I must say that this year's Peace prize does at least have the virtue of really pissing off the deniers. I can practically see the little flecks of foam obscuring the words of OSC's latest column, and that's quite a trick when I'm reading a computer screen rather than the vellum scroll he no doubt composed it on.
[ November 01, 2007, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He sure did seem angry.
Though, he does have a point mixed in all that invective. The truth is that global warming really is a matter of faith for the majority of people who believe in it.
More than once I've discussed it in person with people who take it as fact, and yet when pressed cannot begin to explain even the simplest elements of climate change-and I can tell that even though I'm far from an expert, or even a novice.
I'm not saying 'the science isn't in', I'm saying that for most people you hear about global warming from, the science is barely involved at all...but is routinely used as a club for deniers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Though, he does have a point mixed in all that invective. The truth is that global warming really is a matter of faith for the majority of people who believe in it.
But that has very little to do with whether Gore knows anything about it or whether he deserved the award.
Personally, I've got no beef with Gore, but I do think it was kind of a weird "Peace" award.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The truth is that global warming really is a matter of faith for the majority of people who believe in it.
The flip side of this is that it doesn't happen is a matter of faith, deliberate ignorance, or dishonesty for nearly all of the deniers.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The truth is that global warming really is a matter of faith for the majority of people who believe in it.
Granted, but then so is particle physics, or cellular chemistry, or any branch of science, really. It's just impossible for even a competent research scientist to keep up with developments outside his own field.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
My heart howls for The Rabbit.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Heck, I take things inside my own field on faith, because I trust the process and in many cases the people involved.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, foaming with rabid anger seems to be the default state for OSC columns of late. I don't think it would be fair to judge others on this specific issue by his reaction.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Late to the party, but the same is true for most science.
Most juries that convict on the strength of DNA evidence or forensics probably don't understand the mechanism. Rather they trust the experts.
I don't know much about global warming (or climate change, for that matter), but its enough that there appears to be consensus to make me alter my consumption patterns. We (as humans) have learned (evolved?) to trust the crowd, for better or worse. And right now the crowd in favor of man-made climate change is pretty strong.
That said, this was possibly the worst Peace prize award ever.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Late to the party, but the same is true for most science.
That's generally speaking my point. Also, they're not simply trusting the experts, they're also trusting the experts not to perjur themselves in open court to boot, a question not generally involved in trusting experts in the field.
Scientific faith is used as a shield and a club just as religious faith often is, in that the people doing the clubbing often have little knowledge of the thing they claim proves their side to any reasonably intelligent person.
Also, this is definitely up there as crappy Peace prizes, but there are worse.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, this is definitely up there as crappy Peace prizes, but there are worse.
<debates it on its merits, directly disobeying KoM's thread title> I guess, I object to the wresting it from a Peace prize to a popularity contest. After reading over the list of winners more carefully (I have to admit my previous statement was ill-informed) I still think this is the least justifiable Peace prize, ever. There have been other throw away prizes, but this strikes me as the most egregious misapplication of the award.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Though, he does have a point mixed in all that invective. The truth is that global warming really is a matter of faith for the majority of people who believe in it.
But that has very little to do with whether Gore knows anything about it or whether he deserved the award.
Personally, I've got no beef with Gore, but I do think it was kind of a weird "Peace" award.
But by no means the weirdest. At least Gore wasn't a mass murderer. They've given the peace prize to a couple of those in the past.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But by no means the weirdest. At least Gore wasn't a mass murderer. They've given the peace prize to a couple of those in the past.
Even those have sort-of-reasonable arguments behind them. I don't necessarily agree with the arguments, but they do make some sense. The path from "global warming awareness" to "peace" seems a bit more tangled to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My heart howls for The Rabbit.
In any other context, I'd make this my .sig. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Global warming: It runs in cycles. No serious scientific evidence indicates, let alone proves, a human cause for it. In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite, since global temperatures fell in the 1970s and 1980s, when global emissions were certainly not in retreat.
I'd like to know Card's source for this--none of the data I can find indicates temperatures fell in the 80s. The 80s have several years that are the hottest in the last 125 years.
quote: Since the start of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen approximately 0.7 °C. But this rise has not been continuous. Since 1976, the global average temperature has risen sharply, at 0.18 °C per decade. In the northern and southern hemispheres, the period 1997 2006 averaged 0.53 °C and 0.27 °C above the 1961 1990 mean, respectively.
(*grin)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm just wondering why you think Card uses sources?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
As my husband points out, Gore is to global warming as U2 is to starvation.
Where's my man Bono's award? Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: As my husband points out, Gore is to global warming as U2 is to starvation.
Where's my man Bono's award?
...Or Bill and Melinda Gates to vaccinations, for that matter. Although perhaps in that case they'd have to footnote it with a "But Your Operating System Is Still A Huge Pain In The Heinie, You Monopolistic Rotter" award.
It's a little sad to see this much distaste for Card's editorials on his board, isn't it?... I'm not saying anyone's wrong to say so. It's just... I wish I could say his editorial writing was anywhere close to being on a plane with his fiction.
Or... In light of the board response, that he might consider the response he's likely inspiring among those who aren't as partial to his other writing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Don't mention that to him.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
What Lisa said, really.
It's extremely silly to give a Peace Prize on the basis of something that doesn't relate to peace; it's pretty clear it isn't a *peace* prize at all. But at least Gore hasn't supported genocide or ordered the murder of children, so this is actually one of the better ones.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, seriously, where else would anyone really debate Card's editorials online?
I think there were better people in line for a peace prize, but I see the reasoning behind giving it to Gore, and more specifically to the IPCC. Climate change, whether it's man made or not, whether you like it or not, is coming. There will be a massive fight for resources, and massive die off of the world's ballooning population if we don't do something to prevent it ahead of time, or at least be aware that it's a possibility. Wars will be fought over it, and people will die. All of which is fairly detrimental to peace, and Gore, as the world's biggest cheerleader (which, Mr. Card, is something he's been involved with for decades, not just in the last couple years) got the award. Do I think it was absurd and a popularity contest? I would if the IPCC didn't share in it, I see the logic. But do I think they could've made a better choice? Surely.
Here's my real beef with Card though, other than the fact that I think he's sorely misinformed entirely on this subject and really needs to take a much closer look at a much wider array of topics, and other than the fact that he just called Treehuggers terrorists (and really by extension everyone on the Left a terrorist too), he's almost arguing against himself.
Gore and the rest of the terrorists want us to switch off of fossil fuels and use renewables. Card is pissed off because we're running out of fossil fuels and Gore is distracting away from the search from an alternative? Did he even proof read the article before he posted it?
Card is on the side of President Bush and his cronies, they want to pollute the environment and don't much care for Green industry. The people on the other side want clean water, clean air, healthy forests, and clean renewable, home grown energy. How does he reconcile the people he supports with the things he claims are problems requiring solutions?
Even if you think everything Gore stands for is bunk, what he wants to actually do to solve his so called fictitious problem is still good!
And you know what, I don't think Pres. Bush CAUSED climate change or anything, but he's doing his best at times to hinder the efforts to make our country better. He's impinging on efforts from individual states to control their air quality standards, giving huge giveaways to the mining industry so they can destroy mountains, literally, creating vast devastation in the surrounding areas, opening the doorway for logging companies to invade national forests under the guise of forest maintenance, isn't doing a damned thing to clean up all the waste that's already polluting lakes and rivers around the country, and continues to say that using renewable energy and reducing emissions will harm our economy when this is a bald faced LIE. I'll repeat it: A LIE!
But what do I know? I'm just a tree hugging terrorist.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Tom Lehrer is said to have claimed political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the prize.
And anyone who's aware of Godwin's Law really ought to be aware that comparing those one disagrees with to the Taliban, however facetiously, is asking not to be taken seriously in part and parcel.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Well, seriously, where else would anyone really debate Card's editorials online?
Try the blogosphere, there are plenty out there that mention Orson Scott Card.
edit: Or heck create your own blog that gives people a medium to discuss the editorials/essays.
quote:Even if you think everything Gore stands for is bunk, what he wants to actually do to solve his so called fictitious problem is still good!
I have a problem with getting people to do good things by deception, whether intended or not. There are only a bajillion instance in history and literature of that very thing back-firing.
quote:Gore and the rest of the terrorists want us to switch off of fossil fuels and use renewables. Card is pissed off because we're running out of fossil fuels and Gore is distracting away from the search from an alternative? Did he even proof read the article before he posted it?
If we attempt to seriously undertake the renewable energy source effort taking global warming along for the ride is a monkey we don't need. You don't have to push global warming to help people understand why getting off oil is a good thing.
quote: Card is on the side of President Bush and his cronies, they want to pollute the environment and don't much care for Green industry. The people on the other side want clean water, clean air, healthy forests, and clean renewable, home grown energy. How does he reconcile the people he supports with the things he claims are problems requiring solutions?
Yes lets pigeon hole everyone who is skeptical about global warming as some, "vast right wing conspiracy," or a Bush crony. Card as much as says he is very interested in the environment, but that there are concerns far more important to the environment, like dependence on fossil fuels that should take precedence over global climate change.
There are plenty of good reasons to be pro alternate fuel without towing the global warming line. This, "You are with us or against us" attitude is ridiculous, as is criticizing the forum's host in this very thread. I shouldn't even be debating it to be honest.
[ November 01, 2007, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This, "You are with us or against us" attitude is ridiculous, as is criticizing the forum's host in this very thread.
Are you saying that there should be no criticism of OSC on Hatrack, or just that there shouldn't be any in this thread?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote: Leftaliban
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This, "You are with us or against us" attitude is ridiculous, as is criticizing the forum's host in this very thread.
Are you saying that there should be no criticism of OSC on Hatrack, or just that there shouldn't be any in this thread?
Though there is no specific guideline, I personally feel that since the initial thread creating post, criticism of Mr. Card has gone past what the forum terms specify.
I don't think all the things stated in this thread could be rightly said if we were in Mr. Card's living room.
edit: The personal attacks are what are objectional to me. It's quite possible to discuss the ideas stated without making moral judgements on the writer.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Climate change, whether it's man made or not, whether you like it or not, is coming.
Isn't this statement always going to be true no matter what we do or not do? The earth's climate will always be and has always been changing and we cannot stop it no matter what we do.
quote: And you know what, I don't think Pres. Bush CAUSED climate change or anything, but he's doing his best at times to hinder the efforts to make our country better.
I'm sort of surprised that you don't believe President Bush caused global warming.
quote: Card is on the side of President Bush and his cronies, they want to pollute the environment and don't much care for Green industry. The people on the other side want clean water, clean air, healthy forests, and clean renewable, home grown energy. How does he reconcile the people he supports with the things he claims are problems requiring solutions?
