I’d just like to start out by telling you that I love your books! You are, perhaps, the greatest science fiction author who is still living today. The amount of sales generated from your best-selling Ender’s saga is proof of this. I confess, however, that the main reason I’m writing you is not to adulate your ego, but to offer some advice that may anger you. I want you to know that my intent is not to anger and that I harbor no ill-will in saying what I will say. In fact, the reason why I’m saying this here is because I’ve received no response as to how to contact you directly, after asking around without so much as a response. (And so I fail to understand why, if you don't want to be contacted directly, you don't explictly say so on your official website.) But still, I feel this needs to be said because I want to return the favor that you’ve done me by writing such beautiful fiction.
Basically, I think that you need to try to relax more, and I mean this earnestly. As an empath, I can tell that you are carrying a very heavy burden. Please don’t worry so much as to how I know this, but ask yourself whether it is true, and if it is not, there is no reason for you to continue reading this letter. I believe that it’s alright to carry this burden if you wish to. I know how this is because I am carrying a similar burden. The extent to which you beat yourself up about it is the extent to which you pity others with the same burden, and what you send out into the world is what you get back, so it perhaps in your own best interests to tell yourself that it’s okay to be who you are and God is not going to punish you for being human with temptations, since to be human is to be tempted by this or that. All these so-called ‘ problems’ are like intelligence in that it can be used for good or evil. Therefore I believe it is not always the case that we should never act upon an inclination to do something, for whether or not we should act upon a temptation is left up to our own judgment. Although God (if you believe in Him) is the ultimate judge of all, we must also have faith in ourselves rather than acquiesce to those who purport to know the will of God.
You may be wondering how I know this about you. I know this for the same reason that you know how to conceive of characters that are realistic. We are both empathic in that we know how to put ourselves in the shoes of another. You prove that you are very skilled at shifting your perspective in your book, Character and Viewpoint. It surprised me that you had mentioned the word “homosexual” in the this book more than ten times even though you had no reason to do so, giving the impression that you knew what it was like to see things in the way that a homosexual sees things. What was especially surprising about this is that I had learned that you had also written a few articles against homosexuality, making claims that gave readers the false impression that you had absolutely no clue what it is like for homosexuals to be homosexual. I’m talking about such claims such as, 'it's a lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage since, to get those civil rights, all they have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage'. While this may be true of heterosexuals, it is far from true of homosexuals, since the inability to love women is precisely what makes a homosexual a homosexual. By the same token, we can see how this kind of logic can be applied to the other side of the debate. All those who claim that permitting gay marriage would be granting special rights and privileges to a minority -- and therefore somehow disrupt the balance of the status quo -- are proven wrong. For now, we can just as easily see that if gay marriage were allowed in a given area, everyone in that same area could enjoy that same civil right; all dissenters would have to do is find someone of the same sex willing to join them in marriage. But surely, as an intelligent person capable of empathy, you realize that either point is equally as moot. I am telling you this not because I have a bone to pick with you. I don’t even accuse you of being a homophobe. Rather, I am telling you this because it gives your readers the idea that you’re a hypocrite and that what you had written in Character and Viewpoint is a lie. I don’t believe that you are a hypocrite and I don’t believe that you’re consciously aware of the contradictions in your writing. I only say these things in behalf of your own interests. I don’t have my own agendas and I’m not trying to turn you to the ‘dark side’ of homosexuality. If you’re straight and you want to be straight, then that’s what is best for you. It’s important not to misinterpret me as insinuating that you are a closet homosexual. I don’t pretend to know your past or present, but the fact of the matter is that few, and certainly not all, homosexuals were sexually abused as a child so the phenomenon as a whole is not as pitiful as you seem to imply.
I’ll leave you with one thought. What I’m saying is not defamation. It is only defamatory if we both assume that there is something wrong about what I’m talking about, which I most certainly do not. Since you seem to assume that something is, its “defamatory” nature depends on your own perceptions. Since our beliefs create our own reality, which do you think is the better way to see things? Perhaps what God or Satan did not want us to realize is that Heaven and Hell are both right here on earth, simultaneously, but you don’t have to accept such an interpretation to accept my pragmatic concerns. I tell you this because I feel empathy (not sympathy!) for you, since we are alike in a few ways. I want you to be able to let go of your burden so as to be a freer person, like I have become. I, of course mean freedom as a state of mind, and not in terms of it being the absence of external constraints. While both freedoms are real, complete freedom is both.
I realize that saying this may go against your rules here, and that you may want to sue me because of this. However, I believe that there are some things that we need to do that are considered “wrong” or illegal to some, that are in fact for the greater good of humanity, and this happens to be one of those things. As a Christian, surely you must agree with Kierkegaard that a teleological suspension of the ethics is sometimes necessary to do the things that we have faith in. So, like Abraham, I am taking a leap of faith here in trusting that what is said here won’t be used against me. It’s my opinion that it can’t be used against me because I have spoken no evil; only the truth. Therefore your stringent restrictions do not frighten me and neither should they frighten anyone else, by means of controlling their behavior. Of course, if they said something that was actually defamatory, then I would agree that it would be well within your rights to sue, as you are a very important person and you don’t need to be brought down to their level.
Yours truly, Bryan
Posted by jjmelberg (Member # 7099) on :
whoa
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
So what exactly are you trying to say? I mean, that was a lot to write to come out confusing on the point you're making. I am, however, tempted to check if you're using empathy and sympathy how you think you are
And don't get me started on your "theology"
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Wow, how much more friendly could a first post be Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
quote: I’m talking about such claims such as, 'it's a lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage since, to get those civil rights, all they have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage'. While this may be true of heterosexuals, it is far from true of homosexuals, since the inability to love women is precisely what makes a homosexual a homosexual.
I believe OSC is speaking from a logical and legal point of view here. If marriage is defined as a bond between a man and a woman, then any man and any woman can get married regardless of their sexuality or their feelings for one another if they want marriage rights under the law. However, the "gay marriage" issue isn't about marriage, it is about civil property and custody rights, and should be treated as such, and that is why he says that civil rights are not being infringed upon when you are talking in terms of marriage.
Of course we are also talking about a man who writes characters. As an example, OSC is a practicing christian, but he has written many characters of other religions. He has even created new religions in some of his books. So while he can understand where a person is coming from, he doesn't necessarily agree with their point of view. Of course he would be a horrible author if it was any other way.
Truthfully I don't know if he understands homosexuality or the drives behind homosexuality because he is not a homosexual. There is no genetic proof of sexual predisposition, and until there is, he and most other people will continue to believe that it is a lifestyle choice that is controlled by concious or sub-concious drives in your brain.
At any rate, his religion says it is wrong, nature says that the physical act is pointless, his has concerns that lie in the area of whether or not it is possible to have a healty family environment as a homosexual household, and he can't identify with the personal homosexual point of view, so I can understand why he would have the opinions he does.
just my 2 cents
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: As an empath, I can tell ...
Were you on ST:TNG by chance?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:you may want to sue me because of this.
I think you're overestimating yourself here.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't agree with OSC on a lot of things....
But I bet we both believe you are an idiot right now, if he thinks anything about you at all.
Who says that your repeated inquiries haven't reached him? Maybe he just has nothing to say to you, nor does he have any obligation to respond to you regardless of what you say, or what you want to discuss.
I would say that people like you are the reason (or one of them) that he rarely visits us here any more.
I believe I understand why now.
Kwea
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dear Orson Scott Card:
Orson, I'm your number one fan.
I know everything about you.
Please share some frozen custard with me, and I'll show you my comic book collection.
Sincerely,
Scott R
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
I'll get some frozen custard with you, but I don't think Uncle Orson will go to Culver's with us Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
This letter says far too little in comparision to its length. You could have made this far more concise.
