posted
Maybe this belongs on Ornery, but I don't know those folks. This has been brewing about and a few things I read has catalyzed my compulsion to say something.
But I really hate doing this. Because
A)I actually don't have time to debate right now. B)I hate getting riled up.
But I already am 'riled up' and cranky.
Here is an article on what conservatism means to me:
AND, I'm tired of seeing people bash OSC over his politics, especially with words like "ignorant". One person once even stated that they didn't think OSC had given more than 30 minutes of research to all of his articles combined. They should have looked at the mote in their own eye and given a bit of research to how OSC knows what he does. The man read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire before he was 16, Army of the Potomac when he was 11, and many other histories we haven't even heard of. If any of you read his book reviews as well as his political articles, you might notice that he must read at least 3 books a week, and usually at least one of those is non-fiction.
So disagree with OSC if you must. But never, ever claim he has formed his opinions because he is 'following party lines', or parroting, or being mean spirited, or is simply an ignorant AH. The man is probably far more educated than you are. Try to grasp why he believes what he does.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd certainly make no speculation about exactly how long he had spent doing fact checking in particular, but it certainly hasn't been long enough, generally speaking.
When I started not being able to read an article of his without at least one or two likely factual errors (verified by google in seconds) jumping out at me, I stopped caring that much, because however considered his political opinions may be (which I am not sure I agree with you on, either), he did not care enough or respect his readers enough to do basic fact checking.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it facts, or interpretation of facts that are wrong? I see in a recent article he interprets the Halipern memo differently than how a liberal might interpret it. But being a writer who has recently had to do some PR work, I feel his interpretation is far more honest.
Respect me enough to give me some examples.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice in that article that the author characterizes pretty much all liberals (into which I'd likely fall in his opinion, though I'm likely many times more fiscally and monetarily conservative than him, as he doesn't seem to be very conservative at all in those directions) as considering conservatives intellectually inferior. Notice anything deliciously parallel in that?
edit: this isn't an example, I was writing this before I saw your post.
further edit: and I got confused over the author of the article, which has also been corrected.
posted
Except, fugu, I also get that same exact feeling from almost every liberal I meet. Read the feminism article, and see what I mean. There is a subtle 'I'm superior to this little man's woman' underscore in everything Heinz-Kerry says.
And that statement wasn't a fact, but an opinion.
edit: noticed your edit. Okay. I don't remove things I say, but I understand that wasn't your example.
posted
I think the author of the conservatism article doesn't give credit to liberals for the idea that under his description of the model, leaders in authority can obtain to greater wisdom through age and experience. We can all be born equal but have different capacities depending on how we spend our decades. But the ability to recognize those qualities is still at the mercy of the masses in need of protection.
The right to agency is moderated by its correct use. This means people must choose to go beyond reason in using their strength to protect those less fortunate than them. Civilization is a network of sacrifices, and those unwilling to make them will lose their freedom.
This pretty much applies to my theory on feminism as well. The fact is that all women are physically weaker than some men. Where men have not chosen to protect women, they lose freedom to act. Ditto race, etc. But in order for the means and the ends to someday have integrity, the weak do have to periodically test the strong. Otherwise an arm that was merely broken, if set in a cast too long, can become atrophied. And the minorities will only have revenge and not empowerment.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: you might notice that he must read at least 3 books a week, and usually at least one of those is non-fiction.
quote: The man is probably far more educated than you are.
A) I know many many people who read more than that a week including myself. B) I think you way underestimate the amount of education that people at Hatrack have and are selling yourself and your own education and intelligence short by the second comment.
To quote from a bad country western song "That don't impress me much."
posted
I have tons of respect for OSC. And I have tried "to grasp why he believes what he does"--for instance, I own and have read Storyteller in Zion, though I am not a Latter Day Saint, and I gained much insight into OSC's beliefs from it. I read everything OSC writes that I can find, including his Op-Ed pieces, and his articles for LDS publications. And I learn from them. And I gain insight into opinions I don't share. (Which is not to say that I don't share any of his opinions, just that there are some particular opinions I don't share, most pointedly when it comes to the issues circulating around this presidential election.)
But . . .