Did you read the same article I did? It sure seems like you read something completely different. So unless we completely agree with Gore and his cronies then we want polluted water, dirty air, dying forests and polluting, foriegn energy? Unless you are saying that President Bush and his cronies want to destroy the planet because they are not in complete agreement with Gore and his cronies? Isn't it odd how Gore is insisting you and I must change our lives while he can simply buy a carbon offset? Or is that issue no longer relevant?
[ November 01, 2007, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Climate change, whether it's man made or not, whether you like it or not, is coming. There will be a massive fight for resources, and massive die off of the world's ballooning population if we don't do something to prevent it ahead of time, or at least be aware that it's a possibility.
Yeah, but we have Dennis Quaid on our side, so no worries.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Yeah, but we have Dennis Quaid on our side, so no worries.
Quaid! Start the reactor!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Yeah, but we have Dennis Quaid on our side, so no worries.
Quaid! Start the reactor!
Get to the choppa!
*Continues the tangental trend*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally Posted by Blackblade: There are plenty of good reasons to be pro alternate fuel without towing the global warming line. This, "You are with us or against us" attitude is ridiculous, as is criticizing the forum's host in this very thread. I shouldn't even be debating it to be honest.
I think I'm more than polite to OSC on a regular basis, but generally I stop being polite when someone calls me a terrorist, regardless of whose living room I'm in.
DarkKnight -
I should have been more specific. The round of climate change that is coming in the near future is coming whether we like it or not, and scienctists tell us that it will have extremely adverse effects on human life on Earth.
quote:Did you read the same article I did? It sure seems like you read something completely different. So unless we completely agree with Gore and his cronies then we want polluted water, dirty air, dying forests and polluting, foriegn energy? Unless you are saying that President Bush and his cronies want to destroy the planet because they are not in complete agreement with Gore and his cronies? Isn't it odd how Gore is insisting you and I must change our lives while he can simply buy a carbon offset? Or is that issue no longer relevant
I'm not a Gore apologist. For all the cheerleading he does, I think he's part of the old school message on Greening the planet and I think for all the good he does, he does just as much harm by setting off people like you. When everyone starts to identify the Green movement with Gore, and then attacks Gore, the Green movement is tarnished by association, and it's not fair. But though I think he's going about it the wrong way, at least he's doing something about it.
Could you list for me please though, all the things that Gore is asking you to give up? Can you? Don't get me wrong, I think a sustainable future for America and the planet will require a lot of changes in the way we live our lives, but where is this drumbeat that Gore is asking you to radically alter your life? Just give me a list, I really have no idea.
He's saying use less energy, alright, what's wrong with that? Install more efficient technology in your house or solar panels on your home. Financing options available already make the financial commitment that you the homeowner would need to make quite small, especially out west. But the point is, you can use less energy from the grid while also saving yourself some money. So what's your beef there, that Gore's policies would save you money, create jobs, and help the economy? That continues on with water usage, gasoline usage, etc. It's all about a drive for efficiency. Creating an efficient use of our natural and created resources so we get as much out of as little as we can. That's the ultimate goal.
Like I said, I think Gore is selling it wrong. Whether or not man is contributing to global warming isn't a bone even worth picking, and frankly I don't even much care what the answer is to that question. All it does is get the people who don't believe it up in arms, and by and large they attack ANY measure that is seen as Green, because Green is attached to Gore/Global Warming, and gets a negative label.
All the things that will combat global warming, if indeed we are responsible, should be done for a dozen or more fantastic reasons that all have nothing to do with climate change at all, so why are we bothering to fight over such a controversial issue at all? I think that OSC is smart enough to see through that, but I find it hard to reconcile with the invective in his article. But OSC's article is a perfect example of why Gore's particular method isn't really the best. OSC didn't just attack global warming, and he didn't even just attack Gore, he went after the entire movement, and even the entire Democratic party. It makes no sense to me, but I suspect it's an emotional response, one that I can't really blame him for.
Anyway, I think OSC was incredibly insulting, and I took personal offense to it. I think it highlights the differences in this debate, and how incredibly off track it has gotten in many ways (I mean the greater national and global debate, not just ours here on this thread).
And btw DarkKnight, I say Pres. Bush is against the environment because his policies are destructuve and harmful. I don't know or care what his personal feelings are towards the environment, I care about his actions and the effect they have. I don't know what your beef is, but I can't imagine you actually think he's had a positive effect on the envionment.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
As Lryhawn was saying, how about we all just chill, agree that we don't have a definite answer about whether global warming is caused by humans, and then get started cleaning up the planet and using less energy. We can't possibly disagree that we need to do that.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Taking the trust we place in experts with things like DNA evidence and particle physics (string-theory and inflation theory notwithstanding) and comparing it to trusting the "Global Warming" experts is the fallacy of Weak Analogy, for two reasons. One: there are dissenting voices from experts in the field with very plain-spoken arguments. Two: There exists a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments.
The scientists may not be entirely agenda driven, but the impression that there is a consensus of agreement in the field has been created by those with an agenda. Kinda like evolution, though that has had a lot more time to take hold. Of course attempts have been made to make Global Warming unfalsifiable, like evolution, and with basically the same tactic (using extremely long time frames to prevent testability.)
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: One: there are dissenting voices from experts in the field with very plain-spoken arguments.
Why on earth is "plain-spoken" a glowing recommendation?
Why can't you say "arguments whose validity and evidenciary soundness are acknowledged by a wide spectrum of scientists in the relevant fields?"
Perhaps because it's not true?
quote:Two: There exists a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments.
And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?
In a poll of 240 right-wing bloggers, 0% thought that humans were primarily responsible for global warming
0%.
And you think that all 240 bloggers came to that conclusion because they read the primary literature themselves? Because they certainly didn't come to that conclusion by paying attention to what the vast majority of people who do read (and generate) the primary literature say.
quote:The scientists may not be entirely agenda driven, but the impression that there is a consensus of agreement in the field has been created by those with an agenda.
That's so counter-factual one hardly knows what to say. There is a consensus. You can count on one hand the number of scientists within those field who think that global warming is not a problem, and half of them very openly get their paycheckes from oil and energy industires.
quote:Kinda like evolution, though that has had a lot more time to take hold.
Oh please. You yourself promised to defend your own arguments against evolution. And you chose to break your promise rather than do so. You know that you can't defend them.
Can you name, say, 1 evolution denier with a degree in evolutionary biology? Or 3 with any degree in biology at all?
Do you doubt that for every name you were to give, I could give 20?
(Whether I cold give 20 Steves would be a bit more of a challange)
In what other categories would you think that >95% agreement fails to constitute a consensus?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
"And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?"
That's a tu quoque. I never said that.
Plain-spoken arguments are good because you shouldn't expect people to get behind policy decisions based upon theories which we are told we're too stupid or uneducated to understand. If something is up for debate, and one side can be explained in very simple basic terms, and the other side depends on convincing everyone that there is no more room for debate (in an attempt to quell dissenting opinions), well that seems a little fishy to me.
And as for your challenge, why does someone need a degree in evolutionary biology to be able to make arguments against it? How about for it? If that were the case, pretty much only believers in the theory would be allowed to talk about it. Oh wait, that does seem to be the case.
No, how about degrees in biochemistry, mathematics, information theory, astronomy, or philosophy? You seem to be saying those people are not qualified to speak on the subject. In essence, you are trying to say that I'm not qualified to speak, or really to even think. I should just shut up and be spoon-fed everything from the origins of the human species and life itself to our future. Well that may work for you, but I'm not so easily controlled. And I'm not going to engage in a debate in which the rules are set up so that my side is guaranteed to lose. My starting premises are deemed inadmissible by those I'm debating. That's not fair and you know it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:My starting premises are deemed inadmissible by those I'm debating.
I don't recall you ever sharing your starting premises.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: ... a consensus of agreement in the field has been created by those with an agenda. Kinda like evolution
What political agenda could there be behind the scientific consensus on evolution? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't think all the things stated in this thread could be rightly said if we were in Mr. Card's living room.
In fairness, I don't think Card would say half of what he says in his articles if we were in his living room, either.
------
quote:Taking the trust we place in experts with things like DNA evidence and particle physics (string-theory and inflation theory notwithstanding) and comparing it to trusting the "Global Warming" experts is the fallacy of Weak Analogy, for two reasons. One: there are dissenting voices from experts in the field with very plain-spoken arguments. Two: There exists a political agenda behind the Global Warming arguments.
The irony here is that there are dissenting voices for both DNA evidence and particle physics, many of whom have considerably more than "plain-spoken" arguments. And many of those arguments are backed by political agendas.
quote:Plain-spoken arguments are good because you shouldn't expect people to get behind policy decisions based upon theories which we are told we're too stupid or uneducated to understand. If something is up for debate, and one side can be explained in very simple basic terms, and the other side depends on convincing everyone that there is no more room for debate (in an attempt to quell dissenting opinions), well that seems a little fishy to me.
What if one side can be explained in simple terms -- "God did it" -- and the other side requires an understanding of molecular biology?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"well that seems a little fishy to me."
I wonder if Galileo thought the Catholic Church's treatment of him seemed a little fishy? I mean, their arguments were very convincing (in that George Orwell 1984 "we beat you until you break" kind of way)...but I don't think physical coercion is necessarily as convincing as actual observation of the Universe. The church prelates wouldn't even look through Galileo's telescope. I don't have any problem with simple arguments. However, I'm thinking Galileo will be a hero for many more people than his captors, in the future.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Do you see this animal? Do you know what it is?
It is a STORK.
The stork might be a birdy... The stork might be a fishy...
The stork has wings and feet and a beak like a birdy...
But the stork brings little babies from heaven and drops them down the chimney.
Doesn't that sound a little fishy to you....?
...*Uncle Shelby's ABZ book
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Of course attempts have been made to make Global Warming unfalsifiable, like evolution, and with basically the same tactic (using extremely long time frames to prevent testability.)
I read a silly claim like that on conservapedia and I think it stems from a misunderstanding of what "testing" means. Testing just means checking that the theory corresponds with the data. Find a giraffe fossil that dates to the pre-cambrian age and you've blown evolutionary theory out of the water. I'm sure you can think of other examples.
Unfortunately for you, and other creationists, evolutionary theory is difficult to falsify because of the mountain of evidence supporting it. If you truely wanted to falsify it then you have to find multiple violations of it. Since the core of evolutionary theory has held up so well to existing evidence, an isolated violation is likely to be due to corrupt data. The same basic principle is true in other fields as well. For example, lets look at modern day theories of motion. These theories have been tested so extensively that true anomalies will be extremely rare and probably difficult to reproduce (like finding a giraffe in the pre-cambrian era). One would need an extensive collection of these anomalies for them to be taken seriously (just like one would need more than one fossil to falsify evolutionary theory).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Can you name, say, 1 evolution denier with a degree in evolutionary biology? Or 3 with any degree in biology at all?
