quote:I tentatively agree with your argument; it was your timing and delivery that sucked.
I think this point has been thoroughly disproved.
The point hasn't even been discussed, let alone disproved. I made specific suggestions about how the point could have been timed and delivered better, and NO one has even responded to those points.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't thing that it was necessarily the timing of Tom's argument that made OSC leave the discussion. That's basically his stock response when anyone on these forums refutes something he has written, or have tried to discuss anything with him. He almost always ignores them, especially (or so it seems to me) if the refutations and arguements made are well thought out, in a calm, collected manner.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I disagree. I changed my own position from pro-life to pro-choice, based on arguments made by people for whom I have no trust whatsoever. I simply thought over the new arguments that I had not seen before, made a few mental connections, and realized that I could no longer hold the same position.
I'm curious as to why you would even consider an argument from someone for whom you held no trust whatsoever.
Curiosity, Tom.
quote:I submit that there must have existed at least a basic level of human respect -- one that denies the possibility of "monstrousness" -- before you would have done this.
Naw. If Koko the talking chimp, or a clump of morse-code communicating bacteria, or Moby Dick the great white whale, popped up with something to say about abortion or same-sex marriage, I'd listen to what they had to say, out of sheer curiosity.
One label that would get me to stop listening to someone, is "BORE."
----
quote: And I'll freely concede that my timing -- if not my delivery -- may have been bad.
[side gesture to El JT de Spang! ]
Hey, Tom, it happens to all of us.
quote:When had you intended to bring the subject up in conversation? IMO, no "ideal" time was ever likely to present itself.
I wasn't around for the conversation, Tom; He'd split before I signed up here.
Better timing would have been to drop it into the conversation *after* discussing his material points. If you read his response to your critique, I think you'll see that was his real complaint -- that your critique bypassed what he saw as the core of his argument.
Framing your critique as an ancillary side point to your response, rather than the entire response, would have been better delivery.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say that discussion of Card's style was pointless, either.
No you didn't, but you did completely misrepresent what Sartorius said.
Guilty, but unintentionally. I misunderstood what he said, just as he appears to have misunderstood what I said.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Better timing would have been to drop it into the conversation *after* discussing his material points.
But I had no issue with his material points. And his material points were largely his opinion of his own thought process, anyway. How could anyone take issue with -- or even discuss -- what he thinks about the way he thinks?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to my recollection -- or, at least, not with what he said about his "material points." People took issue with his ancillary point, which was the belittling of his audience.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then again, Tom, your alternative would be to quote back all that OSC said, with the offensive parts omitted, and say that you agree with what you reprinted, and that the parts that you omitted seemed to work against what he was trying to accomplish, because ...
That makes your message,
1. I agree, and now I'm applying those principles to what you said,
rather than
2. you hypocrite, you're not living up to your own principles.
I think that you meant #1, but the message actually conveyed was #2.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Then again, Tom, your alternative would be to quote back all that OSC said, with the offensive parts omitted, and say that you agree with what you reprinted, and that the parts that you omitted seemed to work against what he was trying to accomplish....
This approach never occurred to me, and I disagree with you about its potential effectiveness; frankly, if someone were to parrot back my words to me with selective edits made to point out what they think I should have done better, I would be more offended than if they took an alternative approach. But I appreciate that you are certainly closer to Card's culture than my own, and perhaps this is just another cultural distinction. I seriously hope you'd never consider doing it to me, though; where I'm from, it would be a particularly deadly insult.
I also feel compelled to point out that this is exactly where trust becomes an issue. I'd like to believe that if Card trusted my motives, he'd understand why #2 is an unthinkable possibility.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Then again, Tom, your alternative would be to quote back all that OSC said, with the offensive parts omitted, and say that you agree with what you reprinted, and that the parts that you omitted seemed to work against what he was trying to accomplish....
This approach never occurred to me, and I disagree with you about its potential effectiveness; frankly, if someone were to parrot back my words to me with selective edits made to point out what they think I should have done better, I would be more offended than if they took an alternative approach. But I appreciate that you are certainly closer to Card's culture than my own, and perhaps this is just another cultural distinction. I seriously hope you'd never consider doing it to me, though; where I'm from, it would be a particularly deadly insult.
Really? Why?
I thought that restating what someone else said was considered universal good communication.
