quote:Card has been alive for over 54 years. He didn't just start formulating his opinions as you started reading them. He has spent decades applying his rigorous thought process to everything he has studied. If he seems a little set in his ways now, it is because he has come to trust opinions that have been borne out many times by his observations.
The trouble is that everybody else reading that article has likely also spent lengthy periods of time rigorously determining their own opinions, just the same as Mr. Card has. Hence, he needs to do more than just trust his own past opinions if he is going to publish an editorial in a public newspaper refuting (and in some cases mocking) equally well-thought-out views by others. He needs to present his argument, and do so in the rigorous fashion that he would need to be convinced himself. Otherwise he will not only anger those whose well-thought-out views he is dismissing and refuting, but will also promote non-rigorous thinking among those who are inclined to buy what he's saying without considering it critically. That he does this so often makes it seems somewhat like that is his intention - to convince people of his views at all costs, even if through rhetoric and not through rigorous reasoning. This may not be his intention at all, but just the fact that it may have that end result is enough to be frustrating for readers.
I don't believe this essay would convince OSC, had he not written it and/or already agreed with the conclusion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, But you are then agreeing with Storm's assessment of OSC's behavior and disagreeing with Geoff's holding him up as a standard of intellectual rigor, yes?
No, I am not agreeing with Storm's assessment. I have clarified my post to make it clear what "this behavior" referred to. I have seen OSC do it, and have called him on it on at least two occasions, but I stand by my assessment that he does it far less often, even taking into account his posting frequency, than many other posters here. And frankly, he puts up with so much crap that it's at least understandable when he does it, even if that doesn't excuse him.
By the way, this post is a perfect example of why I tend not to express disagreement with either OSC or Bush here: because some joker will try to seize on it for rhetorical points.
As for intellectual rigor, certainly World Watch wouldn't stand up to academic standards.
Of course, OSC is not writing for an academic journal. He's writing an ongoing op-ed column in which his opinions are the baseline. He doesn't need to support every assertion he makes in every column with citations to original sources. He can use controversial conclusions from previous columns as a premise in future columns. Certainly this doesn't mean he's right all the time, but it's not a lack of rigor. It's an understanding of the forum in which he's writing that seems to be lacking here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just going to start calling you Geoff due to all this name changing
Geoff: its not at all clear what was happening in the 1950s was intercession; the differences in rates of so many things back then appear to have been the consequences of an incredibly complex set of pressures, not least the recent end of one of the most devastating wars we have ever known.
OSC talks about how if we did it before we can do it again, but that's not really true. Lots of things have been true in society before that will never be true again absent major catastrophes or hundreds of years of highly unlikely changes.
While periods like the 1950s seem so "close", in terms of the changes the population and society generally have undergone, they're not. A consideration of how the internet alone has changed the operation of society suggests incredible issues with any attempt to return to a societal structure as would be necessary to evince the morality OSC intends.
Dag: I'm not expecting intellectual rigor, but I am expecting him, when he's ridiculing things such as news punditry with a similarly expected level of rigor for not being rigorous enough, to rise above the level he's ridiculing them for. Or for when he's talking about people just not putting thought into how things work economically to at least gloss major, economically obvious flaws in his argument (as the possibility of a disconnect between births outside of marriage and sex/pregnancies outside of marriage is).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Crime isn't cool anymore'? Huh? Did I miss the memo?
Crime is certainly still cool, for better or worse. Underage drinking, drug-use, fighting, drinking and driving, hedging on taxes, speeding, skipping school, roughin' up a suspect to get a confession, activities that glorify crime, cheating at all sorts of things...
All still cool. For all that I question Card's take on the way things are today, Tresopax, honestly I can't wrap my head around what planet you're living on right now that you think 'crime isn't cool anymore'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I thing you italicized the wrong word....OFFER is the important one.
Suicide would be an obvious example of making a detrimental choice...but putting promiscuity, interfering with peoples sex live? That is another kettle of fish.
We already offer lots of programs, of varying success, to anyone who wants to avail themselves of those choices.
What we DON'T have it the right or the power to force people to accept our choices for them, to accept that just because your father (or anyone else) doesn't approve of them taking the Pill they should stop.
Their definition of making a bad choice could involve publishing an opinionated, unsubstantiated attack on abortion rights, categorizing it as a crime prevention measure based on genitic predispositions....but they don't have the right to stop your father from doing so either.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For all that I question Card's take on the way things are today, Tresopax, honestly I can't wrap my head around what planet you're living on right now that you think 'crime isn't cool anymore'.