Do you doubt that for every name you were to give, I could give 20?
(Whether I cold give 20 Steves would be a bit more of a challange)
In what other categories would you think that >95% agreement fails to constitute a consensus?
I'd be willing to be that at least 95% of people with degrees from Divinity School believe in the existence of God. Does that mean the consensus of experts accepts the existence of God, and that therefore we should follow their lead? I think there is a hole in this sort of reasoning...
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I'd be willing to be that at least 95% of people with degrees from Divinity School believe in the existence of God. Does that mean the consensus of experts accepts the existence of God,
There are no experts when it comes to that particular question. Having a degree from a Divinity school doesn't make you any more qualified to have an opinion than anyone else.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
As someone with a degree from a Divinity school I would like to say that I agree with Xavier on that. It does, however make me an expert in what people historically have believed about God. If you want to know what the difference is between Presbyterian and Catholic theology of grace you would be foolish not to take the opinion of a person with a divinity degree with more weight. If you want to know the various ways the parable of the prodigal son has been interpreted in the last 1500 years -- the degree is a good sign that the person with it might know more than the average bear.
If the question is whether or not God exists, the degree provides no special insight.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:In fairness, I don't think Card would say half of what he says in his articles if we were in his living room, either. [Wink]
Granted, but if he did, and we didn't like it, the correct response would not be to respond in kind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: [QB] "And global warming denial is pure as the driven snow?"
That's a tu quoque. I never said that.
Tu Quoque is a form of Ad Hominem, a red herring and not related to your charge.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok, I read the article. Swiping at foul strawmen of "the Leftist elite" and the "Leftaliban" and the 'environmentalist terrorists.' Calling the IPCC a "roomful of monkeys." I guess his reaction to the continued legitimization of anthropogenic global warming was to become angry and wastefully petty and put on a show of bald rhetoric.
So, you know, whatever. It doesn't look much like anything worth taking seriously.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Granted, but if he did, and we didn't like it, the correct response would not be to respond in kind.
If OSC talked like that in his living room that we were all in in real life, most of us would leave. Heck, if he was on this forum often and his behavior was consistent with how he has behaved here in the past or in his essays, I'm pretty sure that Hatrack would empty out pretty quickly.
This forum is alive in the form that it is in part because OSC, outside of his books, touches very lightly on it. If he started treating it like his living room, I think it would kill the parts of Hatrack I value.
That being said, I've come to try to avoid addressing OSC's articles unless someone else brings them up. I think he intends them to be destructive and I don't want the destructiveness he pushes to be introduced here. Honestly, I think the only real thing we can do within the framework of this site is to generally pretend that his columns don't exist.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If OSC talked like that in his living room that we were all in in real life, most of us would leave.
It depends. If you, Squicky, behaved in real life like you behave on this forum, I'd very happily back Scott up in his aggressive responses toward you.
I note that you have not been banned yet-- and yet people accuse Scott of not being tolerant.
quote:This forum is alive in the form that it is in part because OSC, outside of his books, touches very lightly on it.
So you agree with the Cards' estimation from a couple years ago-- that they really are not welcome in their own forum? And that you're the one being not welcoming?
quote:If he started treating it like his living room, I think it would kill the parts of Hatrack I value.
What are you talking about? You can engage in insipid blame contests with kat and Dagonee as much as you want, even with Scott around.
Or wait-- if Scott starts posting again, would you leave? I'm not generally a supporter of the Farewell thread, but I could get behind yours with gusto.
quote:I think he intends them to be destructive and I don't want the destructiveness he pushes to be introduced here. Honestly, I think the only real thing we can do within the framework of this site is to generally pretend that his columns don't exist.
Funny. This is how I generally feel about you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:whistled:
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Scott- OSC has been deliberately insulting towards everyone on the left since the first political column he wrote in 2000. His columns are not *responses* to attacks on him, they are attacks that have provoked hostile responses towards him.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That's not what I was talking about, PG.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So you agree with the Cards' estimation from a couple years ago-- that they really are not welcome in their own forum? And that you're the one being not welcoming?
They, as people, are completely welcome. I don't think most people here have a problem with anyone posting here or with people with certain beliefs from posting here.
However, there are standards of behavior, both explicit and implicit, and ways of conversing with people and using language that go into making Hatrack what it is. OSC, in his essays, and to some extent in his past behavior here does not follow these standards.
If he did, I'd be very welcoming. As it is, I think his interactions would be similar in character to your last post, which would be very detrimental to the forum.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I'm going to time-out this thread, because I think I need to read the whole thing before I comment, and I don't have the time now because I need to go back to the hospital soon. You should probably expect me to get back to it late this afternoon assuming all continues to go as planned with the family.
--PJ
Follow-up, a bit later than I expected. While I certainly don't agree with everything that has been said, neither do I disagree with it. However, agreeing or disagreeing isn't really what's at issue.
Yes, some people are being pretty pointed in their responses to OSC's essay -- I haven't read the essay, but it sounds like he's saying some pretty pointed things there as well. I don't think anything said about that have crossed the TOS line, though I personally don't think this forum is the best place for all of the various types of criticisms involved.
I'd rather folks powered down a bit, and perhaps self-edited a bit more. If things don't continue to escalate in tone, I'll allow people to respond to various comments (and their propriety) on their own. I'd really like not to have to do anything else with this thread.
--PJ
[ November 02, 2007, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:As it is, I think his interactions would be similar in character to your last post, which would be very detrimental to the forum.
What's wonderfully ironic about this situation is that you can keep badmouthing OSC with personal little digs like this, and he can't (really-- won't) do anything to stop you. For all that you, Squicky, go on and on about how detrimental his influence would be (nice trick), his attitude toward the value of this forum is the only thing keeping it alive.
The evidence-- at a minimum, the Card's continuing operation of this board-- is enough for most of us to see the ludicrousness of your position.
I think OSC appreciates the irony of being deemed a detriment to the community he sustains.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I think OSC appreciates the irony of being deemed a detriment to the community he sustains."
Scott, I know you're just backing up Orson, your bro, your hearth brother, your framling, your fellow churchman, etc.. I know this isn't personal. However, if you were, in fact, a giant dick, and your tone was, in fact, totally different, would it be ironic that you regularly participate at Sake? I'm not saying that it is, I'm asking you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't have any idea what you're asking though-- it doesn't parse.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Double-post.
I believe that what I'm saying is true. It has nothing to do with a clique-- whether that Mormonism, or sakeriver, or science fiction writers, it doesn't matter.
[ November 03, 2007, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Again, not accusing you of an off tone. I guess what I'm asking is, what is your tone? Sake would be a very different place if Mormons like yourself hadn't specifically asked for certain considerations. People are happy to provide those. I guess what I'm asking is, can similar considerations be asked for here? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not saying it's equivalent, merely bringing up the issue for discussion, and perhaps partially thinking out loud.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What considerations are you talking about? I don't remember asking for anything like that.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
You benefit from those considerations, whether or not you specifically asked for them. Again, not accusing you of anything. I'm talking about keeping the open, frank discussion of certain subjects to certain thread(s)? You know, the sex thread and the drunk thread?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, we do have those luncheons every Saturday. I think that most of us non-Mormons would enjoy a change in the meat selection at those, but we know that you specifically asked for toddler flesh, and we've tried to keep you happy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Steven, what in the world are you driving at?
I'm all for thread drift, but I'm not sure what this discussion has to do with what I've said to Squicky.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm expecting all of your support when my peace prize comes for seeing the asteroid impact threat years in advance and promoting the cause, okay? And for the whole Averting Human Extinction push.
I'm completely serious.
Though I really want to win the literature one, or econ or physics would be cool, too. I'll settle for peace. Yes, totally, I won't reject peace. I want to let the committee know that.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Well, if we're going to have considerations for social conservatives there, perhaps we could have considerations for social liberals here, perhaps in the form of a certain thread or threads where Orson's columns are discussed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Again, not accusing you of an off tone. I guess what I'm asking is, what is your tone? Sake would be a very different place if Mormons like yourself hadn't specifically asked for certain considerations. People are happy to provide those. I guess what I'm asking is, can similar considerations be asked for here? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not saying it's equivalent, merely bringing up the issue for discussion, and perhaps partially thinking out loud.
I am deeply skeptical as to the amount of any knowledge you might have as to what considerations Mormons get on Sakeriver, steven.
quote:Well, if we're going to have considerations for social conservatives there, perhaps we could have considerations for social liberals here, perhaps in the form of a certain thread or threads where Orson's columns are discussed.
What considerations are given there, exactly?
And given the general forum-wide reaction to most of OSC's political columns (overall either apathy or strong criticism and frequent outright contempt), I'd say that the man who's paying for it really is offering some substantial considerations.
Hell, I don't think for a second that you would be as considerate.
------------
quote:OSC, in his essays, and to some extent in his past behavior here does not follow these standards.
You and he have something in common then, it would appear: no matter the number and quality of people criticizing the tone of your criticisms, you do not stop and do not feel unjustified in making them.
Just something to think about for the inevitable next time a thread turns into a kat-squicky pissing match.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Rakeesh, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but...I've been reading that site regularly for a loooong time, at least 1.5 years. I read most of the posts there, outside of maybe the knitting thread , and read absolutely everything in the hatrack gossip, sex thread, Karl's thread, and quite a few of the others.
More to the point, I've seen it happen several times that people have voluntarily, either before being asked, or afterwards, moved a discussion to the appropriate thread. I've also seen people express the desire to move the discussion outside that thread, but then choose not to. I'm just throwing that out there. This isn't accusing you of anything specifically. I'm suggesting an idea, perhaps.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Hell, I don't think for a second that you would be as considerate."
It depends. If I had my own site, I'd probably squash nutritional discussions that I didn't like. Social conservatism, I'm noticeably more forgiving toward.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
steven, Hatrack and sake are different places. They work differently, and have different rules, and serve different purposes. You can't extrapolate behavior from one to the other in the manner you're trying to do, even if your observations about sake were valid, which I'm not willing to grant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:More to the point, I've seen it happen several times that people have voluntarily, either before being asked, or afterwards, moved a discussion to the appropriate thread.
Well, first off let's just drop all this "not accusing you of..." nonsense. Clearly you're not happy with the status quo over there, and equally clearly you blame Mormons in large part for that status quo.
Second, I find it unsurprising that you consider people being politely asked to move sexually graphic discussions to the thread specifically designated for those discussions to be 'pandering'. You must not be very much into communities of any sort if any consideration of certain groups or sensibilities is 'pandering' (except when it's yours, of course)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I was just suggesting ideas.
