I went to my local comic shop today to pick up "Ultimate Iron Man #1" but was stopped. I was told that Mr. Card is a "biggit", a racist. Can anyone shed light on this. I'm not a judgemental person, but I'm having a hard time finding info. on this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Card's not a racist. That make you feel better? Posted by LDAUNAVICH (Member # 7446) on :
Could you be more specific? I mean why would someone say this? Posted by LDAUNAVICH (Member # 7446) on :
Please, anybody. Is there any reason someone would think Card is a racist? I believe in God and his word. I just, would like to know where this veiw comes from.
Posted by LDAUNAVICH (Member # 7446) on :
I mean, did Mr. Card ever talk about race and any dislikes or something?
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
Card is anything but racist...I have no idea why they would say that. And besides, how can they prevent you from buying a comic just because they don't agree with the author? And if they were that serious about, why did they stock the thing in the first place?
Posted by LDAUNAVICH (Member # 7446) on :
They don't prevent me from purchasing a comic book, though if someone says something like this, I personally would like to find out for myself before I buy this particular comic. Like I said, I'm not judgemental. As for them stocking it, it's"Ultimate Iron Man", it's kinda a big deal.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*sigh* Card is about as far from racist as you can get. Where do people get this stuff?
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
"shrugs* Maybe they disagree with some of his opinions, but they don't have firm grounding, so they label him with a generic "racist" title.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
If the word that the person you spoke to used was "bigot" then he/she was probably referring to Card's stance on gay marriage. He's against it, and adamantly so, and this gets him vilified by his political opponents on a pretty regular basis. I personally think that the word "bigot" is completely inappropriate in this context, but it has become the word of choice these days for gay-rights advocates to apply to opponents of gay marriage, whether they deserve it or not, specifically because it connects them to the segregationists of decades past.
If the word that he/she used was "racist" however, I can't think of any reason why that word might be applied to Card. The only thought that even occurs to me is that he/she might be applying common (and untrue) stereotypes of Mormons to him, despite the fact that Card has always been an adamant proponent for egalitarian and inclusive policies in that regard.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Well said, Puppy. And exactly.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
to Puppy.
Posted by aitch42 (Member # 7373) on :
I have some vague recollection that a discussion about Card's racism came up some years ago. It was based on the original short-story of Ender's game, in which some discussion about "slitty eyes" was made; Ender used it in trying to make clear all his team were equals, but it was misinterpreted as racist, so Card ended up taking out the reference as it was read the "wrong way round". There is also an article that he wrote, explaining his intent and horror at that misinterpretation. So if anyone has got a first-printing of the original "Ender's game" (short story), there is (apparently) a conversation in it that can be taken as racist - but isn't.
So i read, here, a few years ago :-o h.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The actual conversation (in Ender's Game - I think it was the book, bot the short story, but I could be wrong) went something like:
quote:Alai: You mean that slanty-eyed little butt wiggler. Ender: Hey, we can't all be niggers like you.
I think there might have been joking about how one of Ender's ancestors might have owned one of Alai's ancestors way back when too.
In context, this is anti-racist. The whole point was that Ender was saying "If you throw racial slurs around, you should expect racial slurs to come back at you." And considering that OSC has been pretty staunch in challenging the unconsciously racist Gernsback assumption that the future belongs to white, mostly blond over blue, Americans, I don't see how anyone who actually knew him in any sort of depth could think he was a racist.
Posted by Quimby2999 (Member # 7044) on :
Yes, in that conversation in EG it goes on to say...
Alai: My grandfather would've killed you for that. Ender: My great-grandfather would've sold him first.
There that doesn't make Card a racist. Just Ender and Alai. Just kidding, I meant Trent Lott.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Oh, holy crap, I hope you were kidding about the last bit, too. Sheesh, do we have to believe everything that political hype-machines tell us?