I didn't argue that "Crime isn't cool anymore." I said "crime isn't as cool now" which implies that crime IS in fact still cool, but not as much so as it once was.
If you're going to make sweeping statements about people not living on this planet, please make sure you are at least basing those statements on positions they actually take. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this thread illustrates OSC's point very well. We have some facts (readily available, in the book). These facts make us uncomfortable. We're doing exactly what people do when they're uncomfortable with information: killing the messenger, minimizing, or reluctantly considering it. I suggest the last one. If the facts really don't hold up, we won't need the other behaviors anyway.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's the facts that most people here are uncomfortable with, but rather the way in which those facts are being presented and used.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What we DON'T have it the right or the power to force people to accept our choices for them
Well, it appears that everybody posting in this thread agrees with that.
Especially the person you were talking to:
quote:I'm not talking about passing laws to force them to behave a certain way. I'm talking about shaping culture such that they are taught a constructive framework for decision-making that leads them away from destructive mistakes.
posted
It surprises me that many people apparently do not draw a distinction between "encouraging/teaching/believing" and "forcing" Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Of course, a causal assertion like that is hard to prove – though people make even more sweeping assertions on less evidence all the time. But we’re far more likely to accept, without evidence, the causal assertions that fit our beliefs. Those that don’t fit, we try hard to ignore.
This one doesn’t fit anybody’s beliefs...
This is the point that I object. This would be the perfect point to state "correlation isn't cause" Instead he implies "because it doesn't fit anyone's beliefs on either side it must be true"
Is that good logic?
Again here:
quote: Why They Get It Wrong
The trouble is that too many of these reporters either deliberately lie – they have an agenda (either the promotion of their own career or the advancement of a cause) – or they are too lazy to question the lies and mistakes that others tell them.
Once again correllation isn't cause. This point would have added to this section of his argument. But he didn't make it clear. Understanding "Correlation does not equal cause" is the *root* of most common misconceptions of information. There is some deliberate misinformation out there, yes. But if your average media reporter and Joe public truly understood "corellation does not equal cause" the book Freakonomics wouldn't have been neccessary in the first place.
The only way I can excuse the faulty logic chains that OSC spins is if OSC doesn't himself understand that "corellation does not equal cause". It appears that the author of Freakonomics actually does understand this concept.
quote:In the process of reading it, you’ll also be given a short but effective course in analyzing causal assertions – or, in other words, you’ll be trained to hear statistical assertions skeptically, because you’ll have a clearer idea of how they can be massaged and manipulated and misunderstood.
You’ll also be given a wake-up call about how many of the statistics on which we base public opinion and policy are simply made up.
You know, lies.
He says this, yet in his final section "The Other Experiment" he spins the story that he wants to believe as truth. My problem is that he doesn't present it with a preface on that section that it is *his opinion* and it is where he's extrapolating his own causes, external to the book. Option "A" is *his* cause. He says he picks it because the other two are vile. But what if one of his "vile" options is actualy the truth?
quote: I'm not talking about passing laws to force them to behave a certain way. I'm talking about shaping culture such that they are taught a constructive framework for decision-making that leads them away from destructive mistakes.
Don't presume you know for a certainty what is and is not destructive for everyone else. Mormons, and other religious social conservatives, do not understand what is and is not destructive for other people because they seperate themselves ideologically, if not often physically, from the rest of society from birth on, and thus do not understand things that the rest of society understands. This has been shown time and again on this forum. So, they shoudn't make comments about what is destructive to other people before getting those people's opinion, because they don't understand what is true and might work for non-religious social conservatives. When they get their opinions, Mormons and other religious conservatives should defer to them, understanding that they don't understand, and they need to defer to the person with understanding.
Likewise, non-religious social conservatives should let Mormons, etc, live their own lives and defer to their opinions on their reality.
Mormons specifically grow up in a culture that is alien to most of the people in the U.S., with beliefs which leave you unable to appreciate anything that you've been taught lies in the category of sinful. All you want to do is make the rest of the world more Mormon-like. That's your answer for everything. "Our beliefs work really well, and if you just became more like us and believed what we do, you'd be much happier!" You're always a missionary for Mormonism. It never stops.