In specific, I was suggesting that we have one or more threads devoted to discussing OSC's columns, just like on Ornery there's an entire sub-forum for Orson's World Watch columns.
Again, just suggesting.
However, ElJay, I'd like to hear more about your point re: the differences between Hatrack and sake. I admit to not having thought all this through. I'm just thinking out loud.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
What I'm suggesting is something that's already mirrored on Ornery.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
There is nothing more to hear. They are different places. The way things work are not the same, and you cannot reasonably expect them to be. If they were, there would be no point in participating in both of them.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
And your point is?...Like I said, it's already mirrored on Ornery, and I'm just throwing ideas out there. I don't know you nearly well enough to guess what your point is. Blame that on my failings, but at least give me some hint. I consider the two sites to be part of one continuum. Also, I consider Hatrack to be a semi-permanent place, it might last another 40 years or more. I doubt it'll outlive OSC, but it might, in some changed, smaller form.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
But I wasn't talking about Ornery. Ornery is another site owned by OSC, and as such there you might have a point. sake is not owned by OSC, and is not part of the OSC family of sites.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm flying mostly blind here....I haven't seen any other situations where a site owner has 3 or 4 or more different sites, and then one of them gives birth to another site that he doesn't own and isn't affiliated with. I've seen sites give birth to others, but never this exact type of situation. Help. Anyone.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In any case, Squicky and I weren't discussing the tone of OSC's columns. We were discussing (or rather, arguing about) the effect of OSC's posts on this forum.
Do you see the difference, steven?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I was just throwing out an idea, Scott, and not one that I had previously considered. The whole thing was off the cuff, and I was pretty sleepy when I started. There's less forethought that you think. To be honest, my reading of the middle third of the thread was less than complete, and I missed the whole "Squicky versus Scott" debate on OSC's level of participation here. You know? Cut a brother some slack, I was barely awake when I came back to this thread today.
Edit--dude, you were both being unnecessarily nasty there. I do think Orson would change the forum tremendously if he started weighing in on topics more regularly. As to whether it would become more teh suck, or less....we all know that's mostly a matter of perspective. If Scott confined his comments to fiction, movies, etc., it would be almost a universal good....but for better or for worse, that ship has probably sailed. He couldn't stay off politics/Clinton/Bush/etc., I think, although maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For my part, I'd like to see OSC interact with the forum more often and more deeply. But I'm not going to expect or demand that of him; it's nothing we're entitled to.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Is anyone else completely and totally confused?
What the hell happened here?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
steven operates on a level of reality to which the rest of us aren't granted full access.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm very confused too. Is there an actual debate about the appropriateness of OSC using his Website to talk about how he feels about political issues? If not, then never mind.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"steven operates on a level of reality to which the rest of us aren't granted full access."
That's what people have been telling me since I was 9. Literally.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Most people grow out of it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Grow out of what, exactly?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm very confused too. Is there an actual debate about the appropriateness of OSC using his Website to talk about how he feels about political issues? If not, then never mind.
Wow, you deliberately misunderstand things to make your arguments valid even when you're not going to make them?
------------
Thinking that they are unique among all other people in, for example, their access to reality.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Is anyone else completely and totally confused?
What the hell happened here?
I have no idea.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Interesting.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'm very confused too. Is there an actual debate about the appropriateness of OSC using his Website to talk about how he feels about political issues? If not, then never mind.
Wow, you deliberately misunderstand things to make your arguments valid even when you're not going to make them?
What the hell are you talking about?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't remember people talking about whether or not it would be appropriate for OSC to use his website to discuss his views. In fact, I can't remember anyone ever seriously suggesting it wasn't appropriate for him to do so.
I remember a lot of discussion about whether or not his views are courteous, fair, or reasonable, though. And that's a very different thing. So different that I have serious doubts as to whether or not you really misunderstood the difference.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I'm flying mostly blind here....I haven't seen any other situations where a site owner has 3 or 4 or more different sites, and then one of them gives birth to another site that he doesn't own and isn't affiliated with. I've seen sites give birth to others, but never this exact type of situation. Help. Anyone.
I haven't read ANYTHING on page 1 and nothing prior to Papa's involvement on page 2. So I have no idea what the actual thread was about. But with regard to this particular post:
I am involved in two other boards, one of which was a spin-off from the other. The parent board is a cross stitch forum started by a designer (or a friend/family member/fan, perhaps) and the designer does absolutely participate in the discussions. The VAST majority of topics are about her designs. There are some non-TW threads but not many. About 3 years ago, TW expressed a dislike for the non-stitching threads that had been taking place, and The Wagon was formed by one of the members of the parent board - not by TW or whoever started the original board - to answer that request. A good portion of the population is the same, and we often have threads that are posted to both locations. But all of the "gossip" type threads, whether it be personal stuff, news, politics, planning social events, etc., goes only to The Wagon.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I've seen that happen with qi gong forums, too. This situation is unique, though...Orson has at least 4 sites that I know of, and there's 1 active spinoff, maybe 3 semi-active ones, to varying degrees, and then a smattering of half-efforts...it's probably not totally unique, but ...
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Rakeesh,
"We were discussing (or rather, arguing about) the effect of OSC's posts on this forum."
"If Scott confined his comments to fiction, movies, etc., it would be almost a universal good....but for better or for worse, that ship has probably sailed. He couldn't stay off politics/Clinton/Bush/etc., I think, although maybe I'm wrong."
Those were the relevant comments. I really was confused, and these late posts seemed to sum up what had passed. If you can't conceive of how I may have arrived at my tenuous conclusion, why must you apply malicious motives to my misunderstanding? Is it because you are evil and hateful?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Don't mention that to him.
Short of him reading this specific subject, I wouldn't; I don't think he will. Because I rather suspect it would be about as effective in convincing him to alter his methods as his editorial is in convincing me of the wrong of those who believe in anthropocentric global warming.
However, to clarify: if reason (or what he believes is reason) causes Card to believe that human activity is not the cause of global warming- or that the invasion of Iraq is a good idea that was well implemented and generally successful in its aims, for that matter- I wouldn't expect him to change his mind.
But I would hope he might, possibly, recognize that his editorials have virtually no chance of convincing those he villifies of the error of their ways, and apparently even cause a significant portion of those who might be inclined to agree with some his basic premises to say, "Whoa! Guy? You have issues."
Trying to turn "smart" into a pejorative, and comparing those you disagree with to terrorists, are not the tactics one should use to inspire thought, and they have the side effect of suggesting that the author is not applying thought. There's a time and place for applying heart, but if what turns up in your writing over and over again is bile, you run the danger of wearing out your liver.
I would rejoice to see an editorial that really challenged. The ones I've been reading just seem to lie there, oozing vitriol, their factuality poked full of holes by a couple of simple searches on Google.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
The thing is... Card has a certain ethos that causes some people to recognize that what he says merits some consideration, and might possibly even cause one to think, "hey, maybe there isanother way of looking at this besides the way it's portrayed in the media."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, no. When people get to shouting "You're stupid! You're evil! You faked your data! You are a traitor!" in political debate, then they do tend to get a lot of attention, without anyone actually taking them seriously. Much less thinking that they may have good points! Ye gods, this is the opposite of good points!
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Tom: For my part, I'd like to see OSC interact with the forum more often and more deeply. But I'm not going to expect or demand that of him; it's nothing we're entitled to.
Or at least a Colbert version of him.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*carefully
My understanding of OSC is that he has commented in the past that he is more interested in encouraging and consolidating the beliefs of people who agree with him -- people and beliefs he finds often to be under attack in the mainstream media -- than any other goal. That is, I don't think it is so much debate that is the point of the columns as rallying.
I happen not to agree with him on many things, this style included, but the rhetorical style did make more sense to me after reading that.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I don't think it is so much debate that is the point of the columns as rallying."
I have a friend who is about our age who characterizes it as a "Baby Boom" thing. They don't discuss things calmly, almost as a generation. They're either shooting you, yelling at you, or walking away. Not that it's 100% true on an individual level, but, you know, whatever.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"My understanding of OSC is that he has commented in the past that he is more interested in encouraging and consolidating the beliefs of people who agree with him -- people and beliefs he finds often to be under attack in the mainstream media -- than any other goal. That is, I don't think it is so much debate that is the point of the columns as rallying."
He's also commented that the style of argument he uses (referencing other media sources, not himself) is destroying america. So, apparently he believes its more important to rally people around his causes them to do what he believes is right for america?
The problem I have with the debate style OSC uses is that it draws this big divide between americans. He says "People like me are good americans, people who aren't are terrorists and evil and out to destroy our country."
Not only can you not debate with anyone who believes that, or thinks that... the only way that you can engage that person is through violence, because if you don't kill him first, he's going to kill you. There's no communication possible, only war.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am not cheerleading this rhetorical style, just in case that was not clear. I am merely putting the description forward as a rememberance of a prior clarification.
*mildly
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I know you aren't cheerleading it.
I just think that not only should we not cheerlead for this particular rhetorical style, we, as americans who want to live with our neighbors in peace, should vigorously condemn it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I can see you feel passionately about that, and I have no problem with it.
I just wanted to make it clear what I was and was not doing, as you go about doing your thing. Carry on. Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Yes. The divide between us and the people who communicate like this should be very great. We should condemn them very severely for condemning the people who they disagree with very severely.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The thing is... Card has a certain ethos that causes some people to recognize that what he says merits some consideration, and might possibly even cause one to think, "hey, maybe there isanother way of looking at this besides the way it's portrayed in the media."
How would you characterize OSC's articles? Every single one I've read has been extremely condescending and full of ridiculous stereotypes about liberals. He has proven that he would rather incite hate about those whose politcal opinions differ from his rather than actually engage in an honest debate. What do you see in his articles that I don't? When I think of someone whose opinion is worthy of consideration, I think of someone who is fair minded and is able to not only present their own viewpoints but also address the viewpoints of their critics. OSC does none of that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You are aware that trying to draw an equivalence between what I'm doing, and what OSC is doing, makes my point very nicely for me, right?
There is no equivalence between saying "This one person is using rhetorical language that promotes a permanent divide people and causes them to be violent enemies," and saying "Everyone who doesn't think like I do is fundamentally and inextricably evil."
Its not about OSC's ideas, or his vigorous condemenation of those ideas... its the fact that his vigorous condemnation is not of ideas, but of people who believe differently then he, and that the vigorous condmenation implicitly says "its not only ok to remove these people, it is a moral necessity."
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Paul, my point is that if you're asking someone else to stop, pause, and consider the humanity of the other person before writing mean things about them, they're never going to feel safe doing that if you aren't stopping to stop, pause and consider the humanity of the person who you're writing about first.