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I personally wish that that bit of Ender/Alai dialogue had not been removed from later editions. I always thought it was pretty funny. It's sad that some people simply can't handle that kind of dialogue because they get hung up on a single word.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote: ...do we have to believe everything that political hype-machines tell us?
Yes.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
So people can't separate the personality of the fictional character from the personality of the author? Heck, everyone may as well quit writing right now.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Card has a lot of characters that wear dresses. I guess that means he must like wearing dresses. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
He also has characters that have pre-marital sex. He's espousing pre-marital sex for all! Excommunicate him! Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
He's also had a lot of murderers in his books. Execute him!
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
One could make the argument that OSC is racist from the way he describes China and the Islamic world in the Shadow series. It's pretty clear that it's for the sake of the story, and he doesn't actually have any bad feelings toward any racial group, but I can imagine someone being uncomfortable with some things, especially if you're a Muslim reading Sotg.
Posted by Sammi (Member # 7461) on :
Ignorance...that's how someone can describe OSC as a racist or biggot. In reality, OSC is one of the few writers with enough courage to look at all sides of the issue and simply state the actual facts of the situation. Obviously he has his own opinions, as he very clearly expresses in his articles. But, the fact is that OSC is one of the few people with influence of any kind in the world, which he has earned by his own brilliance, that can clearly outline all points of an issue with such clarity that a reader can learn from the description and then decide for oneself whether OSC's opinions are valid within one's own personal beliefs. This is a rare quality.
Posted by Sammi (Member # 7461) on :
Another thought...Furthermore, it is OSC's ability to write, not only in his articles but his books as well, in such a manner that he does not tell the reader that his/her knowledge, opinions, or beliefs are wrong, but instead shows the reader a different view and allows the reader to decide. A true leaders does not lead by telling his followers that they are dificient or invalid in some way, but by providing an example from which they can learn. And after all, leadership is the core of OSC's works.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:One could make the argument that OSC is racist from the way he describes China and the Islamic world in the Shadow series.
I think that when someone starts throwing the word "racist" around when it comes to foreign cultures, they're saying more about themselves than they are about the person they're critcizing.
China and the Islamic world share many, many, MANY differences with mainstream U.S. culture that have nothing to do with anyone's race. If you think someone is depicting them wrongly or unfairly, it's strange to jump instantly to the assumption that the misunderstanding was caused by racial differences. What about cultural differences? Political differences? Historical perspectives? Access to different media? Come on. A white guy says something you don't like about China, and suddenly, he's a racist? Why, because all white people are racist? And that's the only reason they could ever get something wrong or disagree?
I know you weren't really trying to make this point, so I'm not actually upset at you. I'm just frustrated with this tendency people have these days to jump immediately into a race war whenever there's the slightest opportunity to do so.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Pup,
Frustrations aside... OSC uses the (colloquial) term "bigot" in place of racist as often as he can to counter critics. What he doesn't do is explain his democratic viewpoint. Forever a mystery. Why is he so beholden to a group (democratic allegiance) identification that he doesn't believe in? nae, chastizes in public forums. Kinda unseemly. He likes to sport the jersey, but hates the coach and the rest of the players (and makes a meal of it for his sci-fi readership)? what's that all about?
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
*crestfallen*
another poorly expressed (thought well-wishing) thought-parade.
*crawls back in his hole*
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
He became a Democrat when he was younger than me, and did so because he believed strongly in much of what that party represented at the time. I think he holds onto his self-identification as a Democrat because he still believes in what the party was before it became so abhorrent to him, and he holds out hope that independent Democrats like him might shift the party back to a place where he is more comfortable.
What do you expect him to do, though? Become a Republican? He dislikes that party's platform just about as much The issues he has problems with aren't as emotional, though, and don't lend themselves to the same kind of demagoguery ...
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
pup,
I don't expect him to hold dear anything that he isn't wont to hold dear, save his reputation as an honest man. I don't think he's kept that bargain in his foray into political rhetoric.
