry it out, showing a kid an object and hitting them with a rod if they reach out and touch it. It's not an open hand smack on the butt, but hitting a child on bare skin with a blunt flexible object! There's no way that should be acceptable. And even if it isn't extreme, I don't see any good reason to hit a child when there's bond to be other methods a person can use. People don't even hit their pets the way they hit kids sometimes. It bothers me that it's so mainstream.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: One last thing, Syn:
It really depends on the child, as to whether or not spanking is an effective means of discipline. Some children don't respond to it at all. Some children's response to it is so adverse that even when the behavior that prompted the swat is eliminated, the resulting behavior/attitude is more negative.
Some children do respond to spanking, and it may be the only thing that gets their attention. The option, in my opinion, needs to be available (within reason).
Knowing your child is key. If a disciplinary technique doesn't work, stop using it.
quote: I don't see any good reason to hit a child when there's bond to be other methods a person can use.
Here is where, for me, your argument loses power. And where I insist that knowing your child's responses to different methods of discipline is so important.
There may be a good reason for spanking a child (I don't consider the methods you've described 'spanking'; they seem very clearly to be abuse); there may not be any other methods that work.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't really think of one good reason to spank a child. Even if they run out into the street or try to touch something hot. There has to be some other way to deal with them besides resorting to hitting, even if it's just an open hand tap.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I still don't know what you feel qualifies someone as being sheltered."
Scott, I used the word "most", or did you not see that?
Seriously, though, I went to college with a Mormon girl from Utah, and she seemed, if anything, LESS sheltered (read: not as likely to freak out when exposed to things like casual drug use, swearing, discussions of casual sex, etc.) than my Mormon friends who went to college with us, and they grew up in Texas. Based on that, I might postulate that the individual family makes a difference, and the individual person as well.
Now, to be fair, the girl from Utah was 5 years older and had 4 more years (than the Texas Mormon kids) to be in the environment of a very active, relatively liberal arts school. That'll condition you, after a while. My sample size is too small, dangit. It's hard to draw conclusions.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "I still don't know what you feel qualifies someone as being sheltered."
Scott, I used the word "most", or did you not see that?
I don't understand what that has to do with anything. I want to know what criteria you are using to judge most Mormons as being sheltered. You haven't answered this question yet.
quote:I can't really think of one good reason to spank a child. Even if they run out into the street or try to touch something hot. There has to be some other way to deal with them besides resorting to hitting, even if it's just an open hand tap.
Knowing the child is the key to finding an effective disciplinary method to apply. I know you can't think of a reason to spank a child; I don't think you know all children.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as you continue to postulate based on your comically narrow anecdotal experience you're going to continue to find the people you're pigeon-holing don't like it.
I don't expect you to have a firm grasp on the word 'theory' after years of watching people try to teach you the scientific method, but I think you should be able to see why LDS don't like being called sheltered simply because they're LDS.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I want to know what criteria you are using to judge most Mormons as being sheltered. You haven't answered this question yet."
That's not even what I meant. I would agree with "most Mormons raised-in-the-church are more sheltered than the average American". Note the use of qualifiers, and I am not judging any particular person without evidence, including anyone on this thread.
I don't even consider being slightly sheltered an automatic bad thing. It depends on the alternative, and the person, and exactly what they're being taught or exposed to in lieu of other experiences. However, what I do see is that OSC was shocked and dismayed by Clinton's disregard for his marriage vows far more than most Americans. I see this partially as the result of his living an unusually sheltered life. I'm not saying I have some kind of solution to anything. Like Mr. Smith taught me in 9th grade Gov't/Econ.--"costs and benefits."
As an aside, I've noted several times that, at Bob Jones U, Liberty U, Pensacola Christian College, etc., you're less likely to pick up an STD or a crack habit. That doesn't mean that you should attend those schools to prepare for a career in geology. Costs and benefits.
I think that maybe it was a little bit of an overreaction to take everybody all the way out to Utah. The Mormons that stayed behind managed to integrate better, probably on average, I'm guessing, and are less disgusted and shocked by the behavior of many non-Mormons. I don't know, folks. This isn't a defense of Clinton, but...OSC has himself admitted that people have told him it's time to move on and let the Clinton affair go.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven- It seems like you're equating being easily offended with being sheltered. I'd say that Mormons have a lot of rules and cultural expectations that make them more likely to be offended by borderline offensive things (cussing, discussions of sex, etc.) than the average person you'd meet on the street. I don't know that this is the same as being sheltered, or unexposed to these things.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately Samprimary, I must agree with you. Homeschooling can work great if done for the right reasons (by the right sort of parents). However, it seems like some do it because they're just plane anti-social and end up with kids just as withdrawn. It's not a great cycle in those cases.