Whether you're trying to save the world from global warming, or trying to save the world from those who are afraid of global warming, or you're trying to save the world from people who write in a way you consider vitriolic, if you believe in starting from a place where you recognize that the other side is just trying to do good, too, then start from that place.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Yes. The divide between us and the people who communicate like this should be very great. We should condemn them very severely for condemning the people who they disagree with very severely.
Your post seems to imply an argument analogous to the "why are you bigoted against bigots" argument.
EDIT because I posted after docmagik's reply:
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Paul, my point is that if you're asking someone else to stop, pause, and consider the humanity of the other person before writing mean things about them, they're never going to feel safe doing that if you aren't stopping to stop, pause and consider the humanity of the person who you're writing about first.
Has Paul violated that principle?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I gave OSC two years of the benefit of the doubt. I didn't write mean things about him for two years of him calling me a terrorist, him calling me evil, him calling me all sorts of vile names.
I dont recognize that OSC is trying to do good... its been written in too many places where he could or should have seen that his rhetoric corresponds to the type of rhetoric he says is destroying america. He's even engaged in a thread pointing that out.
I can only conclude OSC thinks, as I stated above, that its more important to rally his side, then to do whats right for america.
I do not think OSC is trying to do good. I did give him that benefit of the doubt, but its no longer possible for me to doubt. With HIM. People who agree with his positions might be trying to do good, and I give those people th ebenefit of the doubt.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:There's a time and place for applying heart, but if what turns up in your writing over and over again is bile, you run the danger of wearing out your liver.
I enjoyed the phrasing on this, Stirling. Nicely said.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Reshpeckobiggle,
quote:Those were the relevant comments. I really was confused, and these late posts seemed to sum up what had passed. If you can't conceive of how I may have arrived at my tenuous conclusion, why must you apply malicious motives to my misunderstanding? Is it because you are evil and hateful?
OK then, find me someone saying or suggesting that it would be inappropriate for OSC to use his website for his politics. That is different from saying that doing so would be harmful to the community. If you can't find that for me, kindly just shut your trap and abandon your transparent tricks, OK? At least improve your trolling to not quite so painfully obvious.
------------------------
Paul,
quote:The problem I have with the debate style OSC uses is that it draws this big divide between americans. He says "People like me are good americans, people who aren't are terrorists and evil and out to destroy our country."
Wow.
Seriously, what are you still doing here then? You've openly stated now that Card is a hateful demagogue deliberately harming the nation for his own ends. I would imagine, then, you might feel at least some discomfort helping his website out on a weekly basis, basically helping to pay for Card's upkeep.
Or is it that you don't feel the community he pays to support is as worthy of contempt as you are convinced he is, and thus what does that say about your ridiculous, over-the-top claims about him?
Or can you, in what must obviously be a detailed and complete knowledge of his political writing, find for me where he says that people who don't think like he does are terrorists out to destroy the United States?
I haven't done more than partially, conditionally agree with his political writings in a long time, and I think I would remember that. If you can't find it, then just take a deep freaking breath and chill. out. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
hrm. I think the numerous lumpings of the left with "terrorists" "the taliban," as "evil," "unamerican," "hating america" etc do exactly what I say.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think the numerous lumpings of the left with "terrorists" "the taliban," as "evil," "unamerican," "hating america" etc do exactly what I say.
This is just your way of saying, "He didn't say what I said he did, he just really pissed me off."
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Paul, I know you are problably feeling very, very hurt. You see a lot of potential evil in what Card is doing.
Now stop and ponder--can you see that you've come to feel the same way about OSC that you were so upset that he had come to feel about you?
When he looks at you and your position towards him--that he's an evil man (or at least a man you do not think wants to do good) who can only be dealt with "with violence"--then he (or maybe I should make this less personal, and say, someone who disagrees with you) will say, "See, I told you--terrorist."
It becomes a cycle. One side reacts defensively against the attacks that they see coming from the side. They defend themselves vigorously.
But it's so vigorous, that the other side sees it as an attack. So they react defensively, and also defend themselves vigorously.
So vigoursly, that the first side sees it as an attack.
And this eventually escalates to the point where one side sees itself as being in such danger that they really do attack. And then the other side really attacks.
And thus we have war. Even though when we started out, everybody just wanted what was good for everybody.
Let's go ahead and evoke Godwin's law early, and bring up Hitler. The name of Hitler's book, translated into english, proves that even the greatest agressor of all time saw himself as a victim. It was called "My Struggle."
This is what happens when people are considering only themselves. Hence why people take OSC's columns very, very personally and cry for him to change his tone and be more understanding and patient with them, while simulaneously demanding he have thicker skin and be more open to people's criticisms of him.
While it is easy for them to see his hypocrisy, thier own is far harder to percieve. Never mind that it is Card who is completely unfamiliar with them, personally, and has never actually met them, and hence his attacks are anything but personal, while theirs are directly aimed at the heart of one man. Becuase they're motivated by their own self-interest (wanting respect, wanting understanding, wanting compassion), they're defensively looking out for themselves.
I know some people don't actually care about the idea of communicating in a way that increases peace. The name of this thread inherently shows that. I'm not really aiming this post at those people--I'm not trying to sell them on why increasing peace is a good thing.
But to Paul, and to others who believe in promoting peace, I would implore you--it has to start with you. Violence comes when you try to make someone else become what you need them to be.
Peace comes when you allow others to be different from you, and respond to them out of their interests rather than your own. And when your heart is at peace, you're not expecting anything of them, anyway, so why not respond out of their needs?
You said--"I do not think OSC is trying to do good." This is what you are upset he is thinking about you. He has his reasons for thinking that, related to lines he feels you or your party has crossed that he feels pass the boundaries of "good." You have lines you feel he has crossed that you feel pass the bondaries of good.
I honestly and truly believe what you've said about vindictive and divisive writing, Paul. But I also believe that it is so true that it even applies to vindicitve and divisive writing about vindictive and divisive writing.
I would also say that I even believe it applies to vindicitive and divisive writing about vindicitve and divisive writing about vindictive and divisive writing, but that would be going a bit too far, don't you think?
Because really, the problem, at it's core, isn't about writing, but about attitude. It's the vindicitve and divisive attitude that's the dangerous one, the one that leads to increasing tensions and increasing violence.
And the opposite attitude is the one that recognizes that the person on the other side of me is a person. A person with wants and needs and desires and fears and loves and hopes and insecurities. Wants, needs, desires, fears, loves, hopes, and insecurities that are every bit as valid as mine, because they are every bit as human as I am.
When we deny them this--when we see them only in terms of what they think of us, or how they are either facilitating or debilitating our own wants, needs, desires, fears, loves, hopes, and insecurities--for any reason, we set our hearts at war with theirs.
And we become, in effect, missile-seeking targets, looking for the worst way everything they do could effect us and taking the pain from it, rather than dodging the missles and either working with the person behind them or leaving them alone so as not to be shot at any more.
There are points when this becomes impossible, of course. But even true war is more effectively waged by people and nations whose hearts are truly at peace, who have nothing to prove, and who see the humanity of the other side as much as their own.
But political columns hardly qualify as such an extreme. To those who truly feel that OSC's greatest offense in these columns is failing to grant others their humanity, I would implore you to look inward and see whether you've allowed yourself to react to him the same way you're upset that he's reacted those who he's been in opposition to.
And then, rather than insisting he change, recognize that he's just a guy who's given in to the same kind of feelings and reactions that all of us have.
As I've said before, since this is his community, it means that his voice often reigns down like thunder on Mount Olympus. But he's not really writing these columns for us. I'm sure on the national stage he's felt like a mouse squeaking from a corner, struggling to make his voice heard. Small wonder he's felt the need to shout so loudly, though it's been so deafing to those of us in a place like fleas riding on his back.
He's no different than any of us. But if you do stop and look at the man, I think you'll find he actually is well read, well studied, and has opinions that are well thought-through.
Please try to see him as a person again. And grant him the same right to think differently about things and to be passionate about it that you want him to grant you.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I remember being uncomfortable with Card's posting style the last time he participated significantly on this side of the forum. I wish he'd stuck around and gotten a feel for the community. I honestly don't think he was unwelcome because of his ideas. As I recall, he was a bit rude in his posting style, and that got a bad reaction. I think we were a little hard on him because we expected him to know the rules because it's his community -- but the truth is, he hardly ever posted here, and we probably should have been more patient with him, like we're patient with other new people. Unfortunately, he wasn't patient either, and just left. Although, there may have been other things going on in the background that I didn't notice, so maybe I have it all wrong.
It's funny -- I've also met OSC in person, and he was quite friendly and good-natured. I suspect that the things he writes in his columns are a bit exaggerated for effect, and some are painting groups with a broad brush. I find it hard to believe that he would honestly consider The Rabbit part of the Leftaliban, or not a serious scientist, because she accepts anthropogenic global warming based on her examination of the evidence.
Having said that, making such an accusation of outright fraud (rather than simply being honestly mistaken) is a serious charge to a scientist. Imagine if I claimed that some science fiction authors had plagiarized a short story or two. That would be a very serious accusation, and one which I wouldn't make without some good evidence.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
docmagik: I felt your post was well said, kudos.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Rakeesh OK then, find me someone saying or suggesting that it would be inappropriate for OSC to use his website for his politics. That is different from saying that doing so would be harmful to the community. If you can't find that for me, kindly just shut your trap and abandon your transparent tricks, OK? At least improve your trolling to not quite so painfully obvious.
That was how I interpreted those two sentences. It's really not a big deal. My point was that you don't need to be attributing willful malice to how I interpreted it.
And could someone pleeeeeeease tell me how I'm trolling? I still don't know how it's defined here. As best as I can tell, if someone posts something you disagree with in a manner you dislike, you can say that person is trolling. You seem to be implying that my presence here is less than welcome.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That was how I interpreted those two sentences. It's really not a big deal. My point was that you don't need to be attributing willful malice to how I interpreted it.
Then your 'interpretation' is simply this: you believe that people who disagree with what Card is saying also feel it is wrong or 'inappropriate' of him to say those things they disagree with on his own website.
'Foolish' or 'malicious' are really the only two conclusions I can draw about someone arriving at that interpretation. Either you don't understand how someone can disagree with someone's opinions without believing they shouldn't say them, in which case your thoughts are very foolish, or you can understand that and are simply ignoring it in which case your 'interpretation' is malicious.
As for whether or not you're welcome here, well, I'm not the one who decides who's welcome and who isn't. But I can't remember the last positive thing you contributed to the community. Your politics don't count, because you present that as you have in this thread here: maliciously.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You sound like you need a nap. And if foolish and malicious are the only two things you can come up with, you might want to broaden your horizons a bit.