Posted by Quimby2999 (Member # 7044) on :
*looks at post times*
What the heck?
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Quimby,
I think it is ok to hold a writer to some standard (excepting fanfiction - where sucking up is the rule), don't you? Card calling himself a democrat is like a Star Trek conventioneur calling himself a klingon (of the old school, mind you - minus saggital crests and whatnot).
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
*bump*
Is it okay to bump "inflammatory" topics/comments to achieve a poorly-defined aim (e.g. Scott actually gets off the pot and makes a film)
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
The only requirement to being a democrat is to be registered as one. Card has. Therefore, he is a democrat.
He has never pretended to be a normal or standard democrat.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
The whole "honest man" thing is an empty complaint. If anyone in this world has obviously been completely honest in his opinions, to the point of riling up his fan base and pissing people off, it's Card. You can disagree with him, but you can't accuse him of being dishonest about his beliefs.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I only have two things to say about the charge that Card is racist.
1) He is on record as saying that he moved to North Carolina in part because he wanted to raise his children in a place where people of different races associated with each other in a free and friendly manner.
2) That exchange in "Ender's Game" definitely had a point, and "minorities are inferior" was most assuredly not it.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Verily,
Surprised you responded. What brought you to the shores of this vapid and inconsequential mockery of the staid and true. The unblosummed, defreckeled, and loathsome? The loyal and sub. Standard-bearing.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
Posted by AutumnFire (Member # 7320) on :
Hmmm, puppy: that's interesting. I didn't know he was so violently opposed to gay marriage. I've always been slightly confused by the gay characters in many of his novels (Songmaster and others). I saw what could have been hostility towards gays, but I also saw those characters treated with an immense amount of compassion and humanity.
I know that a the people who are opposed to gay marriage have diverse opinions on homosexuality as a whole. I wonder where Cards stands there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I saw what could have been hostility towards gays, but I also saw those characters treated with an immense amount of compassion and humanity."
I think this is in fact a perfect description of Card's position on homosexuality: native hostility tempered with immense compassion.
Posted by AutumnFire (Member # 7320) on :
Tom, good thought! I'd love to ask Card personally about his opinion. Does anyone know how I can contact him?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Card, particularly in recent years, has been a strong proponent of traditional nuclear families and effective, responsible child-rearing as the solution to many societal ills. Large-scale acceptance of "alternate lifestyles" (including homosexuality, promiscuity, no-fault divorce, etc) as equivalent to traditional, stable family structures flies directly in the face of what he holds to be most important for the future of civilization. So he fights against it. Hard.
He was also singled out by gay activists as an enemy long before he actually picked up the gauntlet himself, which has fueled a sense of indignation between him and the gay-rights lobby for years, before he ever started writing his weekly political columns.
Tom's analysis is misleading. There is no "native hostility". Card isn't hostile at all towards homosexuals as individuals, which is why he can write such sympathetic gay characters. Card's hostility is directed toward those whose political goals aim to tear down or prevent the emergence of institutions and strategies that he believes to be critical to the survival of our society. He also has to deal with the fact that, whether he fights back or not, many gay activists are going to fight him, simply because he is a socially-conservative, religious public figure.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Pup,
Why doesn't he just ignore them? The baddy activists, I mean. It shouldn't affect his work, lifestyle, etc (I'm sure I'm being naive here about his actual experience, and that's why I'm asking)
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
(This is Puppy)
Well, as I said before, that's one of multiple factors. I think that the animosity he has experienced at the hands of gay activists has made him less likely to pull his punches when arguing against them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Card's hostility is directed toward those whose political goals aim to tear down or prevent the emergence of institutions and strategies that he believes to be critical to the survival of our society."
Well, keep in mind that the vast majority of people advocating gay marriage do not have as one of their political goals the tearing down of the institution of marriage. He's opposed to that cause because he believes that it will have that effect, but their goal is something altogether different. That he frequently refers to -- and denigrates -- such people as if their goal were the destruction of the American family is why he catches so much flak; it's very hard for the casual observer to get the vibe that Card understands why homosexuals want to marry, beyond the complete destruction of the human race.