The point is this -- if it seems like the only reason that you are responding to him is to criticize his style, then he's going to blow you off.
quote:I also feel compelled to point out that this is exactly where trust becomes an issue.
Agreed. I may be interested in what Moby Dick or Koko have to say about same-sex marriage or abortion, but if they were to criticize my table manners, I'd probably give them the finger.
So if Moby Dick or Koko want a conversation with me, they probably should stick to subjects where we have mutual interest, rather than lecturing me about my table manners.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agreed. I may be interested in what Moby Dick or Koko have to say about same-sex marriage or abortion, but if they were to criticize my table manners, I'd probably give them the finger.
Which means something ENTIRELY different in chimp sign language. I'm not sure what it means to a great white whale. Maybe "eat me!"
quote:So if Moby Dick or Koko want a conversation with me, they probably should stick to subjects where we have mutual interest, rather than lecturing me about my table manners.
I have no trust for him at all. I consider Hugo Chavez every bit as personally dangerous as Pol Pot. But I'd love to have a conversation with him, and I certainly would not squander it on some petty issue of style.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought that restating what someone else said was considered universal good communication.
Restating what someone else said for the purpose of being clear that one understands it correctly is generally good communication. But I doubt Tom believes what you described above to be the same thing. I know I don't.
posted
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to read through everything in this thread since Mr. Card's long post on page one. Forgive me if I repeat anything. I intend to reply directly to that post by Mr Card, specifically two of his points, though I will touch upon a third. First, his views on investigating beliefs and scientific understanding. Second, his short comment on the understanding the role of marriage. The third point on tribalization and civilazation I did not understand, though the line about truth and importance with respect to God I find interesting.
1) It seems to me that there is something important being left out, or left unsaid, in the discussion about critically examining our own beliefs. In my own experience, there does come a time when my religious beliefs come into conflict with my understanding of science. In your post above, Mr. Card, you claim that you hold "all conclusions in abeyance while [you] explore an idea..." As far as I understand abeyance, it refers to leaving something unacted on. There are many ideas that I can leave in abeyance as I explore them more fully. Then, there are times when I must act upon one if these ideas, the "urgency of action" as you put it, though I must act at a point during which I have yet to gain any deeper understanding. It occurs to me that in these and other situations, I act on certain ideas only because of faith or that I have always done things this way.
For example - I keep the Sabbath quite strictly. My family kept the Sabbath, since I was born, at a level of observance similar to that which I continue to keep. I often question why I keep the Jewish Sabbath and so many of the restrictions that come along with it. There are a number of justifications that I have come up with, but none of them seem satisfactory; it holds the community together, it soothes my mind to not be able to do work for a day and so not need to think about it, it gives me an opportunity to focus and learn about all aspects of my religious life, and so on. Even so, I have a friend who keeps the Sabbath in a manner similar to mine, but has no qualms about taking a shower on the Sabbath. I consider cooking, including heating up water, forbidden on the Sabbath so I do not shower during that 25 hour period. I cannot imagine, though, how his showering contradicts any and all of my reasonings for keeping the Sabbath and its laws. I cannot leave this thought in abeyance because I am confronted with it weekly. I am forced to act, but the only reasons that I can determine for my not-showering are these: I have never done it, I have been taught that it is wrong, and I have faith that there is a reason for it.
I find that if I look deeply enough into many of my beliefs, not only examples similar to the case above, these are the reasons I do and do not do a whole host of things. And yet, I don't think this conflicts with my intention to critically examining all that I believe, scientifically, rationally, and religiously. Faith, as religion is sometimes called, is just that. It is a reliance on what my parents and teachers taught me. It is the belief that I don't know everything but everything has a reason. It is a trust given to some authority, be it God or a teacher, that the course of action I take is reasonable even if I am not in possession of that reason myself. Each belief that we hold, be it scientific or religious, explored or unexplored, has an effect on decisions that we make. So, I don't think that most situations allow us to put our beliefs aside while we explore them. The best we can do is admit that some of our beliefs are accepted on faith, for the time being. In turn, we are determined to investigate each of them.