His essays sometimes do engage in name calling. I do not call into question his intelligence, his education, or how widely read he is. But I don't feel like some of his articles have afforded me the same courtesy. (The difference being that, to him, I am part of a nameless, faceless mass of people whom he disagrees with, whereas to me he is someone admire greatly. You don't have to give as much respect to nameless, faceless masses.) There are times I think that if he knew me, I would have to be on his Idiot List because I don't see things the way he does, and that makes me sad because, like any fan, I'd like to think that if this guy I idolize knew me, he'd think I'm just as neat as I think he is. [Ha! Diagram that, Mr. Language Person!]
And so here I am . . . I try to resist the urge to post in threads about his columns, because this is, as we like to say, their living room, and you don't go into someone's living room and say that you think he or she is insulting. You either put up with it or you stop hanging out there, neh? But now we have one of these started by one of his supporters, not by someone who is "trashing" him. You post in, and you imply that the only way anybody could say anything negative about OSC's essays is if he or she hates OSC, is a raving liberal, is intellectually lazy, and so forth. If we all respect the living room, it appears that everyone agrees with you, and, as somebody said earlier this week, nobody talks about the elephant. If we post to disagree with you, we are nothing more than rude guests. Kind of an unassailable rhetorical position for you, huh?
Amka, I tend to view you as an extension of OSC here, because, iirc, you have interacted with the Card family quite a bit, and you have never, to my knowledge, expressed an opinion here that varies at all from OSC's opinions. So you tell me, and I will accept the answer as if it were coming from The Man himself: Am I evil or idiotic because I don't agree with OSC on some pretty big issues? Is there room for me in the living room at all? Am I welcome in the Card virtual house only so long as I don't comment on OSC's tone in his essays? Can we still be friends? Because I would very much like to.
posted
To pick a particularly infamous essay (and because I've already mentioned some things about it, so I can just copy and paste my replies):
quote:In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.
Referring to marriage as being between two men (or women).
My response to that:
quote:This isn't exactly true, either. At several times in ancient greece, the relationship between certain men would be much more recognizable to us as a marriage than that between the men and their "wife". The culture was very different. In fact, it is hard to pin down exactly one relationship in ancient greece that corresponds to marriage today: http://www.pogodesigns.com/JP/weddings/greekwed.html There were several (4 as commonly understood) which were similar in type to marriage, but a marriage today would encompass at least two of the types. We have ascribed the term marriage to the heterosexual relationships because they are between men and women, and western experience with marriage is that it is between men and women -- now OSC wants to say that because it is marriage, it is between men and women. This is a circular argument.
IOW, the truth of his position is at least in danger, and relies upon . . . the truth of his position. Right circular, that.
quote:But anyone who has any understanding of how America -- or any civilization -- works, of the forces already at play, will realize that this new diktat of the courts will not have any of the intended effects, while the unintended effects are likely to be devastating
First, note how every single person who thinks even one intended good thing would come out of homosexual marriage is apparently completely lacking in "any understanding of how America -- or any civilization -- works, of the forces already at play" -- an even worse thing than he accuses most liberals of.
Also, the flat statement that not a single intended consequence of homosexual marriage will happen is factually ludicrous. One intended consequence of homosexual marriage is to allow homosexual partners the same rights to see their partners and make medical decisions about the lives of their partners, which certainly will come about if homosexual marriage occurs, its a definitional part of marriage in American law.
quote:And yet, throughout the history of human society -- even in societies that tolerated relatively open homosexuality at some stages of life -- it was always expected that children would be born into and raised by families consisting of a father and mother.
Part of my response to that:
quote:This just isn't true. For instance, there have been several societies on earth which have had tribal marriages, where every woman is married to every man and vice versa, and children are raised by the group, not by any paired couple.
I can track down specific references for you, but I assume most of us read National Geographic.
Something that is perhaps a matter of interpretation, but the certainty of it certainly isn't -- OSC says it is certain, when there are abundant studies which strongly suggest the opposite:
quote:So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family. This is precisely what large segments of the Left would like to see break down. And if it is found to have unpleasant results, they will, as always, insist that the cure is to break down the family even further.
And my response to that, and one of OSC's own quotes from the same darn article:
quote:Prove it. I and others have been citing for a bit now the wealth of statistics that all agree this just isn't true in the case of homosexual couples. Furthermore, even if it were true, so what? We allow single parents to raise children. We allow effeminate men married to effeminate women to raise children. We allow many combinations of people to raise children that do not in the core include a role model of both sexes.
quote:And in those families where one or both parents were missing, usually because of death, either stepparents, adoptive parents, or society in general would step in to provide, not just nurturing, but also the appropriate role models
Which nicely provides a way to deal with that "problem" if problem it be, without leading to the horrors OSC asserts will happen.