Since kacard obviosly saw this, i'm assuming OSC did too, and i really hope he made more sense out of your letter than i did. For example, what on earth are you talking about what you say he carries a burden? i'm sure he does carry burdens, but you explained next to nothing about what you were actually talking about.
The whole big paragraph in the middle seemed to be about how he could put himself in the place of gay people even though he wasn't gay himself, so that makes him epathetic. fine, i agree with that. but that's all you have to say. five or six sentences. it gets your whole point across. not an enormous painfully long paragraph.
And now that we've established that, what the heck are you trying to say? You know that he's carrying a burden because you are empathic, and so is he, and....?
work on it. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think I'm MORE likely to have frozen custard with you, o unknown, virtual person, than OSC is to take this 'Bryan's' advice.
And that's saying a bit. . .
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dear OSC, OSC good. OSC bad. Love, Me
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
And kudos to kacard for a characteristically classy response.
I'd buy her frozen custard any day.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well that was highly irregular.
I think he makes some interesting points on OSC's views of homosexuality, and as I disagree rather greatly with OSC on this issue I have a little sympathy for the point.
But other than that it sounds a lot like crazy ramblings, and crazy ramblings don't usually get very far.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
Now now, this was written in the best intentions by someone who felt that the author would recognize a perceived conection between himself and the fan (even though they had never met) through the writing of the letter.
Haven't you ever read something from an author before and REALLY REALLY wanted to talk with them about their ideas and thoughts?
I have. I usually then remind myself that I am just some guy in Texas with no real personal contact to the author other than my money which is now in his pocket.
Was it naive of the poster to post this here? Probably.
Is it right for us to mock the poster for trying to communicate with someone who he perceives as someone worthwhile to talk to? Probably not.
A simple "OSC doesn't really respond to posts like these." seems a little nicer.
But hey, I am a big softie and not all about the cynical wit.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Being a big softie is so 2004. 2005 is now "The Year of the Cynical Wit."
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
LMAO Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
kwea says that if it s the year for the cynical wit then you allneed to pay him and he expects it to be retroactive to the year he was born.... not that he really expects you to pay him with his being cynical and all .
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
I read the post, and I admit that English is not the best of my languages - just ask Kwea and he'll tell you about my "Jenni-ese". Did anyone else have as much trouble as I did understanding what this guy was saying? Was there a point to all this in there somewhere that I completely missed? Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
No, we were all pretty much confused.
I think he's relying heavily on both his and OSC's empathy to allow OSC to understand what he's saying.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Frozen custard?!
What's it like?
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
I think he's on something...
I'm thinking LSD
Or some new drug that causes people to have a phobia about people who have phobias....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"kwea says that if it s the year for the cynical wit then you allneed to pay him and he expects it to be retroactive to the year he was born."
There are two parts to being a cynical wit. He has the cynicism down. Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
umm . . . that was witty, Tom
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
As a fellow "person who is able to feel what others feel" I can tell you, oh poster of this letter, that you really need to keep your empathic feeling to yourself. Reasons. 1. You sound crazy 2. OSC probably doesn't care one cent about your post. 3. It is extremely rude to show forth your observations to a person who has not asked for your advice. And finally... 4. That is really the wrong weed to be smoking.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I remember reading OSC's books and feeling shocked and delighted that my own thoughts were dancing through someone else's words. I also remember finding the site and what a fabulous experience that was. I hope this person can have as good of an experience.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Um... I think this person thinks he's already had that kind of experience.
[ January 05, 2005, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Vid ]
Posted by DocCoyote (Member # 5612) on :
Okay, my attempt at advice for Mr. Card:
Continue writing as you write.
Continue believing what you believe, unless you choose to change your mind.
That we'll probably never meet (I don't make it to NC too often these days) is my disappointment, but I doubt it particularly keeps you awake nights.
Based on your essays, it's obvious to me that we disagree on many topics, and agree on many more. What a wonderful relationship for two strangers to have! How unique!
Good evening, all. Lisa
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
This letter was an insidious dagger wrapped in a nicely wrapped box.
Mmm, who does that remind me of?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Frozen custard?!
What's it like?
In normal parts of America, it's called soft serve ice cream.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
There's a great, great difference between frozen custard and soft serve. If you've had frozen custard, you'd know Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Wouldn't an empath be able to really feel it when someone was overcome with a bad case of the overly-familiar fanboy-induced willies?
Work on the empathy a bit more, back off the Chapmanishness.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote: If you've had frozen custard, you'd know
Yeah.....you would........frozen custard.....evil...... Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
MMMMM...it's like ice cream, but 10 times better.
No joke, it really is.
Kwea
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What is up with this thread? It keeps disapearing...
I will let it go if need be, I just thought it was weird.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I am now officially entertained. Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Hey Bryan, can I buy some pot from you? I'm not much of a pot-smoker, but the stuff you have is obviously reaaally good. I can tell because, uh, I'm empathic. Or something.
Oh, and by the way, writing a rambling, nonsensical post on somebody's message board is not grounds for a lawsuit. OSC couldn't sue you for this gibberish even if he wanted to. And even if he could, I doubt he'd bother. His time and his money are more important than this.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote:There's a great, great difference between frozen custard and soft serve. If you've had frozen custard, you'd know
C'mon, dude, spill the beans. Is it custard-flavored? Is that the difference? Like the stuff in a bismarck donut?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I can write the best Ender's Game script EVER!
AMEN!
WOOT!
<T>
Enjoy My T-Shirts and Art!
LOVE mE!
Jesus Loves You!
Double Woot!
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote: I tell you this because I feel empathy (not sympathy!) for you, since we are alike in a few ways. I want you to be able to let go of your burden so as to be a freer person, like I have become. I, of course mean freedom as a state of mind, and not in terms of it being the absence of external constraints. While both freedoms are real, complete freedom is both.
quote: I only say these things in behalf of your own interests. I don’t have my own agendas and I’m not trying to turn you to the ‘dark side’ of homosexuality.
I get the impression that you’re extremely burdened. How can you say you don’t have an agenda? If you weren’t burdened or have an agenda then why would you have gone to such lengths to lecture someone about how flawed you think they are based on your perception of them? Why do you care what Orson says or believes? Why does it matter to you so much?
My belief is that one of the heaviest burdens that one can take on in life is to personally invest themselves in what other people think of them. My belief is that it is also a damaging and pointless expression of my spiritual soul to buy into what people think of me. I don’t believe that empathy is intended for such activity.
If you would like to empathically try to understand me you are invited to do so. But don’t be fooled by what you think you perceive.
-steev
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:I can write the best Ender's Game script EVER!
AMEN!
WOOT!
<T>
Enjoy My T-Shirts and Art!
LOVE mE!
Jesus Loves You!
Double Woot!
Thor, I love you. Will you marry me?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Damn, I'm already married.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
Even though this was mainly for Card and not for you guys, I think I should clarify some of my more obscure points lest everyone get the wrong idea. What was perhaps naive of me was to think that Card would actually read this. But if he doesn't, he doesn't. I'm not even entirely confident that saying this will have any effect whatsoever. That's why it's advice..advice that could be not as pragmatic as I think it is, and such it's not my choice whether it is accepted or not. I'm not even in a position to know what might happen if it is "accepted".
I didn't expect Card to reply; that much doesn't matter to me. I did, however, anticipate that I would be mocked and ridiculed...such is human nature.
When I speak in terms of empathy, I don't mean Diana Troi empathy, but the ability to try to put yourself in another person's shoes to get a better idea of what they might be feeling (not thinking). I know this sounds presumptous of me, and if I came to these conclusions by logical deduction, it would be, but I came to these conclusions intuitively instead. I leave open the possibility that I am completely wrong, but you guys are no better at knowing with any degree of certainty than I am. That's why I said, "if this isn't true of you, you don't have to read any more".
