I'll run back over to Ornery now. I don't want you to be afraid to come have a conversation here. I won't come back unless you post in Ornery and ask for a response. Otherwise, I promise to stay away.
There you go, Hatrack. I am sorry to have put glass in your confetti, but I thought the issue of such merit it deserved a mirror.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you folks were doing a better job of parsing the issues, I wouldn't have stepped up.
You haven't parsed anything. You've badly misused the word "hypocrite" and made barely-explained assertions about doctrines of faith.
I don't pretend to know anything about LDS doctrine on these matters. But I do know that highly influential people in your church have taken the position OSC has and based it on their understanding of that doctrine.
If you believe they have reached the wrong conclusion, you can either (1) assume they interpret one or more critical points of doctrine differently than you, or (2) assume they interpret the doctrine exactly as you do and ignore it in order to support their conclusion.
The fact that you popped in here simply to execute the second choice says a hell of a lot more about you than him.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not attach myself to a single line of munga's posts. They are the exact type of posts that kill good conversations. But my observation is so abstract or eccentric. I never once expressed my thoughts on his beliefs or being a hypocrite or not. I merely suggested his way of conversing with those of opposiiton
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't want you to be afraid to come have a conversation here.
So this inability to understand that other people might have different reasons for doing things than you would have for doing those same things is not just a one-time thing.
There are lots of reasons other than fear that might motivate OSC to not reenter this thread because of you. If you could grasp that, you might see the flaw in your earlier argument.
Maybe I should just declare force majeure on you. (inisde joke)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And what, swbarnes and munga have decided to make sure he's actually got a valid reason for not responding?
If he's going to run away because one person expresses the opinion, supported by lots of evidence, that he's not going to honestly face the real arguments of people who disagree with him, then there was nothing anyone could have done to make him honestly face the real arguments of people who disagree with him.
He knew he was saying horribly hurtful things. And saying horribly hurtful things brings out anger. So to say that he really, really was going to defend his statemnet that gay people know less about what is good for them than he does, if only someone hadn't gotten angry at the absurd arrogance of it, is silly.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey swbarnes, can you do the trick where you answer the questions before you open the little envelope? You know, the one where you where that cute little turban.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually agree with swbarnes. That was not a very... polite statement and was in fact a but condescending towards gay people. Gay folks know what is best for them (not all agree with gay marriage by the way) and not someone who isn't actually gay and looking through their perspective.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I for one am deeply glad that we've got brave, wise souls such as swbarnes and mungagungadin over there to shine the beacon of truth and honor on shameful hypocrites like Orson Scott Card, and drive away his deceitful darkness with that light.
Man, it's indescribably frustrating that this community gets stuck with self-important jackasses like you two, while its founder so rarely participates directly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's fun watching people misinterpreting what was specifically said, by latching onto statements out of context later when the context was explained within that post earlier.
OSC believes that the way same-sex marriage is being advocated and enacted in our society, which he describes as being thrust upon an unwilling society by methods such as judges handing down new laws (that's an oversimplification, I know) will lead to a backlash against homosexuals by the larger population which is deeply resentful towards the idea of homsexual marriage.
What is so evil and awful about thinking that, exactly? Perhaps he is wrong about that. Personally I think he is. As I said to Scott on AIM awhile ago, I find his belief that there would be a severe weakening of American loyalty to America to be extremely unlikely.
That doesn't mean he's an evil frothing bigot, though.
And as for the condescension in the notion...well, hey guys? We all do that. Every last one of us, whenever we support any law that has even a whiff of controversy in it, we're saying, "We know what's best for you."
Like McCain? You think you know what's best for the country (and thus the opposition) than do Obama's supporters. Like Obama? Likewise in reverse. That's a part of every society, even a dictatorship, much less a democratic republic like we've got.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I actually agree with swbarnes. That was not a very... polite statement and was in fact a but condescending towards gay people. Gay folks know what is best for them (not all agree with gay marriage by the way) and not someone who isn't actually gay and looking through their perspective.
I haven't expressed one iota of an opinion about swbarnes's opinion about what OSC said. What I'm complaining about is his pretension that he has any inkling of Card's motives or intent. Even in his last post he's making very bad assumptions about the nature of the objections being raised here.
Just as munga made up her mind that OSC was "afriad" of her, swbarnes has decided that OSC will run away because one person posted something with lots of evidence.
No one is predicting that OSC might decline to participate further because he's afraid or because one person posted some evidence. The worry is that he might very reasonably decide to avoid a place where some people are being horribly vile to and about him.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's fun watching people misinterpreting what was specifically said, by latching onto statements out of context later when the context was explained within that post earlier.
OSC believes that the way same-sex marriage is being advocated and enacted in our society, which he describes as being thrust upon an unwilling society by methods such as judges handing down new laws (that's an oversimplification, I know) will lead to a backlash against homosexuals by the larger population which is deeply resentful towards the idea of homsexual marriage.
That might be part of his argument, but it's not the whole.
It's not a "simplification" when you leave out relevant elements that disprove your argument.
This is a guy who wrote "Biological imperatives trump laws". Last month. That's the argument he is making.
quote:What is so evil and awful about thinking that, exactly?
But that's not all he is arguing. It's perfectly plain in his writing.
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pushing for gay marriage now, undemocratically, is a recipe for social cataclysm. I don't want that cataclysm. I don't want to see homosexuals turned into scapegoats and victims of a violent puritanical reaction. But that is what overpushing NOW will quite likely lead to.
Maybe not. Maybe people will sit back and let it happen. But at that point, it is inevitable that the social allegiance of vast numbers of Americans will bleed away. Their contempt for government and for their own society will grow. They will NOT transmit that culture to their children. Their children will NOT grow up accepting that America deserves their loyalty, obedience, or sacrifice.
That's how civilizations die.
I like how charitably this post is written. You're protecting the gays from themselves; saving civilization from the destruction that would be wrought from letting them marry is just a kind side benefit.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