Or we hear here about what makes civilizations last the longest:
quote:Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it.
My response:
quote:Oh really? Lets see, longest lasting civilizations . . . I'd say the greek civilization has been one of the longest lasting so far, and their strategy involved numerous things we wouldn't approve of -- spartans allowing their wives to be impregnated by other men (if they're weak), and impregnating other women (if they're strong), concubines, marriages to close relations in order to carry on the family line.
Then there's roman society -- lets see, men were both allowed and societally encouraged to sleep around.
Perhaps chinese society, that civilization was continuously around a while. Lets see, multiple wives, concubines.
Then of course, there's Indian civilization. Again, multiple wives. Not only that, but marriage occurred between the ages of 8 and 10 in certain castes.
Perhaps OSC has some different ideas on which civilizations were long lasting. None of the ones I could think of had anything less than societally sanctioned infidelity, and several (of the longest lived, too) had legally sanctioned arrangements clearly not compatible with the idea of monogamy
Then there's this lovely place where he nigh contradicts himself:
quote:Most kids won't be swayed, because the message of the hormones is clear for them.
quote:. . . there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way
First he says kid's hormones are (generally speaking) clear, then he suggests homosexual kids are really "borderline" and could go either way. Funny how heterosexual people have clear hormones and homosexual people don't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how those last two statements in any way contradict each other. Many and some can easily be mutually exclusive, and I really don't think he was referring to homosexuals in the second. It seems to me he was referring to a percentage of the population that fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That article on conservatism is mistaken about the difference between liberals and conservatives. Consider...
quote:The heart of conservatism is religious. It is the belief that a wise and all-knowing Creator put man on earth in order to make him an agent unto himself.
This is also the heart of liberalism. Liberals are dedicated to the idea that through their free agency people must use thought to determine ways to make the world better, based on their most fundamental religious principles - love, peace, happiness, sympathy, and other Christian principles built into our society.
quote:Liberalism on the other hand seizes an individual's agency---and the responsibility respective to it---and transfers it to the state, effectively nullifying a person's ownership of their own life and destiny. Under liberalism, the state is responsible for an individual's or family's well-being.
This is at least equally true of conservatism. It is conservatives who are all about banning various things - drugs, abortions, immoral behavior in general. Conservatives are very much dedicated to the idea that the state has the responsibility to supercede a person's ownership of their own life on matters of morality and in the society's general good.
quote:Conservatism recognizes and governs by principles. Liberalism recognizes problems and reacts, trying to correct the perceived problems---often without a thorough analysis of the principles involved or the effects of short-term solutions on the long-term future.
Liberals probably govern MORE by principles than conservatives do - they are simply different principles: equality of the classes, compassion for the weak, peace above all, and so on...
And conservatives often react to perceived problems without considering long-term future effects or about the principles involved. One need not look any further than the reaction to 9/11 to see this. Conservatives wanted to invade Iraq as a response to the threat of terrorism, skipping over the traditional American principles governing warfare and paying little attention to the long term hatred such a war would cause nearly everywhere in the world.
All of the above are false attempts to not true differences between conservatives and liberal - and in fact I suspect you could find other conservatives arguing exactly the opposite way in each of the above cases. I know I've heard conservatives argue that liberals pay too much attention to principles and not enough attention to practical problems. I know I've heard conservatives argue that the government has too little control on the values of our society.
What is the real difference between the two?
I think the two groups are very vague and constantly changing, so it's hard to pin down specific differences. However, I think there is at least one major continuing theme that defines the two:
Liberals want to change the flawed foundations of society based on mankind's newest understanding. They are afraid society will never attain its ideal.
Conservatives want to protect the time-tested foundations of society from mankind's newest confusions. They are afraid society will become corrupt and fall, like Rome did.
Edit: Just to add, I also think Bush's policies are as much liberal as they are conservative. I mean, he has pursued a course of big government, imperialism, and has broken with many traditional American values. You can call this neoconservative, but aside from his views on religious issues, it's not very conservative at all. There is no major conservative in this election.
posted
I'm not sure why Ami started this thread, unless it is just to vent. That's okay - we all need to vent sometimes. There not really any productive or polite discussion, considering whose board this is, that could come from it, however.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly: If you go back to the article, he's stating that most people aren't swayed to homosexuality (by abuse, as he asserts large numbers are, despite a lack of factual supporting evidence) because their hormones are clear, and then he starts strongly implying that most people who call themselves homosexual could be heterosexual if they were properly taught how to be so, because they're really just confused sexually.