So, no, I'm not on drugs, I'm not a religious nut, and I'm not as fanatic about being a fan as I must appear. I understand that this sounds a little flaky, but I don't know how to say it without sounding like a lunatic to some.
As for being a dagger wrapped as a gift, if this is a dagger it's not my intent, but even if this is a dagger, I'm not the one wielding it.
As for trying to get something out of this, maybe I am and maybe I'm not, but it's not what's been imputed to me by some others.
[ January 06, 2005, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Brilliant, Thor Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote: What was perhaps naive of me was to think that Card would actually read this
I'd like to point out to you that kacard is OSC's wife. Maybe you should pay some attention to her post. Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
I'm new around here so I don't know the who's who, but thanks for the heads-up.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Strawcatz,
How do you determine between an emotional response to OSC's writings and intuition? Why is intuition better than logical deduction?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Why is intuition better than logical deduction?
Because Kirk was better than Spock. It's was true in somebody's fantasy world, therefore it is true in real life.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
Intuition isn't better than logic. Both are tools that are used for different jobs. While logic can be driven by our emotions, intuition is above that, at least in theory. When I get an intuitive insight, its as if something hits you all the suddenly on a level that is far above knee-jerk emotional responses. My explanation is admittedly inaccurate but I'll just play it safe and say that I cannot be 100% sure that my intuitive insights aren't dependent upon my emotioanal weather, but that is true of just about anything.
Also, I'd like to apologize for being forward and possibly rude in the sense that I am not conforming very well to social conventions. It's said that a spoon full of sugar can help the medicine go down but sugar has never been my forte and it's wrong of me to pretend that I can produce sugar. It should be noted, however, that Neo from the Matrix never had any sugar when he chose his pill. The truth is two-faced in that it can hurt us or it can help us, depending on how we choose to perceive it. That's why I don't want this to be uncritically accepted as "true" or "false" by the reader, as I don't want it to be accepted unless it's actually true, which I am not 100% entirely sure that it is. I strongly believe that it's true, but belief is belief and truth is truth. Sometimes we just need faith to mediate between the two.
[ January 06, 2005, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
This has nothing to do with intuition or logic; it has everything to do with disagreeing with OSC's stance on gay marriage and making very subtle but obvious assumptions as to his orientation and motives.
Let's cut past the garbage, shall we?
It's a clever tactic attempted time and time again by those opposed to universal truth, but truth does indeed win out in the end.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I just think that logging on to the man's forum and presuming to try to give him unsolicited advice about how to live his life better--especially considering he's in his 50s and has done pretty damn well for himself so far--is an astounding display of hubris. I understand that you disagree with his opinion of homosexuality. So do I. But what qualifications do you have to tell him he's living his life wrong simply because you disagree with his opinion? Since when is living a healthy and happy life contingent upon "agreeing with Bryan"?
I don't have a problem with coming here and debating his opinions. He writes down his opinions and posts them on websites for anyone to read, so he's accepting the fact that people who disagree with him will read what he says and possibly write contrary opinions. So if you want to come here and debate the points he's made on homosexuality, or anything else, we'll be happy to indulge you. But all this stuff about how you want to help him get rid of his burden or keep him out of Hell or whatever it is you're going on about isn't going to be very well received--not by us, and definitely not by him.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
I'm not interested in playing psychological chess games with fellow fans of Mr.Card. What's said is said and if Card or his wife believes this to be untrue or completely unhelpful in any sense then it should be deleted, lest it be allowed to stagnate and negativity spawn from what others choose to read into it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It's said that a spoon full of sugar can help the medicine go down but sugar has never been my forte and it's wrong of me to pretend that I can produce sugar.
It would not be wrong to try.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
In other words, you have no interest in Hatrack and don't care a whit for anything we say and don't want to converse with us at all, but you have the Secret of Living a Happy and Healthy Life (TM), and in your boundless benevolence have decided to share it with Orson Scott Card because you think his life is sad and lacking and doomed to damnation and he requires your assistance to turn himself around. Okay, well, good luck with all that.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
Try? But I had tried. Really, *chuckles*, if you think I haddn't tried then perhaps that goes to show just how poor I am at it.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
Doomed to damnation? No, if by damnation you mean burning in the firey pits for all enternity. My idea of damnation is fear, guilt, anxiety and insecurity in the real world. Card does not need my assistence to turn his life around. First of all, this would be his choice and not mine. Secondly, I only provide the catalyst to start the reaction, provided that there is a seed of truth in any of my words. People can only help themselves, so I don't want to be "relied" upon.
I only address your points because I believe that Card and his associates are probably thinking along the same lines that you are. It is therefore helpful for us all to try to be honest and sincere so as to facilitate communication.
[ January 06, 2005, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I remember a few years ago when a reporter on Salon interviewed OSC about something and could not get off the topic of his attitude towards homosexuality; she was clearly hung up on the fact that an author with whom she sympathized, who wrote things that she found beautiful and moving, disagreed with her on some basic fundamentals of philosophy. It soured the interview, and I have no doubt that it's soured the books he's written -- for her, at least.
I have my own disagreements with Card's politics, and don't appreciate his tendency in later books to insert multi-page treatises on those politics in the mouths of his characters; it's jarring to me to see a character hijacked like that, and I'd rather he stick to what's essential to the story. (And if the polemics are perceived as being central to the story, I'd rather he came up with a story that didn't rely on polemic. I think he can aspire to more than, say, Tom Clancy. But I digress.)
The point, though, is that it was unfair of that reporter to assume that she knew Card well enough to judge his character, particularly when she started second-guessing motivations that he'd been perfectly clear in explaining in print before. You do the same thing, and don't even have the excuse of an interview; you've never even conversed with the man, unlike several of the people here and unlike that reporter, and yet are willing to make rather presumptuous guesses -- ones that undercut contradict his own stated reasoning -- about his life and philosophy.
Stick around Hatrack. You'll get the opportunity to see the Card family in action -- and I guarantee that will answer many of your unspoken questions.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
The difference between me and that reporter on Salon was that she was projecting her own political ideologies and fears upon Card and card was unconsciously picking up on those fears. That's why Card appeared to be uncomfortable even though he had no reason to be. I don't pretend to be trying to advance some ideology here and I approach the matter sincerely without any fears or selfish agendas. If it were the case that I were trying to advance such an agenada, I would whine and complain if an administrator threatened to delete this thread in the same way that that the Salon.com interviewer would whine and complain if her superiors decided that it would be best to delete that information so that other people wouldn't get a poor opinion of Mr.Card. The only reason this is public is because I couldn't find a way to send this to Card personally.
Incidentally, I believe that the Salon.com article should be deleted because it is doing more harm than good for both the political left and right. There was a time when I shared in her frustration, but that was a time when I was left-wing. I have since disposed of such self-defeating ideologies since that time.
It is my contention that politics should be subordinate to psychology and not the reverse.
[ January 06, 2005, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
please please please don't delete this thread. I proposed to Thor, I want him to see this.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
Also, if you guys would like some empirical evidence to support my psychological theory, please see here:
This whole thing tiptoes on the edge of the creepy fan -- the "I know what he feels and what he really means, what is really inside of him."
A few steps down the road is Mark David Chapman waiting outside the Dakota for John Lennon, Catcher in the Rye in one hand, a .38 special in the other.
Read the man's works and enjoy them for what they are. But remember, the actions of characters in a book, or even their words, don't necessarily reflect the beliefs and views of the author, especially a very good author. They are characters, fictions.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Strawcatz, I think part of the problem was because it didn't taste so much like sugar as like rice paper. Kind of sticky and we aren't sure just exactly what it is, or even if it is edible.
It is this particular statement I'm questioning:
quote: I know this sounds presumptous of me, and if I came to these conclusions by logical deduction, it would be, but I came to these conclusions intuitively instead.