[ March 10, 2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Alluvion, are you fallow?
-o-
I've expressed disagreement with Card's views on Hatrack before, and I've even criticized his tone in delivering those views. I worry that that crosses the lines of appropriateness, since this is his forum, but I've come down on the side of believing that I've been, at worst, just on the okay side of the line.
But calling someone names on his or her own forum seems wrong to me. It seems totally out of line and churlish.
(Though maybe the insult has less impact when it's misspelled consistently. )
[ March 11, 2005, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
quote: Alluvion, are you fallow?
Do you want the straight answer or the comical one to the question you just asked?
I'll assume straight, and the answer is yes.
quote: I worry that that crosses the lines of appropriateness, since this is his forum
I have worried about that, too. But, sometimes, when you step over a perceived line, you find that you're 100 yards off the mark. So, I figure, if the lines aren't clearly drawn, it's a good and fun (depending on the response) exercise to find out where those lines lie.
quote:But calling someone names on his or her own forums seems wrong to me.
I'm not sure if you are directing that at me, but I'll answer if that's what you think I've done.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Pup,
quote:I think that the animosity he has experienced at the hands of gay activists has made him less likely to pull his punches when arguing against them.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either from the empathy slant, or the presumption that OSC normally comes out of his corner suppressing the urge to swing his fists blindly at the first target he spies.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
[expunges self-serving references to the great equanimity that is present in OSC's writings]
simple question:
why, in OSC's recent columns, is it always "blacks" and "white people" or "white folks"? I've seen "African American", but never "black folks" or "black people".
(this is based on observation of only his most recent columns, after seeing this particular thread, not based on his body of work)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
alluvion: thank you for the direct answer. That post was one of the most straightforward one of yours I remember reading. No, that last comment was not directed at you.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I assume he wondered because I addressed him specifically in that post (in an earlier part).
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Icarus: thanks for the reply. My apologies if what you've read of my posts weren't more clear. That's a sad thought.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Come on now. You enjoy being oblique. Am I incorrect?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*shrug*
I'm not terribly interested in playing with you, suntranafs.
[ March 12, 2005, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
I still think using "blacks" and not "black people" while issuing lots of "white people" and "white folks" is inappropriate when writing for public consumption.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
games belong on the "other side", or the less momentous "sand box" moniker I like to think of it as.
THIS is the side for serious discussion, you punks.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: Black people can write, direct, and star in any kind of movie and make a lot of money for the studio.
quote: When black people know they're the majority of the audience, they don't follow all those white-people rules about prim audience behavior.
quote: It's like going to church. In African-American culture, most folks don't think that church is about sitting silently while the preacher edifies them and the choir sings. [By implication, "folks" in an African-American church would be black folks, no?]
quote: The thing to remember is, that's how black people feel all the time when they are out in the white-dominated world.
quote: Frankly, I wish everybody watched movies the way black people do.
I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, alluvion, but a cursory examination of this last column doesn't seem to bear you out.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Icarus,
Apples and oranges comparison, there.
"blacks" and "white folks"
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My point is that he used "black people" much more often than he used "blacks."
He used "blacks" a total of two times in that column. I expect he does not consider it inappropriate or derogatory.
I'm as PC as virtually anybody I know, but this really doesn't set off any alarms in my head.
[ March 12, 2005, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Children, please . . .
Shake hands and make nice -
Edit to add: *sigh* everyone types faster than me . . . /sigh
[ March 12, 2005, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Ok, so you're "PC" and Sunny-boy is "FC", can you guys find a common ground?