Neither you, nor Card, nor almost any other Mormon on this forum approaches anything like an open mind. It's been decided for you ahead of time. At least, this has been my experience on this forum with Mormons. As Mr. Card mentioned,"No book can withstand a hostile reading." There is no give and take. There's only ever one answer, with the other answer being viewed with hostility (which is not to say at all that the Mormon is hostile), and that answer is that people who are like Mormons are right, ideas that generally agree with Mormonism are right, and everyone else is wrong.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is actually quite a bit of stuff in that article that I agree with OSC on. However I feel that the points above dilute the strength of his peice. However it is an op-ed as Dagonee said.
I don't understand why we can't have personal responsibility *without* going back to the 1950s. It isn't the sexual mores I particularly have the major difficulties with. (though he completely ignores the Victory girl/WWII era preceding the 50s).
The problem is that I don't see how the person that I am could fit in there. For crying out loud it's difficult to be a female engineer today. It was 10,000 times more difficult back then. I don't have any desire for marriage and family, and had I been living back then probably would have been happily abstinent my entire life.
I don't want to live in a world where my grandfather told my mother that "girls don't major in chemistry, they major in biology", and she majored in biology to make him happy (until she got sick of it because she didn't love it and went to the socially acceptable field of education)
That is the world I reject. That is why the idea of going back seems reprehensible to me. It is a world in which I couldn't exist.
posted
" Disagree with him all you want, but quit trying to draw all these awful conclusions about his character, and quit making the ad hominem attacks."
I've got an idea. Why don't we stop making ad hominem attacks against him, when he stops making them against us? That seems fair to me, since those people who I've seen attacking Card's character, started doing so well after Card started attacking the character of 1) Liberals 2) Anyone associated with the media 3) Anyone in favor of gay marriage 4) Anyone who thinks abortion should be legal 5) Anyone who thinks the war in Iraq is a bad idea
and, for the most part, started attacking his character BECAUSE of Card's character assassination that makes up such a high percentage of the rhetoric in his essays.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It surprises me that many people apparently do not draw a distinction between "encouraging/teaching/believing" and "forcing"
Geoff, there are times when I wonder whether your father does. And that's largely what scares me; he's getting increasingly authoritarian in his old age, and I know for sure I wouldn't want to live in his version of America -- even his utopian version of America.
Because I think the case can be made that people are still certainly free to disapprove of abortion, premarital sex, etc. all they want. And yet the popular culture has not chosen to disapprove as much as your dad would prefer. So at what point does his frustration with their refusal to share his disapproval boil over into "so we should start passing laws to encourage this approach?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a danger with any religion that if you make it too great a part of who you are that you can no longer separate yourself enough from the ideas of that religion to be open-minded. This is a mistake made by most, if not all religions, in my view. However, it is by no means necessary to be religious - there is nothing about being a Mormon or a Catholic or a Buddhist or even an athiest that requires closed-mindedness.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Neither you, nor Card, nor almost any other Mormon on this forum approaches anything like an open mind. It's been decided for you ahead of time. At least, this has been my experience on this forum with Mormons. As Mr. Card mentioned,"No book can withstand a hostile reading." There is no give and take. There's only ever one answer, with the other answer being viewed with hostility (which is not to say at all that the Mormon is hostile), and that answer is that people who are like Mormons are right, ideas that generally agree with Mormonism are right, and everyone else is wrong.
Actually, I think the opposite is true. While Mormons may seem like they can't think outside of their box, they do and see it as exceptionally undesirable. While non-Mormons can't see into the Mormon box and see Mormons' determination to stay in their box as repression and ignorance.
I'm not fond of the 1950's and don't want to go back there. Anyone watch Duck and Cover (link takes a long time to load) made in 1951? There is something just too creepy about that movie. No, I don't want the 50's. I don't even think we can go back to the 50's unless we had another WWII.
But what OSC likes about the 50's I wish we had too. My mom talks about how she was an outsider for having the only divorced parents in her neighborhood. Today we get divorced for about anything where back then it would have taken a great deal to split a couple. Abortion goes hand in hand with divorce IMO.
The New Morality centers around family ethics. Certainly it was in response to real issues. KKK is the best example where it was nice and strong in the religious South. But the New Morality has swung too far. It is too easy to get divorce, to get an abortion, to do whatever you want. (edit--removed line) The New Morality will do anything to protect that destructive environment.
quote:It surprises me that many people apparently do not draw a distinction between "encouraging/teaching/believing" and "forcing"
Geoff, there are times when I wonder whether your father does. And that's largely what scares me; he's getting increasingly authoritarian in his old age
What do you imagine he will eventually do?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've predicted a second rennisance of more lenient thought patterns when he has oodles grandchildren to dandle on his knees. AJ
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering if people imagine that OSC can't help but eventually cross the line between "encouraging/teaching/believing" and "forcing".