"Just because what I believe coincides at some points with the common understanding of Mormon doctrine does not mean that my process of arriving at my conclusion began with the Mormon doctrine and then bent everything else to fit it." While your intention here, I think, was that you do not bend things to fit your beliefs, I want to comment on where the process of arriving at our conclusions begins. Investigations into many of our beliefs do start with some doctrine. I do things because I was taught or told to do so. When enough evidence weighs in favor of changing that behavior, I hope that I am and will be able to change it. Or, when the evidence weighs in favor of continuing with my practice, I'll continue doing so. In both cases, though, the process of arriving at my conclusion did begin with some doctrine. Even so, it did not begin with bending everything else around that doctrine.
2)"who don't even understand the role of monogamous marriage (and, just as importantly, the perception of universal monogamy)" In regard to this and your comments about the intellectual elite, I have a short anectode. A couple of years ago I took a course in Evolutionary Psychology. (Whether or not this is a productive discipline is beyond the scope of my post here). Following a lecture on the mating habits of several animal species, some being mongamous and others very much not, he asked us whether humans are monogamous. His answer was that we are not.
It struck me, though, that this was entirely the wrong sort of question to ask. The teaching staff reminded us many times not to make the "Naturalistic Fallacy" that the way things are implies that things should be that way. The more important question, then, is whether humans should be monogamous. I have a feeling that his answer would still be no. I also have a feeling that his answer to both questions would have been different not too long ago. Society's acceptance of divorce (resulting in serial monogamy as he put it), abortion, contraception, sex without marriage, etc. over the last hundred years have fundamentally altered, not only the way many people do relate to marriage and sex, but the way they think we ought to relate to them. Now, I don't think that all of the items in the list above are bad and evil. I think that there are benefits and disadvantages to each, I even think that some (contraception, for example) have done wonderful things for individuals, communities, and society.
I do, however, think that combined these contribute to a big problem in our culture. That is, the shrinking of any non-sexualized space. (This is not an idea I have fully developed, but I thought I would try some of it out here). One role of monogamous marriage, I think, is to confine sexualized space to a raltionship between two, presumably mature, individuals. By sexualized space I mean any situation where people look to each other as potential mates, a sexual tension in some sense, feelings of sexual attraction perhaps. A non-sexualized space, on the other hand, is none of that. In non-sexualized situations we can create friendships without the underlying feeling that you or the other person is looking for more in that relationship. A friendship based entirely on mutual understanding, respect, trust, and the pleasure of each others company rather than one based on physical attraction. (The most successful marriages would have both, presumably). I have friends that claim there is no such thing as non-sexualized space. They point to testosterone filled locker rooms and say that even between the close friends of a sports team there are sexual undertones. My friends say that it is impossible to have friends of the opposite gender without any sexual tensions. I, however, point to friendships of my own with members of both genders that are not based at all on sexual attraction. I do not believe that these friends would have had the same perspective two generations ago. Their comments, I propose, are the result of a culture that has accepted sex as something to casually partake in.
Two years ago, I knew someone who was writing a paper about the Biblical relationship between David and Jonathan (Saul's son). His thesis was that the two were lovers. He presented evidence of their close relationship and analyzed the language that the Bible uses when discussing their covnersations and interactions. I found it all a little sad, though. Sad that he could not fathom for a moment that two people could have so much respect for each other that the the friendship they form is at least as strong as the relationship between a long married couple. It never occured to him that two people could become so close to each other and never become interested in or attracted to each other sexually.
The problem, I think, is that two different referents of "love" have been conflated. On the one hand, there is a sexual partner. We commonly call intercourse, "making love". Love, in this case, is intimately tied to the sexual relationship. On the other hand, I can love a friend. The love of a friend can be so much more intense than the love of a sexual partner. It is an love based upon emotional support and expressed by mutual generosity. The hope is that a person can find both types of love within a spouse. The two can and often are seperated, though. However, the first love is shallow, and ultimately meaningless, without the second. The second, though, provides meaning to life, gives it value.
"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival." -C.S. Lewis
One more thing about this topic. Mr. Card commented on the importance of the perception of monogamy. I agree with this, I think this is more important that monogamy itself. I cannot give this subject the treatment it deserves, so, briefly... My Rabbi once commented that there is a real value in having laws that are not enforced. They can be unenforcable or left unenforced by choice of the legislature. It is important because having the law supports certain perceptions about what is right and wrong. He gave examples from both civil and Jewish law, but I cannot recall any of them. I'll ask him as soon as I can, and will hopefully get back to you all here.
