posted
Yeah, but we took the example and ran with it. Intentional or not, people are going to tend to use the particular example you cited when they refute or support your argument.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: How do I reconcile the philosophies I hold as adult, which were shaped and guided by my reading of Card's work, with the views and philosophies I read in Card's columns on this site?
Card has often spoken about how people recieve his work, and other people's work as well.
quote: Part of what gives the story a "soul" is the reader.
Your interpretation of Card's work is what shaped you, not the words that Card wrote. Who you are when you read any story is what determines the message you get from it.
posted
I'm glad you're not going down that road, Pooka, or I'd refer you to the top two (some would say, "introductory")paragraphs of the same letter.
Even if you managed to forget the top of the letter by the time you got to the middle, I'm pretty sure that OSC didn't.
Who says that some people like to make their arguments by quoting their opponents out of context? Not I!
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woa... just read OSC's response... hmmmmm OSC has some good points...unfortunatly for me personally. I don't know if it's just the passion for the topic or if he really thought Knightboy was being rude or crazy or trying to take down civilization.
The thing I LOVE about OSC is his ability to care and see the Big Picture. But I just can't agree with his stance on this. Not only because I don't see the facts leading to his conclusions but also I'm a wee bit biased being a gay guy. *sigh* And this topic is just going to get more in our faces over the next couple years...
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't the Beastie Boys getting a bit ... mature? I remember when they were young, hot and sassy.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to the topic: both the original poster and OSC reference previous writings of OSC. Before I post a response to OSC, can anyone link me to relevant writings of his on the subject (and when I say 'the subject' I mean same-sex marriage, even if that wasn't the avowed intent of the original poster)? In particular, what does "nor do any of my essays advocate depriving them of anything that would have the slightest benefit to them" mean? What does OSC advocate? The implication is civil unions, but I suspect thats not what he means.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
OSC is the only person that can make me second guess myself on this topic...much more than just tolerating his stance on this. Other people would probably get the "wrath of Karl" on them and accused of being bigots.
Welll... actually probably not. I hate conflict and always look for that inner kernel of goodness inside others. With a topic that I know the answer to, from living it, when someone comes up with opinions against it, unless they are really mean about it, I will try and have a true debate with them...often it comes down to people not knowing enough about it.
[ September 11, 2004, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knightboy, to answer your original question about reconciling the two images, I think that when OSC writes a fiction book, he is in "story-teller mode". He is almost never preachy in his books (though I maybe a few cross that line just a little bit). He presents powerful, poignant events and steps back to let the reader decide. He passes no judgements, but instead steps back.
But when he writes non-fiction, he is like a completely different person. He becomes "the preacher". He has strong opinions, ideas, beliefs, and he will use strong and visceral language to present those ideas. He holds fast to them, perhaps to a fault. At least, this is how it looks to me, a person who tries to always be open to new evidence--perhaps to a fault also. I enjoy both parts of him.
The "story-teller" is all the more poignant to me when I know what his stance is on issues, and I take his strong opinions with a grain of salt when I remember the intense compassion he shows in his books. I guess somewhere inside me I reconcile the two to create a complete vision of who OSC really is. He has no qualms about attacking big issues "out there", but he treats the individual gently, with understanding and compassion. He feels very strongly on this particular issue--perhaps in part because it is not "obvious" to the average person. (That rampant divorce is bad is pretty obvious to the average person.) He endeavors to make up for it by using passionate words. Some interpret these words as hateful. I think that is an over-sensitive response--I see no hate in them.
As was stated earlier, these are opinion articles. Opinion articles give the author a chance to show their bias on issues. The don't call for the person to be 100% objective. That would be a Fact article. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Mr. Knight has unalterable faith, without evidence, that this experiment will be harmless and beneficial
I'm going to step out of character and try to be nice for a change.
I really can understand peoples opinions on why homosexual unions and/or marriages are "a bad thing." But, just as Card claimed that Knight failed to provide eveidence for his claims, so did Mr. Card.
It's opinion, it's conjecture, it's fear, and it's ritual. It's a conditioned response.