Why would logical deductions have been presumptious and your intuitive ones not?
Let me say plainly what I think you were trying to imply. You seem to believe that Orson Scott Card is homosexual, but is repressing it because he is part of a strict religious culture, and his statements are reflective of that inner conflict. Is that the burden you speak of?
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
The difference between me and creepy fans who are a danger to the celebrities they adulate is that their creepiness is founded upon passion. Passion can consist of either love or hate, and I feel neither toward Mr.Card. I am trying to approach the matter as calmly and neutrally as possible.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
quote:Let me say plainly what I think you were trying to imply. You seem to believe that Orson Scott Card is homosexual, but is repressing it because he is part of a strict religious culture, and his statements are reflective of that inner conflict. Is that the burden you speak of?
That depends how you define homosexual. If a homosexual is a person who engages in homosexual acts then Mr.Card is not necessarily a homosexual. His writing gives me the impression that he would never, ever engage in such an act.
I'm merely implying that the degree to which we repress as certain part of our personality (in this case, what Jung would call the anima) is the degree that we that its psychological reality is projected upon others. If Card pities homosexuals, it means that he's pitying himself. I could suggest that Card has homoerotic urges, but I don't want to do this because this is not necessarily so, especially if he is not conscious of them. I just think it would be a great thing if Card could accept all parts of himself equally, and then he wouldn't have to worry about ever having something slip out in a way that he didn't intend, such as we saw in the Salon.com interview.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I have seen in several places the idea that Harry Potter is about homosexuality. This is the same idea. I think...I think that when someone is an outsider, it is easy to assume that all outsiders are outsiders for the same reason they are. Especially if someone is ambivelent about that part of themselves, they think that if it is only that part that keeps them from the happy Shangria-lai the rest of the world lives in.
S, you're not the first to suggest it, but you're just as wrong as the others. OSC's a great writer and understands human nature. I also suspect that most people feel like outsiders for one reason or another - especially teenagers. It's well-documented and it's part of the story of ourselves that we tell to ourselves.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote: The difference between me and that reporter on Salon was that she was projecting her own political ideologies and fears upon Card and card was unconsciously picking up on those fears.
And you're not?
quote: I don't pretend to be trying to advance some ideology here and I approach the matter sincerely without any fears or selfish agendas.
Some how I don't get that impression. Sincerity and fear are oozing from your text.
quote: If it were the case that I were trying to advance such an agenada, I would whine and complain if an administrator threatened to delete this thread in the same way that that the Salon.com interviewer would whine and complain if her superiors decided that it would be best to delete that information so that other people wouldn't get a poor opinion of Mr.Card.
Whining and complaining are not the only ways to advance an agenda.
Your agenda is to "protect" Mr. Card from what you see as a flawed belief is it not? What he believes is irrelevant. It's what you believe about your self that matters.
[ January 06, 2005, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Steev ]
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
If fear is oozing from my original text, it is because, just before I posted this, someone told me to be very, very careful if I'm going to say these things, lest I get sued. I now realize that their fears were unfounded and I should not have seemed so defensive when I spoke about legal issues. As a human, it's natural that I would come to feel other people's fears, though I feel that I am in more control of them than are most people in most cases. And if I'm not in control, at least I'm aware.
[ January 06, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote: As a human, it's natural that I would come to feel other people's fears, though I feel that I am in more control of them than are most people in most cases. And if I'm not in control, at least I'm aware.
Which is a good thing?
EDIT: Sorry that was meant as a question.
[ January 06, 2005, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Steev ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
That is at direct contradiction with what you said about empathy in your first article. Empathy suggests an ability to ascertain how someone is feeling about something that they have had no experience with.
Also, there was more going on in the Salon article, if I remember correctly. The author also repeatedly implied that Card had suffered some persecution from his older brother, and was fixated on how his writings revealed his psychological dysfunctions. That is what made Card uncomfortable, I believe, not any specific repression or part of his personality, but the presumption by the author that she knew his flaws better than he knew himself.
And that is exactly what you are doing.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
quote:Your agenda is to "protect" Mr. Card from what you see as a flawed belief is it not? What he believes is irrelevant. It's what you believe about your self that matters.
The belief is only flawed if it fails to correspond to Mr.Card's actual needs and I could only venture a guess as to what those needs are. That's why it's up to him to decide if this is needful or unneedful. I felt an altruistic urge and decided to act upon it so that an alternative could be presented. If we can see no alternative, we have no choice and we are stuck in the same patterns for the rest of our lives. I don't ascribe a moral category to these patterns, but ask the other people to ask themselves if they are doing what they truly want to do with their lives.
But you're correct that I'm only responsible for my own needs. Just that, when you look out into the world that see that people don't seem to be very happy you wish you could do something to help without imposing on their freedom. Perhaps this is a paradox and I can do nothing at all. I fully accept the consequences of my actions.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote: If fear is oozing from my original text, it is because, just before I posted this, someone told me to be very, very careful if I'm going to say these things, lest I get sued.
This makes it crystal clear that you do not know Card even as well as the fans on this board.
You are claiming special knowledge. When doing so, we need to be very, very careful that we are not acting on our own needs, desires, and hubris. But your claim of such is ringing false in light of the misperceptions you have clearly shown of him.
I do, in fact, think that it is presumptious to give him advice based on your gut feeling that something is wrong with him when you have only read his books and a couple of articles.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote: Just that, when you look out into the world that see that people don't seem to be very happy you wish you could do something to help without imposing on their freedom. Perhaps this is a paradox and I can do nothing at all. I fully accept the consequences of my actions.
However valiant your actions may seem, unsolicited advice is never respected. Example is what people respect the most.
[ January 06, 2005, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Steev ]
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Mighty full of oneself, aren't we, Straw? Posted by jjmelberg (Member # 7099) on :
Straw, I feel sorry for you. Good luck, bro.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
If I appear to be talking in matters of what is morally right or wrong, that is not my intention. Systems of universalized ethics are responsible for the gap we see between "good" and "evil", as "evil" people are those who have given up trying to conform to a standard that is too high for their own humanity. We are only able to assess our own way of being. Socrates never told someone that they ought to believe this or that, but rather he had them examine their own assumptions so that they could figure out for themselves if these assumptions were important enough to hold onto.
So I'm only "high and mighty" if you choose to uncritically accept your own system of morality and project it upon my words.
[ January 06, 2005, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Your motive is admirable. I can understand it.
But I do not believe the patterns are as you believe them to be, and you have already admitted you do not know his needs.
I once read a book called "Goodbye, I love you", by Carol Lynn Pearson. Her husband of some years decided he could no longer repress his homosexual desires. As a result, they parted, on very good terms. She remained his friend. She nursed him through dying of AIDS.
And all I could think was that he'd thrown away his entire life to fulfill his sexual desires. He lost his family. He lost a most precious woman who, despite his despising her own nature, never broke her vows to him. He left his job. And then he literally did lose his life. How much did he gain, really, for what he gave up?
Freedom, you say? Not being repressed?
I would rather be repressed with such a family, companion, and life as he had than lead the life he had after he abandoned them to chase after his sexual urges. I would rather die than hurt the ones I loved as much as he hurt them. I would never be happy, knowing what I'd done.
If we seek after our own happiness, we will inevitably lose it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I would rather be repressed with such a family, companion, and life as he had than lead the life he had after he abandoned them to chase after his sexual urges. I would rather die than hurt the ones I loved as much as he hurt them. I would never be happy, knowing what I'd done.
Bravo.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
I think you might just be correct in your concerns...
I certainly don't want to hurt anyone, just as I certainly don't want to be crucified
So, should we have vote? If these "truths" are too dangerous to be spoken, this thread should not exist. If, instead, there is some pragmatic use of this thread existing, then let it be.
What should I do?
