posted
His articles are frustrating me. I want to sit with him, drink chocolate milk and pick his brain and ask him just what he means The right does the exact thing in a lot of cases...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may not want to do that if you disagree with him ... I've never seen him lose an argument in person
I think that the reason Card does not define his terms very often is because these articles are part of an extended personal dialogue he's been maintaining against a certain brand of liberal intellectual since the mid-seventies. He's been arguing against the same people, attitudes, and practices for so long that it would be incredibly boring and monotonous for him to repeat his definitions again and again ...
Pod, most of your little snippy comments seem to assume that Card is a right-wing nut like Rush Limbaugh, and that by pointing out the culpability of far-rightists, you're somehow affecting Card's argument. To my knowledge, Card has never been against the teaching of evolution in school, has always been against mandatory prayer, has always been in favor of gun control and against excessive free-market capitalism ... he is far from being a right-winger.
It just happens that the issues closest to his heart, over which he has come into the most conflict with the people closest to him in his own industry, are issues over which he disagrees with mindless leftist idealogues. This doesn't makes him the right-wing whipping boy, so you and every newbie who comes to this forum on a weekly basis with zero knowledge of Card's political leanings and a huge liberal chip on their shoulder can cut it out. Sheesh, I'm sick of hearing it, it's really really old.
Sorry you ended up the focus of this, Pod. You're far from being the worst about this stuff, you're just the one that got to me today And I do think it's cool that you agree with him on teaching children skepticism. I guess his theory is that if your beliefs are true, then teaching your children rigor and skepticism will make them mroe likely to agree with you. If they're NOT true, then your kids are better off not following in your footsteps.
We all seem to have such presumption, though, assuming that our beliefs are so right that if anyone disagrees, they must have been brainwashed by the other side, and true freethinkers will always agree with "us" That applies to Card, sure, but it applies just as well to his opponents. Card, at least, had the guts to teach his kids to question his beliefs. As a result, we disagree with him more than he'd probably like. But we also see the value in his ideals for their own merits, and not just by default because we were raised with them.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Don't get me wrong, i've talked to your Dad Geoff, i don't think he's a right wing nut.
As i have indicated, i agree with him on the subject in general, what bewilders me is that the problem that his column addresses doesn't seem to me to be a problem with left-wing ideology, it seems to me to be a problem with dogmatism.
Thus, all i sought to do was to point out that there were right-wing correlaries to the left-wing examples.
I in no way shape or form think that OSC is a right-wing whipping boy.
(perhaps i should go back and edit a few things then )
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He sure does sharpen my sword.. Which is all the more reason why I'd like to pick his brain because I can't understand left or right or political correctness except in the sense that I lean more towards the left than the right.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
One thing, that should be "effect" not "affect" (i only point this out because the two mean different things but play similar grammatical roles, so when it typically throws me for a loop when people say "affect" instead of "effect" such that i have a hard time understand the sentence)
The repition of basic tenants of what one is arguing about is something that TomD has brought up recently as well. My own issue is that though i've been on hatrack for almost 3 years, i've yet to ever encounter your father's definitions of liberal political correctness. Thus, i have been left rather bewildered, and i think his point is then lost on its logical merits, and is relegated to being partisan.
So once again, i have found myself agreeing with some general conceptual arguments that OSC writes (like teaching skepticism), however his more recent arguments (and this one seems to me in the same vein) partisan enough to detract from his overall message.
Thus, i agree, i just don't think he offers a balanced opinion, and i just wish he would! (but then again i suppose none of us really do)
[ September 08, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Pod ]
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
and this is an excerpt from what i sent mr. card:
My general question (which I also bring up in the thread) is this:
You’ve mentioned that there is a lot of politicking and irrationality in the places which are supposed to regard rationality most highly (I agree whole-heartedly), however I’m curious in what manner you regard political correctness as the source of irrationality in academic politics. (this is a question of current relevance to me, as I am a university student who might soon be looking at graduate schools)
Ultimately, I agree with your conclusions, that a solid skepticism is a necessary part of all people’s educations, as well as the necessity of critical thinking as the core of any education. My point I suppose is simply that addressing “political correctness” (and I think you and I may have disagreements on what exactly that is) does little to address the root of problems in the academic community. Political inquisitions which are unfortunately pandemic in American institutions are ultimately recurring fads, ones in which the content of the inquisition is merely symptomatic of the main problem.