This isn't necessarily contradictory, no, but it can be.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll read those articles and add my two cents when I come back. I have to go. But, I do disagree with a lot of OSC's articles at times. I also wish he'd stop using terms like intellectual elite or stating that folks like me want to destroy civilization because that isn't my aim. More later....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, If you think that article sums up feminism, you're both innaccurate and being ungrateful to people who worked very hard for the status and rights that you, as a woman, now enjoy. As I've said before, feminists didn't start classing women who stayed at home or women as a class as inferior. That was done by the conservative forces for centuries before the feminist movement. The current face of the feminist movement has, in my opinion, taken up a lot of bad positions, one of which is propogating the idea that all women who stay at home are the oppressed victims that some of them still are. However, to say that this is what the feminist movement means to you is like saying that the corruption and laziness of some unions sums up the entirety of the Labor movement.
As for OSC, there have been some glaring factual errors in some of his columns, but that's almost not the point. I don't respect his columns mainly because he is knowingly engaging in demogougery. I don't respect the writings of anyone who does that. Labeling, name-calling, emotional appeals, casting everything the other side does as an attack, extreme simplification of the issues, apologetics, and, above all, the attempt to get your readers to turn people into things are things that any respectible essayist should be fighting against, not embracing. And what makes it worse for me is knowing that OSC knows what he is doing, knows what the probable effects are, and does it anyway. He'He's Grego shouting in the town square, knowing that the people he's shouting to are going to attack the nearest Piggies they can find (although OSC's impact is obviously much, much smaller).
As for why he believes what he believes, I've given this some thought and analysis and I think one of OSC's core beliefs that he is writing from and that he thinks justifies his behavior is that there are in fact a highly influential class of people who hate and are dedicated to the destruction of the family, which, before their opposition was a wonderful, almost flawless institution. If I believed that such a group existed, I'd likely try to oppose them with the same vigor if not the same tactics as OSC has been.
All in all, this is pretty small beans for me. I certainly don't look to OSC for political opinions. I don't really look to him for opinions at all. He's a writer whose books I've really liked. The only real problem for me is that I believe that his recent books have been of poor quality because of his extra-curicular activities. He could rant about politics all he wants and if he could keep turing out very good books, I'd say more power to him. He has a very minimal effect on the political landscape. I'd still take exception to his demogougery but it would be, as it is now, criticism aimed at a representation of what people do in the general case and not for the specific case.
posted
I haven't read many of OSC's political essays, but I have read a few. I will state for the record that I lean toward a more liberal stance than he on many issues.
I have no doubt at all that OSC is highly intelligent, well read and even compassionate to those whom he disagrees with (I mean, he hosts Ornery which is home to more than it's fair share of differing viewpoints).
I also have no doubt that many here are also well educated and so forth.
But having read OSC's political essays, it's apparent that he has a flare for hyperbole. I think fugu, that many of your examples are perfectly valid arguments for OSC's point-of-view that, in a more subtle form, would be much less likely to draw such attention to themselves as being blatantly false or absurd. I believe OSC has a pretty clear idea of how his "flagrant" rhetoric affects readers -- he is well educated and he's got a good grasp of how language is used and how it works. This is only an assumption, but he probably doesn't have the time to sit down and write every essay with as much consideration as they may be due -- but his essays do have (I believe) an encouraging effect nonetheless. By bringing the issues he writes about to public light and using a bit of hyperbole to assert his beliefs and convictions he allows for public debate to follow which will hopefully lead to a more detailed discussion and debate of the subjects.
A problem occurs here, however, when, instead of dissecting the issues and looking at them in nuance, we allow ourselves to only respond with hyperbole of our own. That's when discussions often start leading to name calling.
Maybe my theory is completely wrong, but this is how I've always viewed this issue since I've been reading Hatrack. I don't respect OSC any less for his political views because they differ from mine.