By the way, "This is just your way of saying, 'He didn't say what I said he did, he just really pissed me off,'" well, that's what I call a real contribution to the community. So you might want to take the log out of your own eye before telling me about the splinter in mine.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Sorry, I missed this.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The thing is... Card has a certain ethos that causes some people to recognize that what he says merits some consideration, and might possibly even cause one to think, "hey, maybe there isanother way of looking at this besides the way it's portrayed in the media."
How would you characterize OSC's articles? Every single one I've read has been extremely condescending and full of ridiculous stereotypes about liberals. He has proven that he would rather incite hate about those whose politcal opinions differ from his rather than actually engage in an honest debate. What do you see in his articles that I don't? When I think of someone whose opinion is worthy of consideration, I think of someone who is fair minded and is able to not only present their own viewpoints but also address the viewpoints of their critics. OSC does none of that.
I think it may have to do with perspective. Perhaps his column are a bit harsh, but I think if you are on the receiving end of his admonitions, you going to perceive them to be much worse than they are. Perhaps, though not necessarily. It's hard for me to tell because I generally agree with his positions, and so when I read them, my reaction is usually along the lines of, "yep, that's true."
As for him wanting to engage in honest debate; his essays aren't a conversation. They are a statement. I guess you could say they are a part of the public debate as a whole. But I daresay they are less incendiary than many other conservative columns, and certainly less than most liberal columns.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You sound like you need a nap. And if foolish and malicious are the only two things you can come up with, you might want to broaden your horizons a bit.
Then how's about you enlighten me, Reshpeckobiggle? What other possibilities are there for someone who insists that there is no difference between disagreeing with what someone says, and whether or not they should say it?
As for what I said to Paul, the difference is that I ended up there. You start there, in every conversation I can remember you having. And anyway, I never said that I never behaved that way. With you it's a default position, as exhibited in this (and other) threads.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:But I daresay they are less incendiary than many other conservative columns, and certainly less than most liberal columns.
Perhaps. But I think what does the most to draw ire against Card is his utterly baffling belief that he is somehow a moderate, that everything he says is the result of a careful and unbiased appreciation of the facts. For example, how he somehow believes Empire doesn't vilify liberals.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I think it may have to do with perspective. Perhaps his column are a bit harsh, but I think if you are on the receiving end of his admonitions, you going to perceive them to be much worse than they are. Perhaps, though not necessarily. It's hard for me to tell because I generally agree with his positions, and so when I read them, my reaction is usually along the lines of, "yep, that's true."
Maybe it depends on what part of his writing you focus in on. For example:
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Global warming: It runs in cycles. No serious scientific evidence indicates, let alone proves, a human cause for it. In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite, since global temperatures fell in the 1970s and 1980s, when global emissions were certainly not in retreat.
All the real evidence is supportive of solar and astronomical cycles as sufficient explanation of global warming and cooling patterns. At the very most, human-generated greenhouse gases are a small contributor to the greenhouse effect, and the greenhouse system seems to have methods of venting excess heat built in.
Not only that, but the close investigation suggests that one of the favorite "proofs" of global warming, the so-called "hockey stick," is downright fraudulent -- rather like the so-called "Ophelia complex," which turns out to be based on "evidence" that has not been made public by its primary claimant and cannot be replicated by reputable scientists.
As a whole he makes claims rather than present evidence so he's really preaching to the choir here. Regardless, I can easily see how those could evoke a "yep, that's true." reaction from people on his side of the fence.
Here's another example:
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Global warming is, in other words, somewhere between Piltdown Man and cold fusion on the scale of fake science.
But when I say this, the true believers become angry. Not because they can contradict my statements -- they can't. Every word I just wrote is consonant with the evidence as it now stands.
They become angry because Global Warming has become the vengeful, punitive deity of a new fundamentalism: Fanatical Environmentalism. Global Warming is rather like the idea of biblical infallibility or creation science -- impervious to evidence or logic. It is part of a faith, and creed, and the true believers feel about people like me rather the way the ayatollahs feel about Salman Rushdie: Death! Death!
It should be pretty clear how OSC's statements in those paragraphs go beyond the realm of criticism and into the realm of offensiveness. He is basically saying that people who "believe" in global warming are tools who don't bother to educate themselves on the subject. Even worse, he accuses all scientists who publish evidence supporting global warming as frauds. The whole ecotheist argument that he's using is irrelevant anyways (and, if I may insert a tu quoque, one that could easily be reversed).
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: As for him wanting to engage in honest debate; his essays aren't a conversation. They are a statement. I guess you could say they are a part of the public debate as a whole. But I daresay they are less incendiary than many other conservative columns, and certainly less than most liberal columns.
My point was that, in general, if you want people to understand your viewpoint then you need to address the talking points of your critics, not dismiss them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think if you are on the receiving end of his admonitions, you going to perceive them to be much worse than they are.
Or, perhaps, that you perceive them accurately, and those who are not "on the receiving end" do not.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Or can you, in what must obviously be a detailed and complete knowledge of his political writing, find for me where he says that people who don't think like he does are terrorists out to destroy the United States?
...
quote:I think the numerous lumpings of the left with "terrorists" "the taliban," as "evil," "unamerican," "hating america" etc do exactly what I say.
This is just your way of saying, "He didn't say what I said he did, he just really pissed me off."
quote:Yet these are, by and large, the very people who hate traditional American values, who deny the value of America in the world, who have complete contempt for ordinary Americans and especially for the ordinary Americans who volunteer for military service. - Well, in the run-up to World War II, Neville Chamberlain had the complete complicity of Britain's national media and it worked for a while... - That's why the politically correct are the main censors and suppressors of free speech in our country today, the deniers of diversity and the elitist enemies of democratic process -- and yet are able to claim credit for their tolerance and love of freedom, and the media, which they control, does not expose their shame.
Because they have no shame. - Even if the Democrats fail to force President Bush's hand, they are already arming our enemies with their most powerful weapon: The belief that America will act dishonorably. - But what am I thinking? Because even when Al Gore is forgotten as a prophet, the Leftaliban's devil will still exist. - If you do the slightest thing that smacks of political incorrectness, they're out for your blood, howling that you must lose your job or your business has to be boycotted, for the American Leftaliban is the most intolerant group that has ever had control of the American establishment.
In fairness, Card has never, to the best of my knowledge, said the Left was terrorists, or that they were actively out to destroy the United States;
he has merely rhetorically equated the Left with terrorists, in a somewhat sardonic way, and said that their actions are likely to be the downfall of the United States (for reasons that range between lust for power and sheer stupidity.)
The distinction is there, but I wouldn't lay excessive blame on someone who didn't notice it, or felt it was a fine one. The much-overused Neville Chamberlain analogy could easily be misinterpreted.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't think Card meant everyone on the left is in the leftiban, anymore than all muslims could be equated with the Taliban.
He believes in conservation, just not because of Global Warming.
That said, I was rather puzzled that the column did not actually discuss the prize for literature.
I think there are a lot of folks around here who are regularly as withering as Card. And if you read all of his reviews, including the albums, mystery novels, local zoning and politics (and, I guess I could add TV to items I tend to skim) he really isn't contumacious more than 10% of the time. Also, he doesn't post a World Watch every week -- they sometimes don't change for months.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:In fairness, Card has never, to the best of my knowledge, said the Left was terrorists, or that they were actively out to destroy the United States;
he has merely rhetorically equated the Left with terrorists, in a somewhat sardonic way, and said that their actions are likely to be the downfall of the United States (for reasons that range between lust for power and sheer stupidity.)
Seriously, that's weak. That distinction is so fine as to be pointless.
I think OSC does wish to do good, and I think that he thinks he's doing something good for America. But he's going about it in an incredibly damaging and negligent way. I don't think he's knowledgeable enough about the subject, and I don't think he fully thought through that article before it poured onto the page straight from his ire without taking a pit stop at his brain. I can forgive a one off rant, we all do it from time to time when the mood hits.
But I'm surprised that someone who wants good things for the country would choose villification over dialogue. What does he seriously expect will happen when someone reads that? It's either going to reinforce the beliefs of someone who already agrees with him, or it's going to seriously piss off someone who disagrees.
You don't write an aticle like that to try and chance minds, you write it to poke the bear. I would love to have a dialogue with OSC on America and our relationship with the environment around us. I don't think I could convince him that global warming is real, but I have little doubt that I could convince him that the argument is useless, and that everything done to fight global warming is actually good for plenty of other reasons that justify doing it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I still think it's a generational thing. At the last signing I went to, and I go to a lot, because I live 30 minutes from Greensboro, some guy actually starting arguing with OSC about WMD in Iraq; he basically tried to hijack the signing. I don't see members of my generation being nearly as likely to be as divisive or frothing-at-the-mouth. But that's just me.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:In fairness, Card has never, to the best of my knowledge, said the Left was terrorists, or that they were actively out to destroy the United States;
he has merely rhetorically equated the Left with terrorists, in a somewhat sardonic way, and said that their actions are likely to be the downfall of the United States (for reasons that range between lust for power and sheer stupidity.)
Seriously, that's weak. That distinction is so fine as to be pointless.
As promised, I won't lay excessive blame.
Honestly, I would tend to agree, but as I said I'm trying to be fair and offer a fairly liberal interpretation. I suspect Card would say the "Leftaliban" shot was more meant as a description of the Left as a tyrannical system demanding conformity from its members and punishing those who depart from the fold than, say, suggesting the Left is actually supporting terrorism.
'Course, that's the problem with inflammatory metaphors- you're kind've stuck with the implications, even if you haven't considered them very broadly.
Let's just say, take that "merely" in my earlier statement with a significant grain of salt.
As someone whose immediate family has several members in academia, I'll be more than clear that Card's tendency to villify and plant cardboard motivations on large numbers of people he's never met in the name of making scattershot condemnations easier is not something I find easy to treat gently. Some of Card's past rhetoric raises my ire to a point that my own displeasure begins at the description "ignorant" and goes downhill like a ski jump.
However, whether it's a desire for peace or a less admirable quasi-vengeful wish to rise above the level of the one with whom one disagrees, I *do* try.
I can recognize, and even sympathize, with the fears that might cause one to distrust the climate change faction; likewise those that cause one to believe that the U.S.' actions in Iraq are necessary to defend itself, though I disagree.
But as I think we've said many times at this point- Card's methods are probably not helpful to dialogue.
quote:Originally posted by steven: I still think it's a generational thing. At the last signing I went to, and I go to a lot, because I live 30 minutes from Greensboro, some guy actually starting arguing with OSC about WMD in Iraq; he basically tried to hijack the signing. I don't see members of my generation being nearly as likely to be as divisive or frothing-at-the-mouth. But that's just me.