(So if OSC doesn't reply, maybe someone else will)
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we must be misreading one another, Pod, because I'm pretty darn sure I was using the word "affect" correctly.
I was saying that I didn't think comments lampooning right-wing idealogies could really "affect" Card's argument. Ie, they could not have much impact on what he was saying, since he doesn't personally espouse most of the right-wing ideals you cited. Am I reading the correct sentence?
In any case, since we're being really picky, a "tenet" is an element of a belief system, and a "tenant" is a person living in a rented space Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, but anyway, your explanation is well-taken, and I am officially aiming my criticism-beam in another direction I'll wait till another crazy liberal newbie shows up to turn it on someone again ...
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To my knowledge, Card has never been against the teaching of evolution in school, has always been against mandatory prayer, has always been in favor of gun control and against excessive free-market capitalism ... he is far from being a right-winger.
But he is in favor of mandatory heterosexuality. That is a really, really big issue for some people. It's one thing to be against gay marriage; I can understand the impetus behind preserving the public trappings of family tradition, although I don't agree. But supporting actual laws against sodomy is a very staunchly conservative position -- I can count on my fingers the number of people who've told me they believe in sodomy laws, and I grew up in small-town northern Michigan.
The best characterization of OSC is neither right nor left, but all over the place. Thus while he is by no means a classic conservative, some of his beliefs are just anathema to liberals. I don't mean the belief that gayness is wrong; who cares about that? I mean the belief that it shouldn't be permitted.
And really, he never talks about gun control or economics. I guess you've explained why. But nonetheless, it is hard to take it to heart that he's not so conservative when he never takes time to express the non-conservative opinions he does have.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He actually has done a couple of recent articles addressing crazy free-market economists. Oddly, enough, no one complained about them
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen Card advocating sodomy laws or saying that homosexuality should be illegal, or that heterosexuality ought to be enforced. That's a bizarrely extreme position that I think would probably freak him out. His essays, thus far, have spoken out against wholesale acceptance of the gay lifestyle as an endorsed part of American society. But I've never heard him even imply that gays ought to be prosecuted. Where did you get that impression?
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have time to find it right now (ah, tech support), but I remember a recent essay advocating that anti-homosexuality laws remain on the books so that they can be selectively enforced.
Also, while I haven't started any threads on it (mainly as I rarely start threads), I'd like to remark that I find OSC's economic views ridiculous . He attacks the free market for things that are the fault of restrictive policies, not free market policies, then advocates more restrictive policies.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh...call me crazy, but wasn't his position in his infamous gay piece that sodomy laws should be randomly enforced and that gay people were bad for families or something?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Geoff, if you don't want people to paint your dad with a broad brush, why do you think it's fair that he paints certain groups with broad brushes? He uses words like 'elites' and 'intelligentsia' and 'pro-American' and 'anti-family' quite often.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
Whatever you may think of that, it's not a moderate view.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
Those who would be members of a community must sacrifice the satisfaction of some of their individual desires in order to maintain the existence of that community. They must, in other words, obey the rules that define what that community is. Those who are not willing or able to obey the rules should honestly admit the fact and withdraw from membership.
quote:
Furthermore, if we allow ourselves to be intimidated by our fear of the world's censure into silence in the face of attempts by homosexuals to make their sin acceptable under the laws of the polity, then we have abandoned our role as teachers of righteousness.
Which I take to mean that good Mormons must always work to make sure homosexuality is unacceptable and that, therefore, only heterosexuality is acceptable.
posted
I completely disagree with that as that sort of attitude leads to a lot of pain for a lot of people.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would hardly call "Hypocrites of Homosexuality" a recent article Thirteen years is a pretty long time to have to look back to find a quote. But I suppose I'm basing my evaluation of his opinions on anecdotal experiences, rather than the written word ...