Listen, people: I'm a black, female, Jewish atheist homosexual, with two or three kids, and my lover and I (she's a six-foot-two pagan bisexual Norwegian with a lisp and a lazy eye) may turn heads, but as far as I've been able to count, we haven't "turned" any heterosexuals lately.
posted
DOG, Card doesn't believe the allure of other homosexuals is the threat. He believe sexual abuse is part of the trouble. While I don't agree so much with that part, I can't deny that it is the case with me. He also believes a lot of people are bisexual, and this group is the one that should be encouraged to marry the opposite sex rather than experiment with homosexuality.
My own opinion is that sexuality theory is going to remain deliberately obscure. Those who want such things to be handled rationally will also actively interfere with any testable hypotheses from being yielded. They appeal to science to unbind themselves from the rigors of religious superstition, but never submit themselves to real scientific method.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those who want such things to be handled rationally will also actively interfere with any testable hypotheses from being yielded.
"Actively interfere"?? Do you have proof to support this statement, or is it merely opinion? Or have those wishing to see these things handled rationally also interfered with verification of your above-stated hypothesis?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I skipped most of the comments, to long to read in 2 min, except Card's response.
I believe that you (Mr. Knight) lack something. The idea that when someone thinks about something, it won't be always what you are thinking is right. For instance, Poetry, when you read it, you might get a different concept or conclusion of the Poem. Though your teacher might try to beat you with a stick to get the meaning that she "thinks" is the right one.
In opinions, no one is every right, and no one is every wrong. People have opinions for a reason. You might disagree with them or agree with them. You could try to see his articles; I suppose you could call them that, from a different perspective.
I'll give you an example, many people I know who have read Ender's game, though it was pure and utterly crap, I asked them why?, the responded 99% of the time, because all it had was children.
I might think otherwise, so what if they are children? It is a great book. Now that is just skimming the surface, try to go deeper, to why they do not like it, maybe they cannot relate to the story or have anything in common, with the characters, is because of what’s in their heads, i.e. the age of the characters. When I first read Ender's Game, I pushed that aside, and found the book to be incomprehensibly awesome.
But other people have opinions, and you need to understand that and respect that, and maybe see why they have that opinion, i.e. background, or even past occurrences.
I hope I got the correct idea you were trying to perceive Mr. Knight.
posted
Card's argument seems to be that homosexual marriage will be a vast social experiment with probably disastrous consequences. Well, why not look to the people who've done the experiment already? The Scandinavian nations have had gay marriage for ten years now (fifteen in the case of Denmark) without any obviously disastrous consequences. Teen pregnancy rates, poverty rates, AIDS and other STD rates - all lower than in the US. Divorces ditto. (And further, since we have a working welfare state, a teen pregnancy is not a total disaster, either.)
In short, comrade Card should take a deep breath and take counsel of the numbers, not of his fears. America has enough troubles without adding imaginary ones.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hiro (and everybody else), I've decided that the letter I wrote had a couple of flaws:
1) I didn't spend enough time on the question I was trying to ask Mr Card, which was in essence, "How can you write Op Ed pieces that show more anger than research, and more venom than compassion?"
2) I used - as an example - an issue that is too inflamatory, and it proved to be a distraction from the question. Using Gay Marriage as a distraction from real issues has proven to be slightly effective for the current Administration, but it was not my intent.
I am against any Constitutional Amendment that restricts freedom - we have laws to do that. I support the right of homosexuals to marry, and I hope that any people - homosexual or straight - that choose to marry do a better job with the responsibilties that go along with that right than I have.
Mr Card and I disagree on a great many issues, and agree on quite a few. But my letter was not an attempt to "call him out" on this issue. If I was taking him to task on anything, it was in the presentation of his opinions in his Op Ed pieces. I have always respected the empathy, logic, and understanding Card gives his characters in his fictional works, and I am disappointed that his opinion pieces do not match that standard.
Honestly, I'm one of those people who read the "Arguments in Opposition" in the Voters Pamphlet before I vote in favor of anything. It's changed my mind on a number of votes, including several upcoming local Measures. It's a technique that has saved me from simply accepting the arguments of someone who claims to be "on my side" and would use my vote to further damage my position. It's a technique that I learned as an extention of the logic of the Ender series - "If you can't talk to your enemy..."