I can't help but wonder if, for some, that might be the result of a combination of apathy and perceived powerlessness.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
We are apathetic, because we are largely, relatively, powerless. 3.4 million Americans were born in 1975, my year. OTOH, from the early 50's to about 1960, the average was close to 10 million each year. It made it up to about 12 million one or two of those years. Theyv'e got us outnumbered, at least until they start getting too sick to do much. For better or for worse my generation is along for the ride, largely...
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Rakeesh, you tire me.
Foust: It's all a matter of perspective.
Lyrhawn: "I think OSC does wish to do good, and I think that he thinks he's doing something good for America." This is a terrific attitude, and illustrates my contention with Rakeesh (at the moment.) It does wonders if you start with the assumption that people are trying to help, no matter how ignorant or ill-advised you believe them to be.
Tom: Yes. I would say that is just as valid a possibility.
Threads: Excellent example. There are definitely two Cards at work there. So here is an opportunity for insight into the mind of the "choir." I don't really notice the offensive parts because he isn't telling me anything new. And I don't really remember what he writes because usually it's nothing new. So when people get all bent out of shape, I don't know why. But, yeah, I can see how one might be offended at a statement like that. But you need to understand: I am on the receiving end of a constant barrage of offensiveness because of the differences between my belief system and that of the popular culture (especially since I am a college student). So take that as you may.
"He is basically saying that people who 'believe' in global warming are tools who don't bother to educate themselves on the subject."
I personally don't think it has so much to do with educating oneself on the science so much as it has to do with having a finely-tuned b.s detector, complemented by a healthy skepticism that stems from an understanding of history. That's where I'm coming from, and I think that's where he's mostly coming from. Might I recommend a man with an incredible b.s detector? John Stossel. Read Myths, Lies, and Outright Stupidity. Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I personally don't think it has so much to do with educating oneself on the science so much as it has to do with having a finely-tuned b.s detector, complemented by a healthy skepticism that stems from an understanding of history."
This makes me smile, for some reason.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
President Bush has done well with his gut-based BS detector and ignorance of science. Think how much better off Resh is with his understanding of history added to that skill-set.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
Perhaps we should approach these articles as satire along the lines of Jonathan Swift.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, you tire me.
Oh, geeze. I'm gonna go all weepy!
quote:It does wonders if you start with the assumption that people are trying to help, no matter how ignorant or ill-advised you believe them to be.
Here's the trick, though: with any given person you don't start out every single conversation as though it was the first one you've ever had with them, and give them complete benefit of the doubt. Your credit score in that particular area is pretty crappy, and no matter how many times you refuse to address the points I brought up about your posts, that's still true.
quote:But you need to understand: I am on the receiving end of a constant barrage of offensiveness because of the differences between my belief system and that of the popular culture (especially since I am a college student). So take that as you may.
Is that why you showed up here with such a chip on your shoulder, slinging as much insult as you receive?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:But you need to understand: I am on the receiving end of a constant barrage of offensiveness because of the differences between my belief system and that of the popular culture (especially since I am a college student). So take that as you may.
Do you usually mine the Principal's office for your wilting rhetoric?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
We don't have a Principal.
I wasn't talking about every single person, Rakeesh. I was talking about people in general. As it pertains to you, I was just offended that you automatically assume willful distortion of the conversation even though I came right out at the beginning and said I didn't know what the conversation is about. No, you were just picking a fight. So can I call you a troll now?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For anyone who doesn't visit the other side, OSC will be interviewed tonight on a podcast over at All American Blogger specifically about his global warming rant.
You can call in to ask questions, and I personally plan to listen and hear what he sounds like when he isn't foaming at the mouth. I hope to find a perfectly reasonable person with perfectly reasonable thoughts.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm not going to be able to listen, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts after you have, Lyrhawn.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I'm listening to the random pre-chat right now
EDIT: And now its starting
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't seem to get my computer to buffer the audio so I can actually hear anything...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hooray I got it to work.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm listening to it now. I'm still not finding Card's arguments on this convincing. However, I am glad to hear Card talking about falsification and the scientific method. He does seem to have a reasonable grasp of how science should work.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm seriously considering calling in.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Do it!
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I think I would be terrible at having to talk on the spot like that!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Are you Adam, Lyrhawn? I think I'm listening to you now!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not enthused about his approach to this discussion.
But that may be because I disagree with his conclusions.
If he were to turn his scorn on the board of supervisors here where I'm located (proudly voted to make English the official language! considering what can be done to make children of illegal immigrants ineligible for welfare!) I doubt I'd have as much of a problem.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Annnd I did...did I sound like an idiot? I'm Adam, but apparently not the Adam he thought I was.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I had to turn the volume down for a second and I missed your question, but I think I heard most of the response. I was a little disappointed with the response - I'm not talking about all liberals, just those liberals.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
How did I do?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Were you the guy from Colorado?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
You sounded quite articulate to me, Lyrhawn.
[ November 05, 2007, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Me, articulate?
Hey, he's happy with the progress of the movie. So it's not all bad news for you "envirotheists (is that how he put it?)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Were you Colorado man, or Ender's Game movie man?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought Colorado man was Ender's Game movie man? I'll admit, I didn't hear a lot after I called because the blood rushing to my head gave me an insane headache.
I wish I would've spoken up after he spoke for awhile, I wanted to follow my question up.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Maybe it was, but I thought Indiana man was Ender's Game movie man. I was too busy trying to figure out which of the callers was which one of you dudes to really pay attention. Could you not have introduced yourselves by your hatrack names? Sheesh. The nerve. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I was the same person, I think. But yeah, I got thrown off when the host said "Southwest Colorado, you're on the air." I'm nowhere near that godforasken area of the state.
Yeah, like I was gonna say, "Hi, Mister Card, this is Reshpeckobiggle!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I considered saying I was on Hatrack, but I didn't think it was at all relevent. I was thrown off when he asked if I was Adam Hobson (that's what he said right?). He was close, just got the last three letters of my last name wrong.
I thought I'd be pretty easily identifiable, since I blabbered on about pretty much the same stuff I rant about here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Inappropriate, steven. Lay off.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Is that really necessary?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Hate to do this but :whistled:
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Tom, when you get the mod job....until then, you lay off. You've taken this tone several times with me, on Ornery, Sake, and here, and it is in and of itself inappropriate, to use your term against you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Beat you to it, Threads.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Is that really necessary?"
Well I was actually joking...compared to the butt-kissing by the interviewer, you were fair and balanced.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Hey ever'body! Tom's the mod! Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't see the problem with one member of the community reminding another of what constitutes appropriate behavior. Calling Resh an ass-kisser is uncalled for.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Calling him an ass-kisser would have been better than the imagery he decided to use Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Like i said, I was kidding.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
No one got the joke. You should work on that.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Yeah, I've got some thoughts on you too, Matt, and I'd post them, but then I'd have to whistle my own dang post, cause I wouldn't be joking.
Now see? that was humor. Do you get it yet?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think you owe an apology to Resh, steve.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I'm not going to be able to listen, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts after you have, Lyrhawn.
He sounded a lot less combative than he did on the essay he wrote. Actually I thought he sounded pretty nice. He was calm. But I didn't buy most of his explanations. First off, he sounded a lot like the people he was attacking. He sounds just as driven by a pure belief that can't be swayed by facts, it's just what he believes. And I don't think he's quite up to date on some of his facts, especially about the economy and its relationship to the environment.
I should say though, that I found myself agreeing with much of what he had to say. He attacked Gore, and said that his rhetoric on global warming was getting in the way of real progress, and I don't necessarily disagree. But I think Card is sort of part of the problem, because he's one of those that ties Gore to environmentalists and by association to global warming, and since he doesn't believe, he shoots them ALL down.
I called in, and I asked him why global warming even mattered? Businesses are making billions off of products that have, as a byproduct, benefits for the environment and for the solving of this problem. His answer was that the solution left out too many players, like the third world and especially, China. I agree with that. But he also said that our economy couldn't handle it, in the same breath he said we have a remarkably resiliant economy. We spend billions propping up our agricultural base, on giveaways to oil companies, on a whole host of things that build up industries that don't even need our help. And there are renewables and energy efficient technologies that save companies billions and reduce thousands of tons of CO2...and yet they don't get that same attention. So I have to say I didn't agree with him 100% (unlike most of the callers seemed to), but I found him much more reasonable than his essay would suggest.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
steven, you personally are not funny when you're being an asshole. In fact, for you, humor and assholery are mutually exclusive. If you ever think you're being funny, stop for a second and ask yourself, "Am I also being an asshole?" If the answer is yes, then you can dependably assume that no one else will think what you are saying is funny. This is not true for everyone. It is, however, true for you.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
My comment was directed at Lyrhawn. I'm glad he called, because it was getting boring with all the adulation.
Resh, I have to admit that I was mildly annoyed with you, if you were the caller who asked about the Ender's Game movie. Seriously, if he knows anything, it'll be on the website.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Did I lose yet?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I called in, and I asked him why global warming even mattered? Businesses are making billions off of products that have, as a byproduct, benefits for the environment and for the solving of this problem. His answer was that the solution left out too many players, like the third world and especially, China. I agree with that. But he also said that our economy couldn't handle it, in the same breath he said we have a remarkably resiliant economy. We spend billions propping up our agricultural base, on giveaways to oil companies, on a whole host of things that build up industries that don't even need our help. And there are renewables and energy efficient technologies that save companies billions and reduce thousands of tons of CO2...and yet they don't get that same attention.
An earlier caller (New Jersey?) made the point that there are sectors in our economy where emissions could be cut without causing economic collapse. OSC seemed to agree with that point and complemented it by pointing out how our train systems need improving. He didn't mention it but trains actually have an effective emissions rate 1/5th of that of cars iirc. Anyways, what surprised me about his position was that it seems that he actually agrees with some policies of the "ecotheists" (btw, minus rep for that caller and anyone else who uses that term seriously) but just has an issue with their justifications for the policies. If thats his main problem then I think he should spend more time trying to compromise with the pro-gw crowd and less time criticizing them. Improving our rail systems would be a great compromise because environmentalists would get their wish for reduced emissions and OSC and the like would get their wish for reduced dependence on foreign oil.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Sorry, shigosei. Maybe you should have called instead. But guess what? He's near the top of the list of my favorite writers, I already agree with him on the issues, and Lyrhawn wasn't willing to liven up the debate by being an Alan Colmes to his Sean Hannity (thank god, and good on you for that; we got enough contentiousness to go around here), so I decided to get off the boring subject of Global Warming, and ask him about the things that we can ALL agree about (i.e; the reasons we are all here in the first place -we're fans of his fiction.)