Either way, though, I don't get the impression that he's in favor of "random arrests" or the systematic persecution of gays. It looks like he's more concerned that if we start the wholesale stripping of sexual laws from the books, we'll soon have no basis for prosecuting people who use sex as a tool to do real harm. I mean, isn't that what the article SAYS? Are we to assume through the use of our mind-reading abilities that Card "really intends" to do more with these laws that he explicitly states? Whether or not leaving the laws on the books as they are is the right way to handle the situation is a different matter, but you're taking his statement a bit too far.
And by the way, it's fair to point out that the article in question was written for the Mormon audience, an audience which shares a common belief that homosexual practice is a violation of a shared code of ethics. Criticizing gays within the Mormon community can involve a different tone than criticism aimed outwards without being too extreme.
Storm, I think there is a huge difference between lumping an individual in with a group they don't belong to, and criticizing a large group of people for opinions and practices which are common, yet not universal, among that group. I mean, what is Card supposed to do, cite the name of each individual person he sees as a member of the group he is talking about? Or can we allow a little leeway, and assume that when he criticizes intellectuals for indoctrinating our youth with liberal propaganda, he is speaking specifically of "intellectuals who indoctrinate our youth with liberal propaganda", and is not referring to intellectuals who don't?
posted
If OSC won't answer, will someone let me know what "anti-family" is and why it is that liberals are said to be that? And not only that, but in the case of OSC's article, they "sneer" too!
posted
It doesn't need to be a recent article when OSC is defended as not needing to define terms that he has argued "since the 70's." If he hasn't changed his tune since then, then something a mere 13 years ago is par for what we can expect on his views.
posted
Oh come now, you're not seriously trying to throw those words back in my face, are you? I didn't say his OPINIONS haven't changed since the seventies. I said he's been arguing with the same PEOPLE since the seventies. Two very different things.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is questioning (or, being skeptical? ) about the legal institution of marriage "anti-family?" At best, he is "anti-marriage" and what with a nearly 1 in 2 marriages dissolving, so would half of our nation. But a divorced couple with kids is still a family, albeit one with different hurdles than one with only one parent or one with both parents living in the home or one with both living in the home but hating each other, etc. So, I still don't see it as "anti-family." I guess more importantly we need to then get to the definition of "family." To know this, we would better know what the opposite is. Being skeptical about marriage (skeptics being a trait adored by OSC, apparently...just maybe not in this case?) as anti-family? Would the opposite (not being skeptical about "family" or taking it as wrote that there is only one definition of family) be pro-family? Just curious. Maybe stick with a workable definition of "family."
posted
"Or can we allow a little leeway, and assume that when he criticizes intellectuals for indoctrinating our youth with liberal propaganda, he is speaking specifically of 'intellectuals who indoctrinate our youth with liberal propaganda,' and is not referring to intellectuals who don't?"
Geoff, people -- including your father -- paint issues with a broad brush because it's easier, and because it enables them to make what they believe is a convenient generalization. However, by doing so, they run into the DOWNSIDE of using a broad brush: slopping crap everywhere.
Your father isn't just criticizing a handful of specific individuals; he's critiquing an entire culture, and indirectly those people who would more broadly sympathize with it. In so doing, he basically makes it impossible to identify or respect his SPECIFIC targets, since he doesn't actually restrict his comments to those targets.
That's actually the post of this thread; I had trouble figuring out who those targets were, and hoped the answer wouldn't be painfully inexact. You make the point that your dad's been "arguing with the same people" for decades -- but he doesn't actually identify these people, and we're left to assume that it's a whole CLASS of people who rub him the wrong way. (And I'm assuming that's the case, to be honest.) But if that IS the case, then he's trying to snipe with a shotgun.
posted
Not throwing at all! If he is arguing against the same people since the 70's, are all of their views on life changing at the same rate? I guess my point is, he doesn't want to take the time to redefine arguments he has had for 30 odd years which means they probably haven't changed much. Otherwise, why argue with the same people? Or are they just argumentative and just argue for the sake of arguing?