[ January 06, 2005, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote: So I'm only "high and mighty" if you choose to uncritically accept your own system of morality and project it upon my words.
Why did you even let that comment bother you?
quote: So, should we have vote? If these "truths" are too danger to be spoken, this thread should not exist. If, there is some pragmatic use of this thread existing, then let it be.
What should I do?
Vote on what? No one as agreed that any real "truths" have even been spoken. The debate will rage on. I've been on the Internet since 1987 and I can tell you this for sure.
Whenever discussions like these arise, they rarely end amicably if at all.
[ January 06, 2005, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Steev ]
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
If only negativity and toxicity can come of this, then I renounce everything I have said.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
Renouncing everything is a bit extreme don't you think?
[ January 06, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Steev ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I have never believed in deleting a thread I started.
No truth is too dangerous to be spoken in the appropriate place, and nothing you've said is inappropriate to this place, though many people may have disagreed with you on several levels. But disagreement isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even if we never come to coincide when it happens, we both learn something of ourselves and others.
Stay and be welcome.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
Yes.. but if there is a middle-way, I don't know what it is. I merely admit my ignorance in how what I'm saying can be used for good.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I once read a book called "Goodbye, I love you", by Carol Lynn Pearson. Her husband of some years decided he could no longer repress his homosexual desires. As a result, they parted, on very good terms. She remained his friend. She nursed him through dying of AIDS.
And all I could think was that he'd thrown away his entire life to fulfill his sexual desires. He lost his family. He lost a most precious woman who, despite his despising her own nature, never broke her vows to him. He left his job. And then he literally did lose his life. How much did he gain, really, for what he gave up?
I read that book. I had several reactions, but first among was being absolutely appalled that he got married, knowing that he felt the way that he did.
To his credit, he told her about it before they got married. I couldn't believe she was dumb enough to marry someone KNOWING that he didn't desire her physically and that their life would always be an act for him. An act that he very much wanted to want, and that he would try very hard to live, but always still an act.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
We can't vote, because we don't share your basic assumptions: that you have revealed anything like a "dangerous truth" here, and that what is coming out of this is negativity. What we see is this: you have postulated a thesis. Some of us are debating your thesis, and others are commenting on what we believe to be a ridiculously presumptuous tone from you. Because anything you said is dangerous? No. Because it's what we do. Look around, and you'll see it all over the place. It's called discussion, and sometimes it does not go the way you want it to. But it is neither dangerous nor negative. It may not be what you intended, but, generally speaking, once you start a thread here, what you intended is irrelevant.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote: It's called discussion, and sometimes it does not go the way you want it to. But it is neither dangerous nor negative. It may not be what you intended, but, generally speaking, once you start a thread here, what you intended is irrelevant.
Replace "you" with "everyone".
[ January 06, 2005, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Steev ]
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
Yeah, that's why I put it in quotations, because neither of us know for sure whether it is true or false, since it is based on theories and faiths-claims that are not easily proven or disproven.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Strawcatz, welcome to Hatrack.
quote: While logic can be driven by our emotions, intuition is above that, at least in theory.
Your initial post aside, I find this statement the opposite of what I believe, and that is always interesting to me. I believe much of our experience is based on old tapes of prior experiences. I think our emotions are how those tapes are accessed. (This is based a lot on my reading of Emotional Intelligenc by Goleman). Actually, I think some of these tapes are instinctive, or if not instinctive in the sense of a behavior meant to preserve life, inborn.
I don't know if that is what you mean by intuition. I feel many important ideas are past logical scrutiny. But in general I distrust intuition. Insofar as logic can be used to support any argument, a position held due to emotion is no less likely to be logical than an unemotional one.
I have homosexual urges. I have urges to rob banks. I have urges to kill people. It's called mortality. Card wrote with alarming detail about Alvin Miller's desire to throw baby Alvin down the stairs. Does that mean Card secretly wishes to kill his children? Perhaps. I know I think of it, but I acknowledge the thought and then move on. The fact that there is homosexuality in Card's books shows he is not repressing it.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
The difference between logic and intuition, I believe, is that logic is a cognitive faculty while intuition is a perceptive category like seeing and hearing. That which we see does not make any sense on its own, but needs to be interpreted by our cognitive processes of mind.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pfft.
You used the word 'lest.'
Automatic disqualification for serious consideration. You are hereby relegated to eat with the four-year olds ever after.
MWAHAAA!
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
*smirks* Yeah, I suppose that's a bad habit of mine. If I want to talk descriptively rather than normatively about matters, I should avoid "lest" since it is a normative word.
I suppose you could say that my language development was somewhat stunted.
[ January 06, 2005, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Eat your broccoli, buddy. No ice cream 'til it's all finished.
Stop kicking your sister under the table.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Or he might just be saying you show off. Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
How I write is the way I write.. I use no thesauruses and such; I just write spontaneously. I blame reading way too much antiquated philosophy Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
The idea that intuition is perceptual is interesting. I would seem to me that if this were the case, we are constantly perceiving intuition, but it only becomes noticeable with it is at odds with logic or one of the other senses.
But then, I think everyone is continually broadcasting and receiving subtle messages about mood and mental state. We only notice when there is something worth noticing, just like we don't store or recall most of what we see. So while I didn't ever mock your initial statement about empathy, my view carries with it the belief that we also are receiving messages from God.
Posted by Oosoom (Member # 7220) on :
You know, when you really admire someone--who you think they are, what they do, how they seem --the desire to interact with them is overwhelming. Then, when you do meet them, (if you are so lucky) instead of revealing your cleverness and remarkable insight into life, you stumble, falling all over yourself trying to let them know every emotional connection you have felt reading their work or fantasizing about what a difference you can make in their life. So instead of making a real, honest connection, you simply reveal that you have a strong foolish side--and that you're nervous or maybe a little too earnes in your wish to communicate so much.
Maybe this is like that??
Maybe not.
OSC is a remarkably decent, caring man. My guess is he will take the good part I expect is there in your message, and the rest he will be gracious enough to discard as . . stumbling.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Okay, according to a Google search, frozen custard is generally more thick and creamy than soft serve, and has a higher fat percentage. They also use eggs in custard, whereas many soft serve brands do not.
Glad I got that settled.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
Strawcatz, i'm getting the feeling that you are a very intelligent person who has gone insane.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Oosoom,
Here, here. I know I've done my share of foolish stumbling...
Do you ever read Octavia Butler?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:The debate will rage on. I've been on the Internet since 1987 and I can tell you this for sure.
Whenever discussions like these arise, they rarely end amicably if at all.
You may be intimately familiar with the internet in general, Steev, but Hatrack isn't like that. We're unlikely to come to a consensus on this subject, and it will undoubtedly not be the last time that we chew the subject over, but it's more likely than not that this thread will end amicably--probably with us discussing something completely unrelated, or with us producing a torrent of bad puns.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
Am I insane? No, I don't believe so. Reckless? Probably. Eccentric? Without a doubt.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote: You may be intimately familiar with the internet in general, Steev, but Hatrack isn't like that. We're unlikely to come to a consensus on this subject, and it will undoubtedly not be the last time that we chew the subject over, but it's more likely than not that this thread will end amicably--probably with us discussing something completely unrelated, or with us producing a torrent of bad puns.
You’re quite right.
For me Hatrack is now the most civil place I've been on the Internet although thread conversation derailment is as old as the hills.
I used to belong to another group for one of my many hobbies. For about six years they lived in piece and understanding but one day things started degrading and within a mater of months the whole forum was dissolved forever. All I could do was sit back and watch. Thread derailment didn’t even work. It was one train wreck after another. That was almost five years ago.
Even the most civilized forums can still succumb to disarray, usually when it's least expected.
[ January 06, 2005, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Steev ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So all the interesting threads moved to this side and I didn't realize it. I see a couple of new people have posted heartfelt things here. Welcome to hatrack.