Good point, Lyrhawn, about Gore. He is definitely a Straw Man for the Global Warming movement. But I disagree with your assessment about his inability to change his beliefs by the facts. Based on what he said.I think he is probably very open to some actual scientific evidence about Global Warming. His point was that what so many consider to be the conclusive evidence is hardly that.
Also, something to keep in mind about how much different he sounded compared to the tone of his essays: the same can probably be applied across the board. I can 100% guarantee that most of you would find me much less offensive if you heard me say the things I do rather than just read them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Did I lose yet?
Yeah, man. You lost.
The only thing I'm giving you credit for is breaking the ice for swear words. I can now follow suit and say that your comment was totally assholish.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"steven, you personally are not funny when you're being an asshole. In fact, for you, humor and assholery are mutually exclusive. If you ever think you're being funny, stop for a second and ask yourself, "Am I also being an asshole?" If the answer is yes, then you can dependably assume that no one else will think what you are saying is funny. This is not true for everyone. It is, however, true for you."
Why is that? Because you find me frightening?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Also, something to keep in mind about how much different he sounded compared to the tone of his essays: the same can probably be applied across the board. I can 100% guarantee that most of you would find me much less offensive if you heard me say the things I do rather than just read them.
I don't think people find you generically offensive but rather they find you offensively stubborn (like on creationism). If that makes sense.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Yeah, man. You lost.
The only thing I'm giving you credit for is breaking the ice for swear words. I can now follow suit and say that your comment was totally assholish."
I'm not going to take you seriously when you say this, because...I don't have much respect for those who engage in dogpiles, and I'd hate to lose respect for you. This is verging on a dogpile, in my book.
Tom...I'd be OK with your condescending attitude...if it wasn't so clear that you have agendas. I'm not saying you're the most obviously agenda-ed person in the Hatrackosphere, but you sure do post a lot, and it can be hard to take criticism again and again without you ever admitting you have any faults. We know you do. You're human.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I called in, and I asked him why global warming even mattered? Businesses are making billions off of products that have, as a byproduct, benefits for the environment and for the solving of this problem. His answer was that the solution left out too many players, like the third world and especially, China. I agree with that. But he also said that our economy couldn't handle it, in the same breath he said we have a remarkably resiliant economy. We spend billions propping up our agricultural base, on giveaways to oil companies, on a whole host of things that build up industries that don't even need our help. And there are renewables and energy efficient technologies that save companies billions and reduce thousands of tons of CO2...and yet they don't get that same attention.
An earlier caller (New Jersey?) made the point that there are sectors in our economy where emissions could be cut without causing economic collapse. OSC seemed to agree with that point and complemented it by pointing out how our train systems need improving. He didn't mention it but trains actually have an effective emissions rate 1/5th of that of cars iirc. Anyways, what surprised me about his position was that it seems that he actually agrees with some policies of the "ecotheists" (btw, minus rep for that caller and anyone else who uses that term seriously) but just has an issue with their justifications for the policies. If thats his main problem then I think he should spend more time trying to compromise with the pro-gw crowd and less time criticizing them. Improving our rail systems would be a great compromise because environmentalists would get their wish for reduced emissions and OSC and the like would get their wish for reduced dependence on foreign oil.
See, that's the exact same thing I'm talking about. I'm in support of increased rail traffic in the US too, and I think it's a crime that we're still stuck on planes and cars, especially when you consider how much time we spend waiting for delayed flights and stuck in traffic, all because infrastructure isn't keeping up with demand, and air traffic (also very polluting) is only going to get worse in the years to come, and delays are going to become more pronounced, even as tickets increase in price to pay for additions and the increased cost of jet lag.
But there's more than that, everything with a roof in this country could build a green roof and a solar panel array. It will save money hand over fist for not just the home owners, but the government as well if those green roofs help the sewer systems from being overwhelmed, which is especially important considering the sewer system is almost 100 years old, more in some places, and money isn't being spent to bring it up to snuff.
We could create a million jobs, billions in revenue, and save consumers billions more, and the bonus? CO2 goes down all over the country. That gives us the money, clout and moral authority to get countries like China to get on board with us, and more, we can sell them and the rest of the world the technologies we've pioneered and become the world's Green leader.
And I don't see any reason NOT to do that, to do it as aggressively as we possibly can. If it puts people out of a job, I have no problem with that, it's what happens when technology advances. New jobs are added that will stay a lot longer, and old, previous generation jobs are lost. It's happened for a thousand years, and it'll happen for the next thousand.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not going to take you seriously when you say this, because...I don't have much respect for those who engage in dogpiles, and I'd hate to lose respect for you. This is verging on a dogpile, in my book.
Dogpiling is not to be confused with, "I was rudely wrong loudly in public, and refuse to admit it...thus drawing attention to myself, and surprisingly finding no support!"
Do you believe people fear you?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Offensively stubborn... I like that.
Better than being stubbornly offensive.
I guess I can be that, too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not going to take you seriously when you say this, because...I don't have much respect for those who engage in dogpiles, and I'd hate to lose respect for you. This is verging on a dogpile, in my book.
Then take my words at face value as though they were independent of anyone else's, I dunno. It's my honest appraisal that the comment was inappropriate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:He is definitely a Straw Man for the Global Warming movement.
Oh man this ought to be good.
what does this even mean Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Obviously, Gore doesn't actually exist.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I mean that he is as close to a literal Straw Man as one can get. He is easy to dismiss, and when you do, you are implicitly dismissing Global Warming in general.
That being said, what does his easy dismissal say about the Nobel Prize committee? Oh, wait, that was the whole point of the essay that was the original subject of this thread. Don't you just love tangents?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:He is definitely a Straw Man for the Global Warming movement.
Oh man this ought to be good.
what does this even mean
No, he's right, Gore is a straw man of sorts, and you've likely heard the reasoning used before. Gore is the posterchild for the modern global warming movement in the United States, and GW opponents attack GW via Gore, so when Gore does things like his massive home energy use, or buying offsets through his own company, or flying on personal jets instead of taking public transportation, he garners an extreme amount of negative press from those people. So it's extremely easy for them to attack Gore, and by association, they attack the entire movement because he is the representative of that movement. He's the single most visible figure in the movement, so he gets the most attention.
He's not a straw man for the global warming people, he's a straw man for the people against global warming. He's their excuse to dismiss and batter the whole thing without ever having to answer any of the serious questions the movement poses. That's why I think Gore unintentionally does his own movement more harm than good. I think he does great things internationally because they all love him over there, but here at home people are too willing and eager to poke him every chance they get, and since his message often appears to be, or is portrayed as "doom and gloom" then people want to just wrap him, the movement, and everything to do with it up in a ball and discard it. Granted he ends every message with "but if we act now, we can still save the world!" All people hear is the 90% doom and not the 10% hope.
As a stalwart treehugger, I wish he'd tone it down and take a behind the scenes role instead of being so public. I'd love for him to be a part of the next government's taskforce to clean up the environment and to implement renewables and efficiency upgrades. I think he could do more good there than in front of a camera. He's far too good at being fodder for the Right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That being said, what does his easy dismissal say about the Nobel Prize committee?
What would you say?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He's far too good at being fodder for the Right.
I'm a bit surprised you think that wouldn't happen regardless of who was the spokesman. Certainly Gore has more history to poke at, but that only makes mockery and scorn of him more powerful, it's not what makes it happen.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: No one got the joke. You should work on that.
I just had to say that I got the joke. It wasn't really funny, but I got it.
I'm studying jokes right now, actually, and I think it might have been funny if it had been a little more subtle and a lot less graphic. (Though it might have played well in stand-up, depending on your persona, mannerisms and tone.)
Sort of like that Mitch Benn song "I May Just Have to Murder James Blunt" in which he calls Mr. Blunt "the only man alive who is his own rhyming slang." Much funnier than the actual rhyme would have been.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Granted he ends every message with "but if we act now, we can still save the world!" All people hear is the 90% doom and not the 10% hope.
Based upon your percentages we have very little hope. If 90% of a message is negative and 10% positive then wouldn't the overall message be overwhelmingly negative? Besides, according to Gore we only have a litle over 8 years until we go past the point of no return. Sundance Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:He's far too good at being fodder for the Right.
I'm a bit surprised you think that wouldn't happen regardless of who was the spokesman. Certainly Gore has more history to poke at, but that only makes mockery and scorn of him more powerful, it's not what makes it happen.
I guess I meant that Gore's methods of spreading the message are especially good at giving material for the right to use. If he came at it from a different angle, they might find they have a lot less ground to attack him on. He makes it too easy.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Granted he ends every message with "but if we act now, we can still save the world!" All people hear is the 90% doom and not the 10% hope.
Based upon your percentages we have very little hope. If 90% of a message is negative and 10% positive then wouldn't the overall message be overwhelmingly negative? Besides, according to Gore we only have a litle over 8 years until we go past the point of no return. Sundance
Well, this ties into what I just said to Rakeesh. Gore has a message: "We've got a problem, but we can fix it." Now that doesn't sound so bad, but he doesn't say it like that, he says it like this: "There are a million different ways that this problem will kill you," and that part of the message goes on, and on, so that by the time he gets to the end where you hear "but we still have time if we act now!" everyone but the diehards have already stopped listening. Inconvenient Truth was a perfect example of this. It's what, a 90 minute summation of his speech, where he details the problem and the potential disasters to come, and then spends some time at the end saying there's still hope. Personally I found it uplifting, but I can easily see how others would view it as a doom and gloom message that is just ther eto scare people.
I think it's a failing of people today, that they can't take 100% of the message and parse out the details to measure the potential problems versus the gains. That just isn't how messages work these days. These days you have to coddle people, I think you have to lead them by the hand, and Gore isn't at all interested in coddling people.
I think he thinks he's scaring them into action, and that kind of thing works for some things. Look at Pres. Bush, he managed to scare us into a trillion dollar war, into supporting a wealth of measures that otherwise we would have said no to. And in history, fear has managed to get us excited about a lot of things. But not for this, not for some vague threat we can't wrap our heads around. Not for something we can't shoot a missile at.
Gore is trying to do an amazing thing, and I don't think he's doing more harm than good. But he could go about it in a much, much better way.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Sorry for the slow response -- life/home stuff. Yes, steven, you were a bit over the line. Perhaps that type of discourse is acceptable at some other forums you frequent, but it's not appropriate here. And it shouldn't require hearing from me every time -- as has been mentioned many a time, this is to a degree a self-regulating forum. Just because you don't like the person reminding you of the rules doesn't mean that person is wrong. (To be fair, it also doesn't mean that person is right, but when multiple people mention it you might reconsider.) I'd appreciate it if you would edit your post.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)