The point being, he is painted as a fairly right conservative because he is using catch phrases that the Right uses frequently and minus any definitions to the contrary, they paint a pretty right picture. What is wrong with him being a conservative? Or Right?
posted
Speaking of mind reading, Geoff. He specifically says the things that I quoted him as saying.
quote: Either way, though, I don't get the impression that he's in favor of "random arrests" or the systematic persecution of gays.
quote: Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books
and
quote:
The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place
Seems pretty specific to me. And, yes, these laws are a part of the whole subset of those laws which society uses to regulate sexual behavior, but Geoff, why do you think you can't 'legalize' homosexuality and keep other 'bad' stuff illegal? You've just redefined what's bad. That's all. You haven't said that there's no such thing as bad sexual behavior and to say so with regards to the legalization of homosexuality is absolutely a use of slippery slope.
I am curious as to why you think that given these statements and the subject of the article that his main purpose was to defend society's ability to regulate sexual behavior?
quote: Whether or not leaving the laws on the books as they are is the right way to handle the situation is a different matter, but you're taking his statement a bit too far.
I respectfully disagree. I think I am reading exactly what he wrote.
well i guess we probably won't get a reply from OSC.
Thanks for at least some perspective Geoff.
If you could do me a favor and ask him to write a column on who he means when he talks about politically correct liberals, and if he might think about their right wing counterparts some time?
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Tom, all we're noticing is the fact that it's difficult to discuss and criticize large groups of people because any label you use to identify them is going to piss someone off. Yeah, that's true. I'm defending Card for doing it because it's a difficult problem to avoid, no matter how careful you are, when you're trying to fight against an informal trend (such as dogmatic liberalism among the intelligentsia of America). He's been fighting against this trend for years, and his opponents have never been kind enough to post a membership roster or give themselves a formal name and a list of agreed-upon doctrines. So what is he supposed to do? Seriously.
If you deny that there is a trend among the intelligentsia of America to spread liberal dogma, then you have an argument with him. That's cool. But there is nothing wrong with him pointing the trend out as he sees it.
Storm, you're starting to argue with me as though I wrote the article. I didn't. I'm defending Card because he isn't as extreme as you're painting him, and I think it's unfair for you to set up and knock down a straw man argument like this. Yes, Card is in favor of society establishing legally-enforceable sexual rules. I think everyone here agrees that, for instance, sexual interaction with prepubescent children should be against the law, while consensual sex between heterosexual couples should be perfectly legal. Somewhere in between, there is a line, which many of us disagree about.
Card's position, upon writing that article, appears, from the text, to say that homosexual practice should remain illegal wherever there are already sodomy laws, but that it should be treated with salutory neglect. In other words, leave the laws on the books as a hedge against society's mores slipping, or to avoid tacit endorsement of homosexuality, but don't actually arrest anyone for breaking them. Essentially, he seems to be in favor of the exact system America has been following (with a few blips) for decades. I don't see what is so controversial about this position.
His position that homosexual practice is a sin might be controversial, but that was stated in the context of an article written for the Mormon audience, so you have to take it with a grain of salt.
Now, I personally disagree with the legal element of the article. I think that stupid, unenforceable laws should be removed from the books, and I certainly do not believe that anyone should be arrested for private sexual behavior between consenting adults.
So I'm not trying to tell you his position is right. I'm just telling you that his position is not nearly as extreme as you'd like it to be.
By the way, the use of this phrase is exactly indicative of the kind of language that OSC uses when he discusses almost any group that disagrees with him. If there is hypocrisy in a group's view point, then point it out and move on. To use it to define the group is obviously meant to prejudice the reader towards that group and shows a lack of respect towards that group. If I were to do it here on the board, to call those who are for keeping homosexuality illegal as 'hypocrites of morality', or 'moral elites' or the 'moralgentsia' or somesuch, I would rightfully have my throat jumped down.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that the title is NOT "Gay people are hypocrites." Card's title refers to the main thesis of his article — that it is hypocritical for Mormons to endorse homosexual practice. It's not an unreasonable position, and the phrase "Hypocrites of Homosexuality" is a succinct way to describe the subject. It also attracts attention to the article, which is the point of a title in the first place. In and of itself, it says nothing offensive about gays. Come on, let's see if we can be a bit more picky.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh? What straw man argument am I setting up? You mean me arguing with you as if you wrote the article? How is that a straw man? You're right. You didn't write it. I was responding to
quote: Either way, though, I don't get the impression that he's in favor of "random arrests" or the systematic persecution of gays. It looks like he's more concerned that if we start the wholesale stripping of sexual laws from the books, we'll soon have no basis for prosecuting people who use sex as a tool to do real harm.