Well, when I think about it, there's a bunch of different reasons for which homeschooling is initiated.
Nearly all parents do it firmly believing that it is in the best interests of their child. Belief doesn't make it so. Anecdotally, if I am to judge the results, most of these parents are flat out wrong, for any one of a number of reasons. I mean, assuming you've got even a half-decent public school system, the teachers have the talent, credentials, and professional strategies to be a good teacher. As a parent, even if you think you could do just as well (and plenty do!) you probably can not, even if you chafe at the notion that a teacher can teach your kid better than you can.
A lot of parents took their kids out of school/never put them in school because they thought that they could give their child a better education and make them a more creative, free thinking person. At least from my position, the parents I know could more often not. Child received sub-par education with giant holes in it, such as having never touched a bio lab or much of anything satisfactory in the 'hard sciences.' Present sections of education are spotty, such as grammar. Where teachers usually have defined rubrics and deadlines, parents often default to a lackadaisical 'it gets done when it gets done' structure which doesn't encourage development of timeliness and professional attitude towards completion of schoolwork. Parents often leave course structures incomplete in order to keep up with a rudimentary 'developmental schedule' expecting to keep their kids mostly on-par with what kids in schools are doing.
Then there's parents who want to shield their children from their peers. The 'socialization' argument is pretty heated. I'm often surprised with the shyness and withdrawn nature of kiddos I know to have been homeschooled, and a few of them have outright blamed their homeschooling for their discomfort with social situations. On the other side of the coin, there's a few who definitely turned out better people because they weren't thrust into the callous meat grinder of grade school social politics. Heh.
Then, of course, there's the parents who homeschool because they're terrified of not shielding their children to exposure to heathen notions or <insert political label here> 'indoctrinating thought' and boy that's a whole other issue.
Lastly, though, there's one reason which I've seen parents decide to homeschool based upon that generally seems sad, but overall turns out reasonable in my informal anecdotal experience. One which is different because it's based on what essentially amounts to desperation: they can't afford private school, but the schools where they live are clearly unacceptable, and they feel that they have no choice but to school their kids at home. I saw this in Baltimore and in rural Missouri.
On the whole it's pretty easy to point to the successes of homeschooling and use the model poster-children to prop up homeschooling but I think people are in remiss if they aren't seriously looking at how often it's not the right choice.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Under what classification could anyone really consider OSC sheltered? He is probably the most clear thinking "adult" I've ever met. (Here, I define adult as someone who reached voting age at least 15-20 years before me. Since I'm 26, there are a large number of legal adults that I consider still as much a "kid" as I am.) I disagree with him often on issues, and agree with him on others. I personally think that talking about Clinton's specific deeds was a horrid thing to happen in American schools, but since I was only in middle school at the time, I'm not sure what "current event" classes were really like before politician affairs were rampant knowledge. However, here is what I do know about Mr. Card. He has lived in at last two states (and I think three) in two very different geographical and cultural areas. He has done a mission in Brazil. He is well educated. He has raised children. He raised a handicapped son (anyone who doesn't think this is somethng that definitely adds a whole new list of experiences to your world is very deceived). He has lost both that son, and an unborn daughter. Now obviously some things are missing from this picture. He was never in the military (though his brother was). He hasn't been homosexual, or participated in nude mud wrestlin (that we know about). However, no single person can do everything. You talk about people being "sheltered" but in some ways you were sheltered too obviously. You lived in a world where as a young adult you could view casual drug use and premarital sex without having your stomach turn. That means that you didn't live that part of your life having such things be unfavorable or even shameful. Thus, you're missing a few experiences yourself! If we're all going to be open minded here, you must also respect the wish of others to raise children and grandchildren in a world where they won't be exposed to such things just by attending school.