Glad to have you, but be warned: this is a place that causes lots of thinking. If you aren't ready to examine and question your own ideas and motives this probably isn't the place for you.
You don't have to change your mind, but you'll get good results if you are willing to examine the ideas with respect and courtesy. Otherwise it tends to be demanded and you tend to get blown off. But if you go into it with a good spirit, normally the rewards are tenfold.
AJ
Posted by Oosoom (Member # 7220) on :
No to Octavia Baker. I just looked her up in our library data base and, judged by the covers of her books, she looks interesting. Of course, one should never, ever judge anything by its outward appearance--which is sort of why Strawcat is in the place where he is.
I've been browsing the discussion threads here. People sure are preoccupied with Homosexuality recently/currently. I have to wonder why, when Gay people are so determined to create a world for themselves which is so decidedly outside the mainstream of the heterosexual one, they are so bent on coercing everyone else--like 98 percent of the world--to validate that world.
Just a thought. Probably not a very interesting or entertaining one at that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I have to wonder why, when Gay people are so determined to create a world for themselves which is so decidedly outside the mainstream of the heterosexual one, they are so bent on coercing everyone else--like 98 percent of the world--to validate that world."
It has been my experience that when I find myself wondering how people could possibly be so silly or inconsistent on a given issue, I have usually worded the question improperly or else made assumptions that they are not making when they reach their own conclusions.
In other words, your "wondering" on this topic depends on certain assumptions that I believe you would do well to reconsider. Perhaps the issue is not that gay people are inexplicably hypocritical, but rather that you are ascribing to them motivations that they do not possess and are therefore understandably confused by behavior which seems inconsistent with the motivations you have invented for them.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
I think Tom has the right idea. It's interesting that the ones that would accuse me of only seeing the surface of things are the ones who projects intentions onto the surfaces of other's actions. The whole virtue of intuition and empathy is to see beneath the surface of things.
[ January 07, 2005, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
But inuition and empathy presumes truth, as if the empathetic someone has the authority to guess that what THEY feel is somehow real for the other person.
To make such presumptions without ever meeting them, without talking to the subject, is a dangerous sort of arrogance. Especially when it is couched with gentle excuses and roundabout ways to avoiding one's responsibility that they are making boldfaced accusations.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
Uhh.. not quite. Empathy is a sort of attunement with other people. If the emotions you pick up are not the actual emotions of the other person then it's not empathy but something else. Inuition tries to grasp the unmediated reality that lies below the surface of things. Usually, what you get is what you get and you can't always make sense of it. It just sort of comes to you instantaneously from out of no where. So, if I'm incorrect, I'm incorrect in my interpretations, not in my perceptions.
To judge others is an entirely different matter, something that I try to keep to a minimum. And to presume what other's intentions are is a completely self-defeating activity, though in many cases it is inevitable.
[ January 07, 2005, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by Oosoom (Member # 7220) on :
"wondering" on this topic depends on certain assumptions that I believe you would do well to reconsider. Perhaps the issue is not that gay people are inexplicably hypocritical, but rather that you are ascribing to them motivations that they do not possess and are therefore understandably confused by behavior which seems inconsistent with the motivations you have invented for them.
What motivations would one conclude from the pressure they exert these days--meaning within the past (even) two years?
If interpreting the furious activities of many in the Gay community to legalize same sex marriage, to insist that they be granted (somehow) guarantees that no one suggest their lifestyle is anything other than laudible--even legally challenging or otherwise maligning those speaking such dissent aloud--if interpreting that to mean they have other motivations than those perhaps implied by my "wonderings" then I wish to be set straight.
I am not responding so literally to Strawcat's worry that OSCar is overburdened by his "failure" to embrace his suppressed homosexual urges. I guess my response was directed more broadly. Reading the threads on this site as well as living in one of the most liberal areas of the country has led me to the place I am in right now. I would not assume to understand all motives of any person--who can? And certainly not of a whole group of people I have no intimate knowledge of. Yet, I do interpret many Gay's seeming insistence that other people validate their choice as coercive. As a heterosexual, one sometimes feels a remarkable pressure from Gay people to declare their traditional views of sexual behavior as small-minded, almost Neanderthal, that belief in and adherence to traditional views of sexual pairing is something we must apologize for. I don't ask that Gay people apologize for their lifestyle. I just ask that they don't ask me to pity myself because I disagree with it.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Perhaps what we are saying is that assuming an emotional reaction is empathy and intuition, and then giving advice based on that to someone you don't know is what is arrogant. Often, one can't really tell until after the fact if an impression was correct or not.
I'm not saying that it can't happen. I've had many experiences that prove to be 'something more'. But knowing when they are that, and when they are emotional reactions is a skill that takes a long time to grasp. And I cannot claim to have done so yet.
And you HAVE judged OSC. You have 'intuitively' determined that he is burdened and repressed. If he only lets go of his burden, he will be happy. This is PC speak for saying that what he is doing is wrong, and he would be happier if he changed to conform more closely to your particular worldview.
I assume you say you don't judge people because you think it is wrong to do so. But judging someone in such a manner is not necessarily evil. In fact, we must do this. We choose our friends by judging their actions, and we appoint others to impose punishments based on judgements that certain actions require imposed consequences. It is part of how we keep society civil.
What is wrong about judgement is when we decide we know why that person has done such a thing, and that they have proven themselves evil by their acts. One can and should judge that someone has done something wrong, but they must also withold judgement as to what is in that person's heart and what God thinks of them.
[ January 08, 2005, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
But strawcatz doesn't believe empathy and intuition are emotional. He believes they are empirical. I can see his point. But part of the point is that empathy/intuition is largely noise that is difficult to intepret.
It's like how folks can take months to find the search button. I myself only learned to click post count to view recent posts earlier this week. I'd always been going through the profile screen.
I'm reminded of something I shared on the other side from my 1990 journal. How do you know the difference between hope and self deception? Hope is from the Holy Spirit and self deception is from pride.
Perhaps the identification of intuition as emotion is due to the experience of trying to read one's own intuition, and getting feedback. Trying to have empathy for oneself. It sounds stupid, but having stuffed my feelings with compulsive behavior for years I often didn't know what I felt.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
quote:What is wrong about judgement is when we decide we know why that person has done such a thing, and that they have proven themselves evil by their acts. One can and should judge that someone has done something wrong, but they must also withold judgement as to what is in that person's heart and what God thinks of them.
But I don't ascribe "evil" to anyone's actions. I only ask them to ask themselves (if I'm correct) whether or not it corresponds to their own needs; not MY needs.
Whether or not I'm being rude, arrogant, prompous or pretentious is a red herring to distract from the issue at hand. Since I don't really care how arrogant I am in the eyes of others for this particular purpose, I'll just have to agree with you and say that I am indeed being arrogant so that we can get back on topic, unless we're finished discussing the issue altogether.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Whether or not I'm being rude, arrogant, prompous or pretentious is a red herring to distract from the issue at hand.
This is simply not true. Being viewed as rude, arrogant, pompus, and pretentious makes it almost impossible for your message to be recieved as you wish it to. It's part of the message that is recieved, whether you will it or not.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
That's true. But now that we've all progressed a little in our assumptions and thoughts, it's far too late to go back in time and change the past. What's said is said and there's no changing that. I've tried to clarify my intentions, and that's the best I can do.
[ January 08, 2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Strawcatz ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What motivations would one conclude from the pressure they exert these days--meaning within the past (even) two years?
Have you tried asking them? If you ask, in my experience, they say that they would largely like to be accepted as equal citizens, to have their relationships socially accepted and recognized as valuable -- and to ultimately see this respect reflected in the legal recognition of their devotion to each other in the same manner that heterosexual unions now enjoy.