I guess I did start writing to you as if you wrote it. Then again, you're defending it, and you do bear a striking resemblance. But where is the straw man? I have given quotes of what I was basing my statements off of. If I have misunderstood, that is one thing, but I don't think it is fair to say that I am intentionally making a straw man.
quote:
Card's position, upon writing that article, appears, from the text, to say that homosexual practice should remain illegal wherever there are already sodomy laws, but that it should be treated with salutory neglect. In other words, leave the laws on the books as a hedge against society's mores slipping, or to avoid tacit endorsement of homosexuality, but don't actually arrest anyone for breaking them. Essentially, he seems to be in favor of the exact system America has been following (with a few blips) for decades. I don't see what is so controversial about this position.
quote: This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The key phrase appears to be 'permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.' I hope you can see how that can be interpreted to mean exactly what it says--that the laws should be used to not allow people to be equal citizens. Could be jail. Could be censure. But it's not clear, is it?
posted
Well. Huh. Sorry, Geoff. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Sorry.
Edit: On rereading what you wrote, I'm going to go ahead and respond in more detail.
quote: Note that the title is NOT "Gay people are hypocrites."
O.K. I didn't say he was calling gay people hypocrites.
quote:
Card's title refers to the main thesis of his article — that it is hypocritical for Mormons to endorse homosexual practice.
Fine.
quote: It's not an unreasonable position, and the phrase "Hypocrites of Homosexuality" is a succinct way to describe the subject.
And you don't see how that title might be seen as a little, uh, emotion laden? And that it's use throughout the article to refer to that group might not be seen as a way to paint them in as negative a light as possible? Again, to go back to posts on this board, if I refer to people as 'you Mormon hypocrites' or 'you Christian hypocrites', you don't see how that would prejudice people against what I had to say? Do you really not see that, Geoff?
quote: It also attracts attention to the article, which is the point of a title in the first place.
True. I would say that it attracts the wrong kind of attention to the article and makes the reader think right off the bat that OSC is not going to handle the subject fairly.
quote: In and of itself, it says nothing offensive about gays. Come on, let's see if we can be a bit more picky.
I never said that it did say anything offensive about gays.
posted
fil, we agree that liberals are almost universally pro-abortion, right? I'd have to say that fundamentally the belief that abortion is okay is pretty darned anti-family.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
No, liberals are not universally 'pro-abortion', whatever the heck that means. God bless, man. Am I the only one who has been speaking to people on the opposite side of the aisle on this board while I've been here? Jebus. Tom, Mack, Kayla, and dkw are all fairly fiscally liberal in one way or another but they aren't 'for' abortion and I doubt you could potray them as anti-family. Most social liberals, like myself, would just as soon hedge their bets and not see any abortions at all. I've said that while I support counselling before abortions and every opportunity to carry the blip to term and give it up for adoption, I'm not for making abortions illegal, and I'm certainly not 'anti-family'.
posted
jeniwren, I find myself agreeing with what you say more often than not. This time, however, is definitely a not.
First of all,
quote: we agree that liberals are almost universally pro-abortion
I suppose that depends how you define "liberal." I consider myself a liberal, for the most part. And while I am not in favor of abortion, generally speaking, I find the idea of the government making that decision abhorrent. And not every person who chooses abortion is "anti-family"!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While many liberals are pro choice, almost none are pro abortion (in the sense of they would advocate it as a choice for someone), and the number who are pro choice I would guesstimate at a 70-30 majority.
This point has been repeatedly mentioned in every abortion thread hatrack has ever had while I have been here.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sixty-five percent number could be for a myriad of reasons, men going to trade schools or the military, those are the first two that come to my mind, and I know those are significant percentages in other parts of the country.
quote:Well, is education a good thing or not? Are there reasons for it other than to-get-a-job?