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: I'm wondering if people imagine that OSC can't help but eventually cross the line between "encouraging/teaching/believing" and "forcing".
I don't necessarily specifically fear this of OSC, but I fully believe that if Mormons had a political majority in this country there would be no such thing as gay rights.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As opposed to a majority that supports no family rights I wonder? I'm not saying that is the 2 options, I'm just wondering if the argument could be boiled down to that. Because I think that is how a lot of us feel. That is how I feel.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've got an idea. Why don't we stop making ad hominem attacks against him, when he stops making them against us?
I have a better one. Why don't we act with maturity and sound reasoning, without waiting for immaturity and fallacy to disappear from the rest of the world first?
Waiting for others to be perfect before we improve is a guaranteed route to stagnation.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I was somewhat struck with your post, so I'd like some clarification.
quote:My mom talks about how she was an outsider for having the only divorced parents in her neighborhood. Today we get divorced for about anything where back then it would have taken a great deal to split a couple.
How is it good to punish kids further by ostracising them because their parents got a divorced? Do you really know that people get divorced for just "about anything"? Do they do it because they're bored or what?
quote:Abortion goes hand in hand with divorce IMO.
How so? Divorced people get abortions?
quote:We still cringe over Princess Leah cutting herself, but what probably led to her behavior was her family situation, and the New Morality will do anything to protect that destructive environment.
You mean liberals want Leah to cut herself? Or liberals want to make Leah's family situation so bad that she'll feel that she has to cut herself?
quote:As opposed to a majority that supports no family rights I wonder?
What do you mean by this? Aren't Mormons as free as non-Mormons to have whatever kinds of families they want?
I read Freakanomics. I felt that the explanation of how abortions and crime rates are linked was in fact very compelling. I think it's a terrific book, and very well-written.
However, my conclusions were worlds' apart from OSC's.
It seems to me like that indicates that if a woman wants an abortion she likely has a very good reason to think that that's for the best. It indicates to me that many of the women having abortions were making sensible choices for their circumstances. What this confirms in my mind is that the woman having an abortion is likely not a stupid reprobate, but a person who weighed the pros and cons and made the best choice for herself. And, it turns out, there is an unexpected windfall for society.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, they shoudn't make comments about what is destructive to other people before getting those people's opinion, because they don't understand what is true and might work for non-religious social conservatives.
Wow. It is routinely implied and outright stated that many conservative religious beliefs are stupid, insane, destructive, idiotic, unnecessary, inane...the list goes on and on. About as long as the list is for what social conservatives have said about liberals, actually.
Funny, that.
quote:Neither you, nor Card, nor almost any other Mormon on this forum approaches anything like an open mind. It's been decided for you ahead of time. At least, this has been my experience on this forum with Mormons.
This is probably one of these statements that later will be excused away. After all, YOU'RE not writing an op-ed column. Therefore your beliefs are less relevant, and we shouldn't pay them much attention when you say things remarkably similar-almost identical, really-to the things you chastise OSC for on a regular basis.
Not just you, of course. It's pretty routine.
I'm a Latter Day Saint, Storm Saxon. I'm a registered independant. I think homosexuals should have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals-to live with and marry and raise children with the partner of their choice. I'm against the death penalty. I think the Bush Administration is screwing the pooch in a big way. I think that not raising taxes right now is ridiculous. I don't think that "...under God..." should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, and I'm not even sure it should be required to be said in school.
I don't think abortion should be criminalized.
How's that for an open mind? I suppose I'm either an intolerant bigot, or else 'one of the good ones'. How comforting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I still disagree. Crime is still very cool. Watch some TV, listen to the radio, go see a movie, play a video game. Crime sells.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My mom talks about how she was an outsider for having the only divorced parents in her neighborhood. Today we get divorced for about anything where back then it would have taken a great deal to split a couple.
How is it good to punish kids further by ostracising them because their parents got a divorced? Do you really know that people get divorced for just "about anything"? Do they do it because they're bored or what?
The worst thing that ever happens to children of divorced families has nothing to do with how society treats them. It all happens in the walls of their own home.
quote:
quote:Abortion goes hand in hand with divorce IMO.
How so? Divorced people get abortions?
I doubt it. But both are common today and they weren't in the 50's.
quote:
quote:The New Morality will do anything to protect that destructive environment.
You mean liberals want Leah to cut herself? Or liberals want to make Leah's family situation so bad that she'll feel that she has to cut herself?