In other words, if you ask them about their own motivations and take the time to understand their replies, you find that the appearance of hypocrisy is in fact a reflection of your own erroneous assumptions.
quote:if interpreting that to mean they have other motivations than those perhaps implied by my "wonderings" then I wish to be set straight.
I hope you will consider that mission accomplished. I'm telling you flat-out that you're wrong. If you're not satisfied, I'll see if I can locate an actual gay person to vouch for me on that one.
quote:Yet, I do interpret many Gay's seeming insistence that other people validate their choice as coercive.
I submit that it is in fact persuasive, not coercive, except in those cases where individual gays have given up on the possibility of persuasion and have sought to use the courts to coerce society into recognizing rights to which they feel themselves entitled by the Constitution. If the latter offends you, I'm afraid I have to shrug; the right of one group to lobby against perceived injustices is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the fundamental strengths of American society.
quote:As a heterosexual, one sometimes feels a remarkable pressure from Gay people to declare their traditional views of sexual behavior as small-minded...
I am myself a heterosexual, and yet I have never felt a "remarkable" pressure of this kind, despite enjoying the acquaintance of many homosexuals. Perhaps your sentence would do better if you substituted "I" for "one" and omitted the "As a heterosexual" bit, as it's clear that the pressure you feel is not an inevitable consequence of our shared preference for the opposite sex.
quote: I don't ask that Gay people apologize for their lifestyle. I just ask that they don't ask me to pity myself because I disagree with it.
I would wager that if you asked any random gay person whether they'd prefer the right to legally marry the person they love over the chance to watch you pity yourself on their behalf, they'd go for the former. I assure you that their primary goal is not to humiliate and humble heterosexuals in general, nor you specifically, and indeed they are only concerned with us at all insofar as we rather stubbornly insist that they remain second-class citizens.
Posted by Oosoom (Member # 7220) on :
My experience with Gay people is not as limited as your responses seem to imply. Nor is my attitude as caustic as it may "read". That it my fault, obviously. Or at least 50% so. :-)
I have numerous friends who are Gay or who are involved in the Gay community. A man I worked closely with (before he moved to Europe) had a child with two lesbian women--Zachary, a true delight. I also work with a few Gay people at present. I shared opera tickets with a Gay man who was heavily into S&M--an elementary music teacher.
I live in the Seattle area. Society and government here are very much defenders of people's rights to live almost any lifestyle; it does seem to make a conservative feel attacked at times, and very frequently to feel completely "rural" in our attitudes and defense of traditional values--as though only farm hics could ever subscribe to conservative views. This is not imagined; it is pretty clearly documented in the laws passed, the stories that make news daily, the fairly even understanding that the politically liberal "voice of reason" is truly the only one a sane person would confess to.
I also work in a high school. A high school in any place is quite dominated by the liberal point of view; in Seattle the atmosphere is replete with it. The few conservative "leaners" with whom I work tend to keep a low profile in such a place unless we are willing to take on nearly everyone. And besides, we know we'd lose. Perhaps that whole atmosphere makes me sound more frustrated than I actually feel. Or maybe I feel more frustrated than I sound. Sometimes I am. Most of the time, I'm not.
Perhaps in other places where the atmosphere may be more oppressive of people who live outside the "traditional" flow of life, the Gay community feels more maligned and misunderstood. I don't wish anyone to feel they are considered second class; I have experienced enough of that dealing with the liberal voices I live amongst--including many in my own family who decidedly do not espouse "traditional moral values."
It's not that I am ignorant on the whole topic of Gay people and what they want; it's that I hold to the same guidelines and defenses for heterosexual monogamy as a way of life that OSC does. It doesn't make me ignorant or close minded to defend that choice; to voice it may certainly make me sound opinionated. I think that is a comfortable (or at least a familiar) place to be on this site. I'm not complaining about, nor unprepared for disagreement. This seems one of the most thoughtful and intelligent places to discuss matters of importance (and import) that I have seen. I don't feel I can begin to approach the level of knowledge I see reflected here, nor the level of discussion. Still, I don't apologize for my beliefs or opinions--unless they are careless and flighty. On the issue of Gay people's rights, I am neither ignorant nor careless. I am not without empathy for people who hold different conclusions or opinions from myself--a thing that has been greatly discussed here lately. Nevertheless, I know what I have experienced, and that isn't nothing. It is not always possible to prove something you know to be true; that doesn't make the thing false.
It is my observation (through many sources) that not all Gay people just want to be thought of as "equal" to straight people--in their rights, in their reception and acceptance within the society. Sometimes, they want to be "more equal" and will go to great lengths to achieve that status. Take a look at the trial here (down the street from where I live) of the female Presbyterian pastor who turned the area upside down last summer for a trial held to decide if her openly gay relationship should be cause to be removed as a leader of her congregation. While the same situation (a gay pastor, not a lesbian one) back East recently "defrocked" the man, the woman here was able to receive sanction--even though it was (and is) clearly in contradiction with the tenets of that church in particular, and the Christian religion in general.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: But now that we've all progressed a little in our assumptions and thoughts, it's far too late to go back in time and change the past. What's said is said and there's no changing that.
Actually, that's not technically true. You can always go back and edit posts that came out wrong. Some people smile upon it, others frown upon it, but it is possible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it does seem to make a conservative feel attacked at times, and very frequently to feel completely "rural" in our attitudes and defense of traditional values--as though only farm hics could ever subscribe to conservative views
Strictly speaking, this IS a rural attitude. In general, 80% of urbanites nationwide are in favor of gay marriage. If you oppose it, your attitude IS by definition rural.
The problem here is whether you -- or the people around you -- consider rural attitudes to also be unsophisticated and/or underdeveloped.
"It is my observation (through many sources) that not all Gay people just want to be thought of as "equal" to straight people--in their rights, in their reception and acceptance within the society. Sometimes, they want to be 'more equal' and will go to great lengths to achieve that status."
Again, I dispute this claim -- especially if you're going to use it as a rationalization for the denial of marriage rights and other "concessions," for fear of granting gay "activists" too much power.
Consider your own example, one that you apparently feel demonstrates how the gay community wants to be BETTER than equal. I can see how you feel that way; to you, a gay pastor is demanding special rights, the ability to live in sin with an unmarried partner and still represent her church. But this is the wrong way to look at it, in that it's not the way she looks at it -- and thus describing it in those terms does her a disservice by misrepresenting her motivations.
To her, she merely wishes to share her life with the person she loves. If this person were male, she would marry him without complication. Because this person is not male, she cannot marry her legally. She has chosen, therefore, to live with this person "in sin." (Note, however, that a handful of Christian churches will perform gay marriages. Presumably, in these churches, this sort of arrangement would not still be considered sinful.) The problem, of course, is that she does not consider what she is doing to be sinful, and believes that this should not jeopardize her leadership role in the church; other members of the church disagree.
Is this an insidious plot? Clearly not. Is this an example of seeking special privileges? Clearly not. At worst, it is a case of selfish human impulses and normal desires conflicting with duty to a organization with democratic policies. In other words, it's not a dangerous movement or part of a wicked scheme; it's just one person wanting to love another person without having her church hate her for it. That she cannot control her church's reaction, of course, should not prevent her from attempting to persuade them to accept her opinion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I am myself a heterosexual, and yet I have never felt a "remarkable" pressure of this kind, despite enjoying the acquaintance of many homosexuals. Perhaps your sentence would do better if you substituted "I" for "one" and omitted the "As a heterosexual" bit, as it's clear that the pressure you feel is not an inevitable consequence of our shared preference for the opposite sex.
Perhaps he ought to say "As a heterosexual who has traditional beliefs about sexuality". Tom, you may feel no pressure because you do not hold those traditional beliefs.
Posted by Strawcatz (Member # 7215) on :
quote:Actually, that's not technically true. You can always go back and edit posts that came out wrong. Some people smile upon it, others frown upon it, but it is possible.