Yes, but somehow we have forgotten that, or perhaps never truly learned, and I don't think that traditional society, at least exemplified by our commander-and-chief or any economy first public officials have been leading the way.
quote:Brigham Young (way old, and squarely in the "traditional" camp) said if you could only educate one, it was better to educate the daughter than the son, and that all people were under obligation to get as much education as they possibly could.
That's a great quote to trot out, but I kind of take issue, and I think that all fathers should, with the insinuation that fathers are okay to take a back seat in child rearing, and I still don't know how much it's put into practice.
Educating women is great. It fixes just about every problem in modern society, and I don't mean a token education and diaper changing classes, I'm talking about a rigorous and classical education about life and civic virtue. But here is a scenario, I'm just saying it could happen, not that I think that that this scenario is a virulent plague: We educate women in virtue, and men in the technical stuff-- moving rocks, paving roads, and designing computers-- it's a division of labor which is as American as the Model T, then we put men in prominent public positions and ones of authority and respect, then that's how we get our priorites mixed up because have The First Lady telling kids to read Dickens while the President brags about making "C"s at Yale. Studying latin becomes women's work while men speak roughly or grunt, relegating the decisive political power of language as a project to be debated by sissies, art and literature start becoming less important, submerged under economic success and efficiency, and sooner or later, people forget why they subsidize public schools to begin with. I'm going to digress:
When the framer's of California's constitution wrote that students wouldn't pay tuition at the colleges and universities, they weren't swept up by a capricious fancy, they were making a profound statement about democracy. I think we forget that. I'm waiting for President Bush to articulate a national purpose which trancends safety or even economic success. I want him to speak with the same confidence and knowledge in his educational plan that he does with his military endeavors.
*sigh* We are talking about putting up a democracies around the world, I think the Jesuits-- and I know that there are a lot of atrocities which fall on that Order of the Church-- but they set their priorites right and set up schools, leaving a legacy of education which has changed the world over, for the better, mind you. You can't talk about democracy without speaking about public education as an antecedent. We have forgotten this. The framers of the California Constitution knew, but we have forgotten.
_________
quote:I'd have to say that fundamentally the belief that abortion is okay is pretty darned anti-family.
It's because I'm pro-family that I'm pro-choice.
I think it's no small matter of importance that parents should [i]want[/i to raise the children before they have them.
quote:But here is a scenario, I'm just saying it could happen, not that I think that that this scenario is a virulent plague: We educate women in the virtue, and men in the technical stuff-- moving rocks, paving roads, and designing computers-- it's a division of labor which as American as the Model T, then we put men in prominent public positions and ones of authority and respect, then that's how we get our priorites mixed up because have The First Lady telling kids to read Dickens while the President brags about making "C"s at Yale. Studying latin becomes woman's work while men speak roughly or grunt, relegating the decisive political power of language as a project to be debated by sissies, art and literature start becoming less important than economic success and efficiency, and sooner or later, people forget why they subsidize public schools to begin with.
i'm going to presume that the bolded statement is facetious.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just a trend I see. It's one of many competing trends, but I think it's something that should be brought forth and discussed.
I do like how OSC counsels parents to teach their children to think rigorously, but I don't know. We both share the same faith that if everyone thought as well as they could, they'd agree with us. Apparently, the PC schools chastize students for thinking for themselves as much as conservative parents do, but I just don't think that bible burning is going to be something that is ever lauded by American intelligensia, then again, it's funny because as I get older, I just turned twenty-six, I'm starting to teach more and soon enough I'm going to be one of those liberal teachers who believe that America can do better once we examine our priorites, but maybe it's because I'm so brainwashed. If that's the reason I'm misguided, I just can't take Card's condemnations seriously.
posted
Well i'm questioning the bolded statement, because by and large, the majority of that is already true.
What i will disagree with is the characterization of the entire population of males as non-intellectuals. What we do see however is no appreciation for public schooling, religation of the liberal arts to nooks and crannies of universities, and a president who says "yes and you too can get straight 'C's and become president of the united states"
What i do disagree with this passage on, is that there will never be a complete polarization of gender in any intellectual field for a number of reasons.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I try very hard to avoid making statements that will offend or alienate other people on this board simply because they maintain opposing philosophies from me. If you have noticed or appreciated that courtesy, or care about my feelings, I would ask that you try to do the same.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, saxon, what have I written to you specifically that was intentionally offensive?