It's a technique that I cannot use effectively when reading Card's Op Ed, and I'm disappointed by that. When someone who disagrees with my views presents his own views with logic and insight, I can learn from them. It may or may not change my views, but I can learn.
I should've asked the question better.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Knight-Boy. I like his fiction but his Op-Ed pieces I have found to be (skillful) pieces of basically far right-wing propaganda. Very one-sided and disparaging; he sounds almost like a genteel, Mormon (by that I mean polite) version of Ann Coulter. BTW I detest extremists, right or left, so please no one accuse me of being part of any "camp".
Having a "problem" with homosexuals or their lifestyle is OK but trying to use thinly veiled bigotry and pseudo-science to turn them into 2nd-class citizens is not.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: -------------------------------------------------- This whole personal beliefs vs. fiction thing is why I try not to learn to much about my favorite authors. Sometimes reality doesn't fit with the fiction they create. After reading through the entire Ender quartet in about 2 days I raved to my friend about the books and OSC's writing in general. She told me that, yeah, she'd heard he was a good writer, but that he'd written some really anti-gay stuff. I was crushed. I imagined him as the Speaker for the Dead, being understanding and accepting. After that I stopped even scanning his political essays and actually most non-fiction of authors I like. Heroes don't come easy, as R.E.M. says so elequently, and I can't afford to lose mine, so I just use my "really bad movie" stratagy and forget plot innacuracies and "don't notice" huge contradictions. Yay for denial! --------------------------------------------------
I felt the same way when I read some of his essays, though when I thought back about reading Lovelock, there was some subtle homophobia in that. Good book if you havent read it. At least he doesnt equate homosexuals with child-molesters: theres both in Lovelock and totally separate from each other. Be strong. Wagner was a proto-Nazi and Van Gogh was a self-injurious lunatic but they were both great artists and we should no problem enjoying their art if not their personalities.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've waited a long time to see some reaction from OSC to the dismissive posts on the other forum of his essays. I'm LDS, increasingly conservative on social issues as I get older, and tend to agree with most of Card's pieces, but I too wonder at the tone of some, at least, of them. It seems to me to hurt the image of reasoned argument when you apply extreme names and motives to all those you are arguing against. Surely the [perceived] weakness of their positions and the carefully reasoned logic of your own should be sufficient. It seems many are turned off his opinions because of the strident tone they sometimes take, rather than by the opinions themselves (most of the negative posts against Card's essays make little attempt to actually argue against what he's saying, rather just expressing regret that someone seemingly so intelligent could get it so wrong). I'd love to see Card respond to the point of Knightboy's post. Card writes almost as if he doesn't care what those who disagree with him think.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading Songmaster, I thought OSC was fairly friendly to homosexual relationships. That one particular column was like a slap in the face, to be totally honest.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From reading him, he has a fairly open view about homosexuals (that they are human and should be treated with dignity), but still have a relatively narrow view about homosexuality (that homosexual relations are a sin ).
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been said before, but I feel like saying it again.
A lot of people read his books and assume that he must be an open, loving person to write such stories. Then they read his articles and assume that he must be a clos-minded hateful person to write such articles.
Most people seem to automatically assume that they were mistaken when they assumed he was good because of what he wrote. I wish more people would stop to seriously consider that they might have been wrong when they assumed he was bad because of what he wrote.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't ever recall Card attacking individuals as individuals in his columns. He seems to be criticising institutionalised movements (and those people pushing them) that are apparently intent on remaking society in their image - social engineering in other words - and that are in the process of throwing the baby out with the bath water (ie the good with the bad). On an individual basis he appears much more undersatnding/tolerant.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
posted
You know you guys would be at home int he Christian Fellowship club at my college, I'm not a member I just have some friends there. They happen to like playing risk Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes--that it seemed like an oblique attack at homosexual individuals rather than homosexuality at some points.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm going to disagree with you. That was not an attack against people -- it was an attack against the idea that every single homosexual was born that way.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It also implies to become homosexuals, people were first molested or raped; implying therefrom that many homosexuals are rapists and molesters, in proportion to how many straight people are.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
AmkaProblemka
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