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
"PC = political correctness" "FC = fan correctness"
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
In fact, I think I'll clear things up a bit.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
My trouble is, hatrack drives me nuts. I guess some people just weren't made for internet forums.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
you are nuts. to argue the way you do.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
*just deleted my posts*
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
sunny,
One reason to post short posts is to get away from the rhythm of demogoguery. If the "truth" you have to tell relies on the rhythm of your text rather than the content of your words, you're being charismatic, not truthful.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Ok say that again? in different words? What do you mean exactly.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"One reason to post short posts is to get away from the rhythm of demogoguery. If the "truth" you have to tell relies on the rhythm of your text rather than the content of your words, you're being charismatic, not truthful. "
In response to what I think you mean, I happen to think nearly the opposite is true, order and rhythym is everything to truth, and words and sentences switched around will have a different meaning.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
ok,
One raisin to fall short of post-standards is to do just that.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Ok, now I'm really confused.
Posted by Constant Reader (Member # 7282) on :
It's funny that Card's books tend to draw people that are opposed to his personal viewpoints. You just get a feeling reading his novels that his is open minded and compassionate and....well, liberal. Obviously that part isn't true.(the liberal part, he may be compassionate, i don't know.) I just try really hard to ignore all I hear about his political views so as not to lessen my joy at reading his beautiful stories.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I think I see the problem here...people are equating everything they like about Card with "goodness and intelligence" and everything they dislike about Card with "evil and stupid"...and thus they get all upset when they try to reconcile it.
Whatever happened to the viewpoint that it's possible to have vastly different opinions for reasons that have nothing to do with the intelligence and morality of the person? That is possible. In fact, it happens all the time.
I get the feeling a lot of people won't be satisfied until Card screams out "Being a conservative and being a devout Mormon is WRONG!"
Because they equate being such things with "evil and stupid". It's the ONLY WAY THEY CAN IMAGINE someone having those viewpoints.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I'll give an example from my own life: Most of my best friends in the entire world right now are gay. Many of them in commited same-gender relationships.
But it's not "despite despite native hostility" that I'm friends with them. It's not something seperate and/or in opposition to my religious beliefs.
It's because of the things my Mother, Church Leader, and Teachers (all Mormon!) taught me about having love and compassion for ALL those around me that I'm able to be friends with them.
And believe me, the question of how to treat people who identify themselves as homosexual did come up, many times. And always the answer was to treat them with the same love and friendship I would want to be treated with.
My gay friends know about the Church's position on same gender marriage. What they get though (and many online don't seem to get) is that it's a position not based on hatred, but on sincere belief that such is a divine law. That to encourage others to violate such a law would (to a Mormon) be the most hateful, spiteful thing in the world.
I'm starting to understand Card's anger in his recent essays, really I am.
It's frustrating to continually be told the view point MUST have it's origin in hatred, even when it doesn't.
To say nothing of being told that one's compassion is DESPITE following the gospel, even though it's the gospel that taught one's self that compassion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But it's not "despite despite native hostility" that I'm friends with them. It's not something seperate and/or in opposition to my religious beliefs.
And when OSC apologizes for that whole "playing house" crack a few months back, I'll buy this excuse. But I don't believe he'd accuse a couple of his homosexual friends of "playing house" in a long-term committed relationship to their faces. I don't think you'd accuse any of your homosexual friends of the same thing, either. It's not something that someone says to friends. It's not even something that someone thinks about friends.
It's the sort of remark that someone makes when someone has forgotten the humanity of the people of whom he's speaking. In that essay, Card was very definitely treating 'em like varelse, not utlanning. I believe that this was a temporary lapse, and that he let the demagoguery get away from him -- in a very Grego-like fashion, mind you -- but I still consider it a bad sign.
------
BTW, Puffy, I'd like to think that you'd be a compassionate person without the gospel, too.
[ March 13, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote: It's not even something that someone thinks about friends.
I disagree.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
As the Mormon definition of marriage is "between a man and a woman", changing that definition to include "between any two people of any sex" IS destruction of an important institution. Read the LDS Proclamation on the Family (you should be able to find it easily on the lds.org website). So again, Card isn't a "biggit", just someone who is defending what he believes to be important.