3)"God's statements aren't important or true because God said them, God said them because they're important and true." This is actually an example of something that I have "put into abeyance". I find it awkward to limit the power of God and say that God could not have made other things important and true. But on the other hand, I cannot imagine a universe in which truth is not conceptually universal. When I say that God is good, I must mean something by it. Were goodness something that God could or would arbitrarily alter, then it is a foolish statement to make.
As for the rest of that last section. I'm not sure I understood it.
Sadly, I don't expect that I will be able to post much more in this thread. It is hypocritical of me to write this intending to continue or start a conversation and then up and leave. I tried keeping up with forum discussions for a while and tried respond. However, as my time is needed elsewhere, I can't really put my thoughts down the way I intend them to be. Even this, I would prefer to proofread another time or two. So, I feel as if I'm cheating myself when I rush through responses and don't add adequately to the discussion. Alas...
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: My Rabbi once commented that there is a real value in having laws that are not enforced. They can be unenforcable or left unenforced by choice of the legislature. It is important because having the law supports certain perceptions about what is right and wrong. He gave examples from both civil and Jewish law, but I cannot recall any of them.
Ben sorer u'moreh comes to mind almost immediately. (And if you think I am trying to explain that one, you are NUTS. ) So do death penalty crimes (I'm talking about Jewish Law). The restrictions in terms of witnesses and warnings made actually putting someone to death exceedingly rare; but the fact that certain violations are death-penalty-worthy does make it clear that they are considered pretty important.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Please forgive me that I don't have time to go through your post and pull out all the specific points that piqued my interest. I'd like to thank you for the idea that a non-sexualized space being enforced and accepted would strengthen communitites. That is a concept I've never heard before and I'll enjoy pondering it.
BTW, wonderful post.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Insufficiently ambitious to take on all of Gansura's wonderful substantive response to OSC (at last!!!), I'm going to pounce on the one part where my reading differs most from Gansura's.
I think that OSC was speaking against bending his inquiry to fit his faith. I think that's entirely different than the idea of living a religious principle that you're not sure that you agree with. It's one thing to submit yourself to the laws of the Sabbath, while wondering what the purpose is, and quite another to try to persuade others to submit to the Sabbath, or to argue that Sabbath observance is needful, when you honestly don't know what that need is.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bah, I think I'm heading back to lurkdom now, if I stay around at all. I am tired of being surprised by the way OSC is. Before I came here, I only read his novels and thought... Well, it does not matter what I thought. I just hate feeling this way about him. I'm not saying he's a monster or a bad person, I just thought he was something different than what I am seeing lately and I want to stop reading his posts before I dislike him. Maybe this is not goodbye. Maybe I'll lurk and post occasionally but I don't really want to spend so much time here anymore. I really had a great time with all of you. It's probably because I had expectations of OSC that were not correct that I feel this way. I had no knowledge of the rest of you before this and so learned who each of you were gradually with no preconcieved notions. I'll miss you. Nikki
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify: I only read the first page of this thread. If OSC apologized or changed his mind later or something I am going to feel like a real idiot.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At first when I read the part where OSC seemed to mock those that disagree and agree with him, I was a bit hurt. Then I thought about it. Then I thought about it some more. I came to the conclusion that he is not frustrated by those that disagree with him, nor is he calling all those who agree with him sheep. I see his point as being that he is frustrated with blindness.
OSC doesn't seem to want people agreeing with him or disagreeing with him because he's OSC, or Mormon, or Democrat, or championing a cause of the Left or Right. Very simply, all he's asking is that his ideas merit the serious discussion and respect due to someone who has searched, read, pondered the great questions of life, independent of his religious beliefs. Instead, he gets dismissed with every article he writes as simply being a political hack of the religious Right or Bush or simply brushed off as living in an alternate reality. For someone who has actively studied and wrestled with questions his entire life, these dismissals probably seem like the ultimate insult--in essence calling his very life and everything he's worked for and believes in a lie.
Yet he obviously cares so much about people and this country that he does it over and over again, taking the pain to try to make a difference. I really respect him for that.
And from over a two years of lurking, I've seen he's right. You get to know people on here so well, that you can predict their responses. Those who agree with Card often do so because it confirms what they already believe. When asked to back it up, they are unable to respond with anything other than 'Go Orson'. There are also those that simply go out to find whatever evidence they can to refute his articles, again not attempting to find research supporting his point or actually considering it.