I mean, it's not like he's an actual politician worthy of disrespect or anything... Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not OSC's views that are so bad. It is the way in which he attempts to justify and argue for them.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the hyperbole I'm objecting to. It's the characterizations of people who disagree as enemies of civilization or the family, or as morons or dupes.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry, Scott, I'm probably doing enough to destroy civilization for the both of us. Me and my marriage like mating pattern. OOOoooOOOOooo be afraiiiiid.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's not the hyperbole I'm objecting to. It's the characterizations of people who disagree as enemies of civilization or the family, or as morons or dupes.
As opposed to characterizing people who disagree as bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, right wingers, enemies of democracy or peace, or morons or duped into believing in God?
I believe as "guilty" as OSC is of the offences listed above, others on this very forum are as guilty of the exact same from the other side of the line.
quote: As opposed to characterizing people who disagree as bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, right wingers, enemies of democracy or peace, or morons or duped into believing in God?
Have I done this? If you feel I have, back it up. I am quite willing to answer for my sins, and apologize if I owe anybody an apology.
If you're just talking in generalities, then consider it granted that plenty of people on both sides are asses. That's not the issue I'm debating.
The issue here is a specific one. OSC's insults or lack thereof, and if you choose to bring it into the debate, my own insults or lack thereof.
EDIT TO ADD: The issue for me is also whether I should continue to feel like I belong in the living room. And I am quite serious about that question. I am certainly not asking for anybody to change their opinion on my account. I just want to know if, as an enemy of civilization (or a dupe, but I guess enemy is more flattering than dupe) I should continue to feel welcome. I want to know if my behavior is deplorable if I admit to believing that OSC's rhetoric is out of line, because OSC has already specifically stated here on the board that people can earn his undying contempt for their rudeness here. I don't want his contempt. Maybe I'd be better off leaving.
posted
Chad, And your point as it related to OSC is? If we agree that this behavior is wrong (and anyone who did as you were claiming would be wrong), how does it affect what one person does if someone on the other side does the same thing? Saying "Well, he does it too." as an excuse for poor behavior isn't something we would allow from a 10 year old. It certainly isn't something we should allow for an adult.
edit: Icky, When you accept an apologist attack as something to be considered serious, you've already lost. Your record stands on it's own. You don't need to defend it, and doing so allows people to steer the conversation away from the actual issue.
quote:I believe as "guilty" as OSC is of the offences listed above, others on this very forum are as guilty of the exact same from the other side of the line.
Indeed, but people have complained about them just as much as they've complained about OSC.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I challenge you to use the "search" function on this board and search "homophobe" and see how many times it actually comes up. And how many people that used the word were actually on the conservative side of the aisle. (Excluding this posts itself, I only believe one liberal poster widely known for being outrageous and who has been chastened by the mods several times has ever used the word in the last year.)
(Another interesting number is how many newbies used the word in inflammatory rhetoric)
posted
Amongst other books read between the ages of 7 and 10, I read, in order: HGWell's History of the World, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Churchill's Memoirs of WWII, Durant's Civilization series, and Joyce's Ulysses. The last because I thought it would be about gods, witches, and monsters like my other children's books about Ulysses, mythology, and fairy tales.
Which proves absolutely nothing other than the books happened to be on my parents' bookshelves, and that I was a compulsive reader.
quote:It's not the hyperbole I'm objecting to. It's the characterizations of people who disagree as enemies of civilization or the family, or as morons or dupes.
Hmmm... Maybe I haven't read enough of his essays, but I've never got that impression from him. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that from the few I've read he seems to be saying that there are forces at work that could be characterized in such a way, but not that anyone who disagrees with him are those forces. But, as I've said, I've only read a few of his political essays (for the reason that he does seem to use so much hyperbole in them -- I like my political readings to be meatier).
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I've thought about it. I think I can sometimes be derailed too easily, and I will watch for the tendency, but I don't think I was so much defending me record in my reply to Chad as reiterating what the issue was here, because I did not believe Chad's reply addressed the issue, but simply stated the irrelevant fact that there are a lot of rude people, and his belief that some Hatrack's posters are numbered among them. I will stop now, though, before I get derailed.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, This site is OSC's property and he can do with it whatever he wants. His words of themselves, on the other hand, should be held to a standard no matter where they are written. I'll never dispute his right to write whatever he wants on his own property, but, if he puts those words into the public domain, I have the right to analyze them based on a set of standards. You were seeming to say that people didn't have a leg to stand on in saying that OSC's words fail to meet some standard because other people somewhere else who disagree with OSC also have failed to meet that standard. That's just silly, although sadly in what is supposed to be the most sober, mature parts of the our society, that idea is somehow consider ok.