I'll have to assume that you're referring to my last post. To be very honest, that last post was something of a throwaway. So I'll apologize right at the outset to anyone who was offended. It was intentionally offensive, which is not really like me. I'm truly sorry.
While I meant it in basic philosophy (I believe -- and hate using the word believe, as if it were some sort of religious faith -- that abortion is killing a baby, which does mean that it is inherently anti-family) I don't honestly believe that liberals in general think that having abortions is better than having babies. I think that there *are* some liberals who believe that, but I think that they are the fringe element that most people would consider kooky.
Please accept my apologies.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I guess I did start writing to you as if you wrote it. Then again, you're defending it, and you do bear a striking resemblance."
Heh heh Storm, I suppose I'm too good at putting myself in other people's shoes. I can defend someone's right to make an argument and have it understood fairly without making it clear whether and how I disagree with their opinion
That last quote you cited, about being free and equal members of society ... I missed it before, and I don't really have a way to defend it, beyond saying that this is not the attitude I've seen Card express in his day-to-day life. I'm kinda forced to see it as hyperbole, or part of a tendency to overstate his opinions. But, well, it's kinda there in black and white. I think he is the only one who can explain it
As far as the title thing goes, I only flipped out about it because it seemed to be such a picky thing. I mean, if there were an article called "Hypocrites of Mormonism", written by a born-again Christian, which skewers Christians for joining the "heretical" Mormon faith, I would take issue with the content of the essay long before I would even think of going after the title. Plus, I had just read two really ridiculous posts by fil, so my dander was up
In any case, let's not throw around frowny faces and get all misty-eyed because we can't come to an agreement. I think we disagree because we've come to understand Card from two totally different perspectives, and he has affected [take note, Pod, that this is a proper use of the word "affect"] us both in different ways. I know that in person, he is far more tolerant and open-minded than he sometimes appears in print, and I believe that that affects [ahem] the way I read his work. I can understand how someone less familiar with his personality could draw far more negative conclusions.
So. In case you were wondering, I may look like my father, and share his religious persuasion, but I'm not the same guy, and would not have written the same essay I just think he deserves a chance to speak his opinion without having words put in his mouth. "Random arrests", etc, take it too far. As you pointed out, the essay is sufficiently controversial on its face not to need any embellishment.
And Pod, what's wrong with making straight C's and being successful? That's what I plan to do Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
O.K. I enjoyed discussing it with you. I get a little excited when I post, as well, and I'm sure I didn't say things as well as I might have. In particular, I probably goofed when I said that the, ah, treatment of homosexuals was his 'main' point. On review, I think you are right in that, from his perspective, it is a matter of community integrity. It's probably one of those half full, half empty kind of things.
I am going to make another thread about the nauvoo article, perhaps, because he expresses a sentiment in there about homosexuality that I want to explore further. I kind of thought I might be working up to it in my 'reason in Christianity' thread, but I wasn't sure how to say it without sounding like a jerk. His article is a good excuse to throw it out there and see what people think.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yes, I realize you're your own man. I have never had an occasion to think otherwise. I know it's a sore subject with you.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) about the legal institution of marriage "anti-family?" At best, he is "anti-marriage" and what with a nearly 1 in 2 marriages dissolving, so would half of our nation. But a divorced couple with kids is still a family, albeit one with different hurdles than one with only one parent or one with both parents living in the home or one with both living in the home but hating each other, etc. So, I still don't see it as "anti-family." I guess more importantly we need to then get to the definition of "family." To know this, we would better know what the opposite is. Being skeptical about marriage (skeptics being a trait adored by OSC, apparently...just maybe not in this case?) as anti-family? Would the opposite (not being skeptical about "family" or taking it as wrote that there is only one definition of family) be pro-family? Just curious. Maybe stick with a workable definition of "family."![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I suppose that depends how you define "liberal." I consider myself a liberal, for the most part. And while I am not in favor of abortion, generally speaking, I find the idea of the government making that decision abhorrent. And not every person who chooses abortion is "anti-family"!