So my conclusion is that OSC is not frustrated with disagreement nor agreement. It's ignorance, close-mindedness, and refusal to really consider the issues that seem to really burn him up. I'm a young man. I only hope that I have the courage, persistance, and intelligence to examine myself as he has obviously done. People like Treason just show that they have so far to go; they who come here with expectations of what he is like, and when he turns out to be different and disagrees with their own cherished beliefs, they decide to leave. He is asked to do what people will not do themselves.
I apologize, I'm sure this is poorly written with many spelling and grammer errors. My thoughts are not phrased eloquently, I make no great objective arguments like so many of you here. I'm just trying to speak my heart. Unfortunately, as an electrical engineer, writing is not my strong point.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gansura, that was singularly one of the best posts I've ever read on Hatrack. I hope you continue to come back and post, as time permits.
I especially like your discussion of non-sexualized space. It articulates what I've observed in the course of my life, having gone from promiscuity to monogamy in the space of just over 20 years. Monogamy is much better, IMO, as it allows space for the kind of love that feeds the soul. It is somewhat counterintuitive to say that by restricting love, you create space for more of it. Until you define love as sexualized or non-sexualized, at which point it makes great sense.
I agree with you about disappointment in a viewpoint that can only view close personal relationships through a lens of sex, either expressed or repressed. The same analysis has been made of Jesus and the disciples. But I find it saddest of all, sad as in sorrow, not sad as in condemnation, that close friendships today often leave people humming behind their hands, speculating that there is more to it that meets the eye. That speculation is so limiting.
So thank you very much for that clarity. I'd love to see it discussed more fully.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BaoQingTian I thought your post was very insightful and well written. I very much agree with your sentiments.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Instead, he gets dismissed with every article he writes as simply being a political hack of the religious Right or Bush or simply brushed off as living in an alternate reality. ... You get to know people on here so well, that you can predict their responses. Those who agree with Card often do so because it confirms what they already believe.
It appears to me that you commit here -- and, if you're right, Card also commits -- the same sin about which you're complaining. What grounds do you have to believe that while Card's opinions are based on years of research and introspection, those who disagree with him do so because they're stuck in a mental rut?
You may as well say that I have come to my opinions after years of soul-searching, and that Card -- by disagreeing with me -- demonstrates close-mindedness. After all, it's certainly the case that Card's as predictable as any of us on certain topics. Perhaps he's just confirming what he already believes?
No? Nah. I don't think it's likely, either. I think it's far more likely that most of us on Hatrack have opinions that are based on at least some level of observed reality, and that it's offensive to imply otherwise. That, in other words, it's possible for someone to disagree with me -- or Card, or Joe, or you -- for perfectly good reasons, even knowing all the facts.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That, in other words, it's possible for someone to disagree with me -- or Card, or Joe, or you -- for perfectly good reasons, even knowing all the facts.
That's true - it's not just the facts that you have, it's also the lens of experience and belief through which you interpret them.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom earlier I asked you a question that you have not yet replied to:
Ultimately, I wonder why you would chose to be offended rather than not. Wouldn't it be the most prudent to give the benefit of the doubt, if you in fact have doubt?
What is your goal? You appear to go out of your way to dilute a debate by focusing entirely on a couple of statements which you assume to be insulting. Is that your goal?
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For one thing, there was no debate occurring on the thread in which I posted. No one was debating whether or not Card had opinions, or reached them through some process. I don't exactly feel guilty for pointing out that it was unnecessary to litter his description of his thought process with digs at people who disagree with him.
For another, some of those digs were quite specifically aimed at me. While I could have denied him a reaction, I would feel terrible about forcing Mr. Card to waste an insult.
As a third reason, I do think OSC has a number of good opinions, and tire of having to explain this to acquaintances of mine. His political opinions are summarily dismissed by a lot of people I know, and the reason they do this is because they hit one of his jabs and take offense -- and don't bother, once they've been insulted, trusting anything else he has to say. Since I'd like his better opinions to get wider play, it's my hope that he'll start winnowing down the overgeneralizations -- especially the apocalyptic ones, like "the group who believes X does so for silly, selfish reasons and is going to destroy the universe if they succeed" -- in order to actually reach a broader audience of people who don't already agree with his premises.