While he may be right or wrong (I would say right, of course), the question should be about his correctness, not about his motives.
Too often today, people who don't have PC opinions are silenced by claims that they are "hateful" or that the listeners are "offended". All this is a clumsy and churlish attempt to censor dissent and avoid a reasonable discussion of the issues.
My PC opinion? I trust Intel more than AMD.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Heh, amusingly enough, this topic is about racism, not homosexuality. And sorry, but homosexuality isn't a race.
Considering that one of the biggest reasons that Card has stated that he moved to the South was for the multiracial environment, I would say that whatever he is, he's certainly not racist.
Posted by Constant Reader (Member # 7282) on :
Puffy, I think you have a valid point, but it was an obvious one. If I believe something is wrong there is a reason for it. (ie, it's "stupid" or "evil" or something else.) Orson must also believe that things are "stupid" or "evil" or "against God" or he wouldn't speak out against them. Like I said before, his political or personal views are not my concern, I just ignore them and enjoy the novels. Thanks, Nik
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Puffy,
I'm inclined to think along the same lines as TD, above (briefly). I would like to imagine that empathy is inborn, and that hatred is learned.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
In my experience, both hatred *and* compassion are learned.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Porter, if you disagree that one is capable of thinking that two friends who love each other dearly, live together, and have openly committed their lives to each other are "playing house," I have to ask: why are these people your friends? Clearly you do not understand their feelings, or are otherwise so skeptical of their stated motivations that you find your position towards them to be adversarial. Where does friendship fit in?
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
It is possible to disagree strongly with the life choices of somebody and still be their friend. It is possible to still love them, even though you think their choices are destructive to themselves and a mockery of what you hold sacred.
It's hard to do sometimes, because we are all fallible mortals, but it is still possible. I believe it is a good thing, too.
[ March 14, 2005, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Porter, I don't think that's Tom's question.
I think what Tom is saying is you can believe that their life choices are immoral and contrary to your religious beliefs, but that does not necessitate believing that their stated intentions are dishonest or ridiculing them.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
The ridiculing part doesn't enter into what I said. Tom said that there are some things that you don't even think about friends.
As for disbelieving their stated intentions -- I also don't think this has direct bearing on what I said. My friends believe X about their actions, possibly sincerely. I could believe that X isn't really true, no matter how much they want it to be, and that Y is true instead.
I was mostly taking exception to Tom's statement that there are certain things you don't even think, if you are really a friend.
[ March 14, 2005, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Maybe it depends on how deviant or sinful you think homosexuality is. Adultery is a sin, but it is not considered by most people to be as bad as murder or rape. I can be friends with an adulterer, but not a murderer.
[ March 14, 2005, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Okay, Porter. I can see having an unkind thought about somebody you consider a friend. Point taken, I guess.
Beren, I think there's something to that, thought I personally would have trouble being friends with an adulterer as well. I could be friends with a promiscuous person who is not deceiving anybody, but not someone who cheats on a spouse. In fact, I have an acquaintance who is in an unhappy marriage and is always playing around with other guys--I don't know that she has taken it beyond that. But I have lost an immense amount of respect for her because of her flirting, and I no longer feel comfortable around her.
(And I don't mean harmless flirting, either. I mean basically hitting on people and encouraging them to reciprocate. Getting men she doesn't know to buy her drinks at a bar, not wearing her ring, etc.)
[ March 14, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Xenocider (Member # 7537) on :
Hats off to another anti gay person!
U GO, Mr. Card!
Posted by Constant Reader (Member # 7282) on :
oh, god.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
A troll. How nice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, I don't think Theresa's a troll. I think she's just extremely young and very, very prejudiced.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Well, I saw Mr. Card at a book signing in DC. He went on about how much he loves Queen Latifah....
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
to Puppy.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)![[Confused]](confused.gif)