That's not the same thing as changing the past. I would call that deceptive since it purports that we can and people should pretend as if we didn't say what we said.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's not deceptive if you are upfront and honest that you edited your post.
Posted by Lille Mu (Member # 7115) on :
No link with the others replies but... I tried to read the first mail : i didn't understand, so I tried to understand with the replies, but it didn't work. Conclusion : what a pity not to be a native english speaker !
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Can there be separate but equal? This has been the argument against granting civil unions. But doesn't it apply to the underlying situation? Are homosexuals and heterosexuals not by their nature separate? Can they ever, then, really be equal?
This is the problem with the lack of definition whether sexual orientation is a race or a religion, or if it should stand as a category next to them. The trouble with creating it as a separate category becomes what is included in it. I'll be frank that I don't think a society can endure which permits people sexual expression without consequence. The consequence of heterosexuality is you could cause pregnancy and all the condundra that go with it. The consequence of homosexuality is what? Maybe it is just sour grapes that we breeders feel others cannot have our reward if they do not bear our anxiety.
Posted by Oosoom (Member # 7220) on :
But this is the wrong way to look at it, in that it's not the way she looks at it -- and thus describing it in those terms does her a disservice by misrepresenting her motivations.
quote:
You mean then, that the truth of a thing is dependent of the intent of that thing, not the thing itself? That sounds way too conditional. It is my contention that a truth is true regardless of any belief in it. It stands for itself. It justifies itself. It is what it is and calling it something else does not change its nature.
What she did was exactly what I said she did. Calling it something else just because it proves a biased point does not change the thing that she did.
Posted by Oosoom (Member # 7220) on :
quote:
Is this an insidious plot? Clearly not. Is this an example of seeking special privileges? Clearly not. At worst, it is a case of selfish human impulses and normal desires conflicting with duty to a organization with democratic policies. In other words, it's not a dangerous movement or part of a wicked scheme; it's just one person wanting to love another person without having her church hate her for it. That she cannot control her church's reaction, of course, should not prevent her from attempting to persuade them to accept her opinion.
quote:
A plot in that she wants to love whoever it is she loves? No. A plot in that she is trying to change the basic tenets of her religion so she can do so without challenge? Yes. And a plot in that she had support of Gay activists from all over the United States VERY noisily shouting and hollering for her not to be challenged--absolutely it was a plot.
You can't join a club, say you love the club because of what it is, then stage a coup to change the basic structure of the club--and not expect to rile people. Why not just make your own club if what the club IS doesn't satisfy you? There's a real arrogance in people who demand that an entire group bow to their will.
And who says her church hates her for loving a woman? I am certain there are people IN the church who are so foolish and blind as to hate her for that. Thinking people don't do that. Her church obviously did not do that. But is it fair for someone who breaks a law of an organization they voluntarily join demand that all the members then ammend their thinking (and rules) to accommodate her breaking that law?? No one is forcing her to be there. Why should she force them to change so she can stay?
And while we're on that, isn't a religion based on God's rules and laws? Men can ask God to change a law, but if he doesn't, they should just accept his answer and get on with it.
[ January 10, 2005, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Oosoom ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:There's a real arrogance in people who demand that an entire group bow to their will.
You do see the irony here, right Oosoom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'll be frank that I don't think a society can endure which permits people sexual expression without consequence."
Why not, pooka? If there are truly no consequences, why is there a problem?
------
"You mean then, that the truth of a thing is dependent of the intent of that thing, not the thing itself?"
Nope. I mean that you aren't entitled to reframe and mischaracterize her motivations and intent, nor to slander the actual results of her actions, simply because you disagree with them. I don't think George Bush invaded Iraq because he's an evil man who wants to hurt people, even if the result so far has been a lot of hurting; it would be practically slanderous, then, for me to suggest otherwise.
In the same way, you're positing motivations here which do not exist, and using those imaginary motivations to justify your own prejudice.
(As for your second post, I'm afraid that it appears to be a reply to things I did not say.)
[ January 11, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Depends on what you think a society is, Tom. I think of society the same thing I said about churches in another thread. It's a place to raise kids and a place to tame men. That means there has to be normative standards and consequences for breaking them.
If you think a society is an arrangement for boosting everyone's self esteem you are going to have a different opinion from me.
The consequence of heterosexuality is not pregnancy itself- that is the natural consequence. The consequence is what then happens. Marriage if both are free, the choice to be honest if one or the other is not, potential for abortion, the possibility of discovery if subterfuge is chosen, divorce and disgrace are all the social consequences. I feel that all these consequences tend to bear more heavily in a natural way on a woman. It takes the artificial constructs of society to force the involvement of the sort of men who cause pregnancy out of marriage in the first place.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
In the eyes of the law, with respect to certain legal rights and responsibilities, I think heterosexual and homosexual "marriages" can be considered equal (that is, equal in those spheres the government is best suited, mainly law).
Not in the churches. Not in the homes. In the eyes of the government.
-Bok
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:If you think a society is an arrangement for boosting everyone's self esteem you are going to have a different opinion from me.
Talk about a straw man!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You first. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It's a place to raise kids and a place to tame men. That means there has to be normative standards and consequences for breaking them."
And yet, if there is truly no negative consequence inherent in sexual behavior, why do we need a "standard" applied to it?
Wouldn't it be more sensible to apply societal standards to things that have consequences?
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
If something natural has a consequence, why does society need to provide one?
If you don't like my straw man, what do you think society is for?
Posted by Oosoom (Member # 7220) on :
I see what you imply the irony is.
I am a part of a well-established majority speaking what I believe that majority believes. One individual, or say even a tiny percentage within a large group, acts with extreme arrogance when it tries to force changes on that majority group--changes which lie counter to that group's core beliefs. "I like the group. I want to be a part of the group. But you have to change what you are if I'm going to be content." It could even be a positive change they want but it would still be arrogant of them.
Insofar as reframing the actions of the Presbyterian pastor, I certainly didn't do that. I have no certain knowledge of her motives. It was apparent that she did not want to be cast from her congregation--but she was very clear that she knew her behavior was in direct conflict with the laws of her church. She was an ordained minister and one could be fairly certain she was knowledgable on their rules, etc. In the language of the church--she knew she was committing sin. She made it clear that she was not going to change her behavior (stop sinning) but was willing to put her congregation through enormous conflict in order to be able to continue to break the law that, in her position as a minister, she was supposed to defend. Certainly to honor.
Whether she believed her desires were justified really isn't the point. She was the instrument (or was used as one by a sort of political machine--either unwillingly or complicitly) that threw her church community into chaos. Many people do believe the event and its ruling ultimately weakened the credibility of her church--particularly when a very similar case received an opposite ruling only a few months later.
You said I was positing motivations which do not exist? How can you know that? How can you know what her motivations really were? You project your conclusions toward motives and you are being insightful and open minded. I do the same (if I did) and I am justifying my own prejudices?? Hmmmm.
And I still say that her motivations don't change (or even justify) her actions. Whether she feels justitfied because she is sure her reason is noble--she thinks the law is wrong and ought to be changed--isn't the issue. (At least not my point.) She accepted the way things were when she entered her priesthood. She didn't go into that blindly--though it would seem now there was a degree of disingenuousness in her. Later, she wanted her church to change its laws so that she could continue living a way of life contrary to its laws--but now be in good standing. And they did, in the end, compromise their laws; sort of but not really.
Whether in this instance or any other, I am not the only person who is puzzled by an organization which conducts itself counter to its own laws. It makes no sense. It becomes the major cause of its own demise--as what it is.
Glory. I'm tired. Have a nice night.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If something natural has a consequence, why does society need to provide one?"
When did that become the question? Before we head to this subject, can we answer the first question: why should something without any negative consequences be taboo?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
LMAO ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)