Fourth reason: fewer insults would result in fewer trolls coming here only to complain about his insults.
And for the fifth reason: ignoring an insult when it's clearly offered -- since I think it's disingenuous to claim that one can easily choose to interpret Card's remarks as non-offensive; I think that approach is pretty much limited only to people who don't actually hold the opinions he insults people for having -- is, indeed, the bigger thing to do. One can always walk away from a fight. But it's quite plainly exhausting to do so, and I don't think anyone should be routinely expected to turn the other cheek, when you could ask the other person to stop hitting you now and then. Most of the people I know who've chosen to take this approach actually left Hatrack for exactly this reason, and I think we're worse off for their absence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I have a couple of responses on what you've posted that I'll try to comment on when I have a chance but I wanted to ask if you can conceive the alternate interpretation of the statements? ( Please know I in no way mean this as offensive I'm curious to know if you see something that I see. )
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am able to see the alternate interpretation of the statements. However, the most probable interpretation of the statements is that they were intended to be offensive. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is a good thing, but not at the expense of ignoring the most likely option. And it's not that I think that Card intended to be mean, but his anger certainly came through. I don't cavil at anger, either, but it's pointless and misdirected.
Look, even a dog can tell the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tom, I have a couple of responses on what you've posted that I'll try to comment on when I have a chance but I wanted to ask if you can conceive the alternate interpretation of the statements?
I can conceive of them, absolutely. And if it were all down to a misinterpretation, I'd hope that OSC would see fit to post and say, "No, that isn't what I meant at all."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you to those who have complimented me on the post above. I am vain enough that such praise goes directly to my head.
Rivka: Ben Soreh u'Moreh was exactly the example I was given. Thank you. I won't go into the exact details of this for everyone, but the basic idea is that of a rebellious child. There are restrictions upon what sort of child fits the description of a Ben soreh u'moreh that make it impossible to ever charge someone with it.
Ladydove: I'm glad to have given you something more to think about. The more deeply anyone looks into these issues, the more complicated they most certainly become.
Ghengis: Point taken. Though, in my personal experience I cannot claim to be so honest. I DO argue that observance of the Sabbath, and certain of its laws, are needful even though I do not know now why they are needful. I do not argue it to strangers or even friends, but I argue it to my family. I think I do so because I wish my family to keep the same restrictions that I keep. I want them to validate my observance by accepting it as their own. I also hope that together, we can come to a greater understanding of many more observances that we keep; for there are far too many for me, alone, to examine each properly over my lifetime.
Jeniwren: Thank you for your comments. I particularly like your phrasing of restricting love to make space for it. I think that is an important concept that applies in a number of situations. Free speech and hate crime legislation, for example. It can be argued that restricting certain speech creates space for more speech and more equal speech.
Also, The sadness I expressed for this persepective is also (mostly) that of sorrow. I do condemn those who should know better, though, than to regurgitate what they hear from their professors and teachers without examining it critically.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ghengis: Point taken. Though, in my personal experience I cannot claim to be so honest. I DO argue that observance of the Sabbath, and certain of its laws, are needful even though I do not know now why they are needful. I do not argue it to strangers or even friends, but I argue it to my family. I think I do so because I wish my family to keep the same restrictions that I keep. I want them to validate my observance by accepting it as their own. I also hope that together, we can come to a greater understanding of many more observances that we keep; for there are far too many for me, alone, to examine each properly over my lifetime.
I respect that, although I recognize you do not need my respect. Togetherness is reason enough to go through such minor but continual hardship. Perhaps you have your answer right there; your God wanted you to be One, and your observances draw you Together. If that is not enough reason to you, then I wish you good luck in your search for better answers.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good, I'm glad to see there is common ground. So tern & Tom, with this alternate concept in mind how would you write these concepts so that it was no longer possible for anyone to be offended by the statements.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*beats head against wall* Okay, I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I've said it three times now: I consider it enormously offensive to rewrite someone else's words for them. It's quite possibly the most offensive thing I can imagine doing to a writer.
If you're really, really desperate to hear how I would have made the same points that OSC made, contact me via email and I'll drop you something. Privately. But I'm baffled that anyone would believe that this would be acceptable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took some time yesterday to remove everything I considered extraneous out of OSC's essay. Then I looked at it and I realized two things: First, who am I to edit Card, and second, how do I know that I represented his thoughts accurately?