I shouldn't have brought up Leah because I shouldn't have used her as an example. Making her the subject of debate was wrong of me. For this I apologize to Leah if she ever reads the tread. I'm also editing out what I said.
quote:
quote:As opposed to a majority that supports no family rights I wonder?
What do you mean by this? Aren't Mormons as free as non-Mormons to have whatever kinds of families they want?
Aren't gays as free as anyone else to have whatever kind of gay relationship they want?
quote:I read Freakanomics. I felt that the explanation of how abortions and crime rates are linked was in fact very compelling. I think it's a terrific book, and very well-written.
However, my conclusions were worlds' apart from OSC's.
It seems to me like that indicates that if a woman wants an abortion she likely has a very good reason to think that that's for the best. It indicates to me that many of the women having abortions were making sensible choices for their circumstances. What this confirms in my mind is that the woman having an abortion is likely not a stupid reprobate, but a person who weighed the pros and cons and made the best choice for herself. And, it turns out, there is an unexpected windfall for society.
I didn't draw the same conclusions as OSC either. Mine were:
1). White collar crime is probably higher than ever so abortion did nothing but reduce the visible crime.
2). The root cause of crime is children who aren't wanted.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't draw the same conclusions as OSC either. Mine were:
1). White collar crime is probably higher than ever so abortion did nothing but reduce the visible crime.
2). The root cause of crime is children who aren't wanted.
These two conclusions don't seem compatable with each other.
Why not?
1). By white collar crime, I mean the type of stuff that goes mostly unnoticed. I don't exactly have a list, but stuff like insider stealing and such, like Enron.
2). Levitt mentioned enough that it was the unwanted children being aborted that that made an impression on me.
I don't see how they are incompatible. Certainly many children are still born who aren't wanted and they aren't aborted. Perhaps the "upper classes" have it particularly bad because "they don't do that sort of thing" (have abortions).
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The worst thing that ever happens to children of divorced families has nothing to do with how society treats them. It all happens in the walls of her own home.
Sure. But how does it make that better when the child further feels like an outsider or (like what happened with my Mom) other children are told not to play with her as though divorce is a disease that could be catching?
(That is leaving aside the fact that when my parents divorced my life instantly got better.)
And yes, both divorce and abortion are more common now in the US than they were in the fifties. But how is that a universal correlation? And if there is a correlation, what does it have to do with anything? I mean, I'm unsure what point you're trying to make in the initial post.
quote:Aren't gays as free as anyone else to have whatever kind of gay relationship they want?
I think you misunderstand me. Your original post implied that the "New Morality" supports no family rights. But how are the rights of conservative-family-types being abridged? Mormons are free to have families in which morality is defined in their own way and although some people will disagree with them (vociferously), no one is making any laws to say you can't do this or that or preventing Mormons from marrying each other and raising children. Mormons have the same rights under the law and anyone who supposedly doesn't believe in morality.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS. Freakanomics does talk about white-collar crime. It indicates that from what they can tell, it's stayed fairly constant over the years, with a sharp dip immediately following September 11th 2001.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dean: PS. Freakanomics does talk about white-collar crime. It indicates that from what they can tell, it's stayed fairly constant over the years, with a sharp dip immediately following September 11th 2001.
Oh yeah, I remember that now. I'm quite often wrong.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The worst thing that ever happens to children of divorced families has nothing to do with how society treats them. It all happens in the walls of her own home.
Sure. But how does it make that better when the child further feels like an outsider or (like what happened with my Mom) other children are told not to play with her as though divorce is a disease that could be catching?
That sucks. And your mom was treated wrong. But I think making divorce more socially acceptable has just made it more common, which we should be trying to avoid.
quote:(That is leaving aside the fact that when my parents divorced my life instantly got better.)
Most people I've seen go through a divorce look worse. Especially the young children. Get blank stares in their eyes.
quote:And yes, both divorce and abortion are more common now in the US than they were in the fifties. But how is that a universal correlation? And if there is a correlation, what does it have to do with anything? I mean, I'm unsure what point you're trying to make in the initial post.
I think it has to do with the idea of bringing back the 50's. Do everything we can to eliminate the need for abortion and divorce. Not make either of them impossible because of laws or whatever. Just find out why people are doing either and get rid of the root cause.
quote:
quote:Aren't gays as free as anyone else to have whatever kind of gay relationship they want?