Sometime's the best advice one can give another, is best suited to the giver.
quote: NFL, maybe you don't understand -- if the Republican party adopts homo-hating as its official platform, and you identify yourself with the party, you are effectively declaring yourself a homophobe.
quote: Would I? No. But then, I wouldn't call a male homosexual "a gay" either. That would make me sound like a homophobe.
"Yeah, John's got a boyfriend. Didn't you know he's a gay?"
It sounds homophobic. I only use "gay" as an adjective. Unlike "lesbian", which does perfectly fine as an adjective or a noun, "gay" does not sound at all right as a noun.
quote: When God comes out, I'm going to point at all the homophobes who used the Bible as justification for their bigotry and laugh.
Oh, come up...
quote: I've never used homophobic to mean someone who doesn't like homosexuality. I've always used homophobic, when I've used it, to mean someone who hates homosexuality without reason. -phobia, to me, always suggests irrational fear.
Not everyone who disapproves/condemns homosexuality is homophobic, and not all homophobes are secretly gay.
Etc, etc. ad naseum.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
You know what, I'm not going to argue. I've stated my feeling. I will continue to read this thread. Arguing will only result in me engaging in behavior which I am pretty certain would not be appropriate in the Card living room, which is why I try to stay out of these threads.
posted
Lets see, one is by Lalo, who routinely gets smacked down for inflammatory rhetoric (and does in that instance), the second is a discussion of the use of language to describe homosexuality and how certain usages have been coopted by people who are homophobic, then there's another by Lalo, and the last is by someone who's clarifying that he's doesn't use homophobic to refer to people who disapprove of or condemn homosexuality, but only those who seem to have an irrational fear or hatred of it.
Oh yeah, you sure showed us that there are tons of people here who accuse people who oppose them of being homophobes. You found one.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've set out the standards that I think that OSC violated in my post about it. Other people have also made characterizations about his writings and what standards he failed to meet. You've even implicitedly agreed that he has done this when you said in effect, "Yeah, and other people have done the same thing."
Oh, and you're not actually questioning my "right" to do this. As a thinking being, I have the "right" to judge pretty much anything. As to Hatrack, it's a more or less public forum. I have the "right" to post anything that doesn't violate the rules of the this forum. What you're questioning is my authority to say this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is there to argue? You disagree with OSC's views and don't like his labels of certain stances/movements or beliefs. No problem there.
My post merely showed that if you hold a standard against OSC for his views, you can't except the posts of others on this forum from the same standard.
I don't think you are disputing that. At least I don't think you are.
I just find it odd that those that attack OSC do it in the same way he does of the views he opposes.
Two sides of the same coin.
That's just my thoughts, agree or disagree, but you can't argue with my thoughts being mine or OSC's being his or yours being yours.
I don't see any argument there.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh yeah, you sure showed us that there are tons of people here who accuse people who oppose them of being homophobes. You found one
Really, I don't think I've used the words "tons" all day today. And I only posted the first 3 or 4 of 50+ hits on that word in this forum in it's various forms.
It's also only ONE of the words listed above. Why there was a focus on that one I don't know.
I find the "self righteous" attitude demonstrated in this thread to be rather humorous.
"OSC's the labeling sinner while I'm a label saint!"
We all have our own standards by which we hold ideals. To each of us our ideal is right and we have reasons why.
What's the problem in posting our ideals? I don't see one.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I've tried to get across to you, the views one explicitly holds are but a part of what he presents. No one in this thread is even talking about disagreeing with OSC on his views besides you. I was emphatically not doing this.
The standards I talked about were about the way he writes and what I perceive as the purpose to which he was writing. It's not the content of his arguments, but rather the strucutre. I don't think you understand the distinction here, but it's a really useful and important one.
Saying John Kerry is a bad choice for President is one thing. Saying that John Kerry is stupid is another. In the second case, I believe the person has ceded the respect of serious people, even as they are playing to the more immature crowd.
As I've said many times, it is possible to be against homosecual marriage without being a bigot. That however does not change the fact that many of the people who are against it are bigots.
The same applies here. The way people hold beliefs and the way they express them are generally at least as important as the beliefs themselves.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