I'm nobody, and I have no way of knowing if I edited correctly. In fact, looking at it, it was very presumptous of me to make the attempt.
If there is a solution to this, a workable one (which doesn't include rewriting OSC), I'd like to know what it is.
Just as a general rule, I recommend counting to 10 backwards before posting something when writing while irritated.
I remember when I first started participating on boards - it was on Beliefnet - and some things really made me mad. So I'd post these huge long screeds full of vitriole. All fairly good and logical points, and containing sentiments that I rather think I would still agree with today. But what kind of response do you think I got? Did I change anyone's mind, anyone's behavior? No. So now I try to moderate my tone (and occasionally fail badly) and if I don't convince anyone, at least I'm not doing more harm than good to my cause.
As a Mormon, the whole thing boils down to 3rd Nephi, Chapter 11, verse 29:
quote:For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
In my opinion, anger harms the one who expresses it more than it harms anyone else.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: *beats head against wall* Okay, I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I've said it three times now: I consider it enormously offensive to rewrite someone else's words for them. It's quite possibly the most offensive thing I can imagine doing to a writer.
*places cushion on wall to keep Tom from injuring himself *
tern wrote:
quote: I took some time yesterday to remove everything I considered extraneous out of OSC's essay. Then I looked at it and I realized two things: First, who am I to edit Card, and second, how do I know that I represented his thoughts accurately?
I understand your points. However, I'm not asking that you rewrite or edit someone else's words, I'm asking how you would express the concepts in your own words in such a way that no one would be offended.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There isn't much difference. Either way, I'm rewriting Card.
Hmmm... If I made the statement:
Abortion is bad.
And then asked you, please express the concept from this statement in your own words. Are you then saying that you would be rewriting me? Is this really what you believe?
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to get back to Marc's original topic, and do some conservative (as in, only saying things I'm sure of) reasoning.
If someone does not fit into my classification scheme, here are the possibilities: * I'm fitting him the wrong way. As in, I thought he said "Grey drapes live in Africa," but he actually said, "Great apes live in Africa." Misperception. * My classification scheme is wrong.
Fixing problem one could simply be getting more data or paying more attention. I think it often requires not misinterpreting things, as in, interpreting "I support position X" means "I am an evil idiot."
Which is a classification scheme: people who support position X are evil idiots.
So, since OSC spends a great deal of time clarifying his positions, I'd say it's the classification scheme that needs amending. It's like science: your theory makes the wrong prediction, you have to throw it out, or at least change it.
Your classification scheme, Marc, seems to say that people who have one set of qualities (religion, opposition to gay marriage) don't have another set of qualities (admirable, thoughtful) and do have a third (herd mentality, dodging questions). Here's living proof this prediction is flawed; so naturally it's out. What will it have to take with it?
I sometimes have to amend my classification scheme, but it's in personal life, not political discussions, and there, it often hurts like hell. I'm guessing (am I wrong?) that it's not too costly for you, emotionally, to discard your model for a new one, provided the new one fits the facts better. It sounds like fun. Even if not fun, it sounds well worth doing.
Kudos to you for bringing up what's obviously a powerful topic.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But OSC isn't writing a three word sentence. He's writing an essay. Completely different. It is not my business to rewrite Card. I just don't have the right. And "writing the concepts in my own words" amounts to a rewrite.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it's far more likely that most of us on Hatrack have opinions that are based on at least some level of observed reality, and that it's offensive to imply otherwise. That, in other words, it's possible for someone to disagree with me -- or Card, or Joe, or you -- for perfectly good reasons, even knowing all the facts.
quote:keep in mind that when OSC says things like "us" or "we" or "our," he's really talking about life on Bizarro World, where up is down and black is white and mice eat cats and he is one of the bravest members of a mostly silent majority of people possessed of his particular form of moral rectitude.
"His world" is not our world. His articles make a lot more sense when you remember that he writes speculative fiction and alternate histories.
And then you write:
quote:I do think OSC has a number of good opinions, and tire of having to explain this to acquaintances of mine.
I've never, in all my reading of your posts, gotten the impression that you respect ANYTHING the man has to say in his political columns. So I don't believe you when you say this.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
]![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