I guess that's a good lead in to homeschooling. I used to think homeschooling was wonderful! This was mostly because almost all the homeschoolers I'd met were of the "poster type" variety. This was largely due to the fact that I was an intellectual poster child for our little rural school. (Not bragging, just giving background) The opportunities I had to meet children I didn't go to school with were very limitted since we lived in the middle of nowhere. All of my extra-local (not extra-curricular, but those that got me "out of town") activities centered around academic areas. Thus the kids I met were all highly motivated, intelligent, and well educated by their parents. Aside from a little bit of "shelteredness" (by this I mean they were slightly more innocent than other kids their age. They didn't know cuss words, and hadn't been playing kissing games since kindergarden) there was nothing truly abnormal about any of them. They were great!
Then I met a family that I am now aquainted with. The parents homeschooled because they were basically afraid of public school, and the kids didn't adjust well at first. Unfortunately, that means the kids have STILL not adjusted well to the outside world. The kids are all adults now (or nearly so) and I can't see any of them being able to fend for themselves in the world.
Around the time I met them, I also taught high school math (for my first and last time). I was disgusted to see that the way the administration kept the school's drop out rate low was to counsel parents of potential drop outs to legally pull their children out of school under the guise of "homseschooling" them. Under Texas law, as long as you say you are homeschooling your child, you have no responsibility to enroll them in public school, or even produce the curriculum you are using. The school would call in parents of students who seemed to have dropped out, and basically tell them that if they filled out a withdraw form saying they were homeschooling the children then the school wouldn't press trancy charges. Since most of the parents were rather poor, and truancy fines would have constituted a very large percent of the family budget, it's not shocking that almost all the parents quickly complied and filled out the one page form! This is the most disgusting abuse of the spirit of a lawy - and the worst reason for homeschooling I've ever seen!
Lastly, on spanking. Yes, there are many other disciplinary methods. Some of them work well, others not so well, and each one will have varied effectiveness on any particular child. Some will vary in effectiveness on the same child depending on age. Personally, I have found few other methods effective in preventing an 18-month-old from attempting to turn on a stove of microwave, or to keep a two-year-old from running out into traffic. In general, pain still means alot to children that young, since few of them have experienced it in any great quantity. Thus, using spankings for dangerous situations creates a very real association to a child.
My son actually seems to be cycling right now between discipline methods that work for him right now. Just after he turned three, he would do almost anything to earn a sticker on his reward chart. Then, for a few months, going to the corner was the worst possible event in his eyes. Unfortunately, now we're back to spanking. He still is only periodically interested in stickers, and the corner is not really such a bad place in his eyes at the moment. However, what I find interesting, is that I don't really have to actually spank him that often. I only have to say, "Do this before I count to <insert reasonable number here> or you'll get a spanking" and I suddently have a reasonably compliant child. I think though, that he's almost ready for certain levels of grounding or "restriction". Temper tantrums have flared up again as his fourth birthday neared, and no amount of corner time or spanking did anything for them, but taking away whatever he was playing with at the moment seemed to work pretty well. So I think I'll be trying that more in the future. The key is what many others have already said. You have to KNOW your child, and figure out what makes them tick.
On the other hand, beating your infant with an object is, of course, child abuse. No one I know advocates that - except for a few really bonkers guys on Yahoo Answers who are probably tolls anyway.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly enough, Pearl advocates both "training" children and homeschooling them. I just do not like the notion of hitting a child. I was hit by my mother when I lived with her and I don't think it had the best effect on me, nor was it necessary, especially when you take child development into effect. That's why I like Sears, Bowlby and Ainsworth. Because they seem to understand about children and how their minds work unlike Freud, behaviourist and the like.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: With all due respect, I don't think a lot of people understand homosexuality. Especially from a church perspective. Even if they have gay friends, they are not looking at things from the gay perspective but from a strictly religious perspective
With all due respect, if I'm working on an aircraft, I don't need to throw a wrench up the afterburner to know it doesn't belong there.
Trust Uncle Dave, a person does not have to try something to decide whether they feel it is moral or immoral.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's really not a respectful way of speaking about it. No one is saying go all Brokeback Mountain and have a love affair with a man that's all torrential and miserable, but a person can at least try to make some sort of attempt to understand gay people as PEOPLE and not as immoral sinners who should just turn straight.
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote: With all due respect, I don't think a lot of people understand homosexuality. Especially from a church perspective. Even if they have gay friends, they are not looking at things from the gay perspective but from a strictly religious perspective
With all due respect, if I'm working on an aircraft, I don't need to throw a wrench up the afterburner to know it doesn't belong there.
Trust Uncle Dave, a person does not have to try something to decide whether they feel it is moral or immoral.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