I think you misunderstand me. Your original post implied that the "New Morality" supports no family rights. But how are the rights of conservative-family-types being abridged? Mormons are free to have families in which morality is defined in their own way and although some people will disagree with them (vociferously), no one is making any laws to say you can't do this or that or preventing Mormons from marrying each other and raising children. Mormons have the same rights under the law and anyone who supposedly doesn't believe in morality.
At one time the pendulum was on the strict side. Divorce and abortion were low and lots of other things religious people value. The problem was hypocrisy etc etc, I'm not really sure. The "New Morality" didn't get its foothold because of a fluke. The 60's and 70's were rebelling against *something*. The problem is that now the pendulum is too far the other direction. It is so acceptable to get a divorce, and marriage is hard enough. Eventually nobody will get married. That, IMO, is a very bad thing. I get the impression many people would be delighted to see this happen. That, to me, makes them the bad guys.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The major problem with OSC's article, IMHO, was that he took a book, Freakanomics, did not accurately represent the chapter of the book he was reviewing, and then did not make it clear in any way when his "review" shifted from talking about the book to talking about his own views.
That's very poor reporting/reviewing. And it's not something I would expect out of a published author.
I also find the argument he presents quite faulty, but it was the bad reviewing that really ticked me off. If I had read his review prior to reading the book, I doubt I would have bothered to read the book.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There really is global warming going on, but it's way less than the fanatics claim, and it's a natural part of the environment.
Star, I do research in atmospheric pollution. I am familiar with the last 20 years of the scientific research on Global Climate change and you are absolutely wrong on this issue. I know literally hundreds of scientists studying global climate change, and I do not know of a single one who would back your opinion. I know that there are a few out there, but they are a fringe fanatic minority within the scientific community. At least 999 of a thousand experts in the field believe that global climate change is happening at an alarming rate and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of this warming. What's more, every year a few more of the fanatics objections to the theories are proved invalid.
Unless you also happen to be a scientific researcher with expertise in atmospheric science, I suggest you familiarize with the history of the science rather before you make such outlandish statements.
If you are interested in knowing the truth and not just what political pundits have to say, I recommend the book "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart. It is not a political book or an environmentalist book, it is a very objective history of the science. It is know a couple of years out of date but Weart is updating the history regularly on his web site.
[ September 20, 2005, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormons, and other religious social conservatives, do not understand what is and is not destructive for other people because they seperate themselves ideologically, if not often physically, from the rest of society from birth on, and thus do not understand things that the rest of society understands.
This thread is getting ahead of my time and ability to keep up with it with my current workload, but I wanted to respond to Stormy.
I think that you are dead wrong about this description of Mormons, for several reasons.
1. Most Mormons are converts, or have experienced some degree of inactivity, and thus are fully aware of life outside the Mormon religion and Mormon culture. Most of us choose this life freely, having a full knowledge of the alternatives.
2. With the exception of some Utahns, Mormons are constantly immersed in cultures outside the Church, while non-Mormons are rarely immersed in Mormon culture. This puts a typical Mormon in a much better position to compare the two cultures than a typical non-Mormon might be. Granted, Mormons would not be Mormons unless they were predisposed to favor their chosen way of life. But be that as it may, I think that Mormons are perfectly qualified to comment on the larger culture they belong to and offer solutions from their own experiences. And I think that they are much MORE qualified to do this than a non-Mormon is to comment on how Mormon culture needs to change.
quote:Mormons specifically grow up in a culture that is alien to most of the people in the U.S., with beliefs which leave you unable to appreciate anything that you've been taught lies in the category of sinful.
On the contrary, it takes a lot of effort to live as a Mormon specifically because we know how appreciable the things we give up can be. Don't imagine for a second that I haven't considered living outside the bounds of the Church, and how much easier, freer, and more fun that might be. Don't think that many of us haven't tried it.
In the end, I live as a Mormon, not because I am ignorant of the rest of the world, but because I have made a value judgment about what I want out of life. I share the ideals of the Church. I want what it has to offer. I appreciate the way my life changes when I align my choices with the teachings of the prophets. I love the kind of community that is created by many people trying to do the same thing.
On the flip side, though, wouldn't you also say that a non-Mormon is similarly incapable of understanding the value of Mormon ideals and a Mormon lifestyle, having never experienced either?
Are they? I know that more are converted than are born in in any given year (I checked awhile back for a hatrack thread), but is this the case for general membership of the church?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I don't know the official statistics, but it seems reasonable when I estimate in my head There were only a couple million of us in the sixties, and now there are like THIRTEEN million. We gain twice as many members through conversion as we do through birth. It seemed reasonable to me that more than half of the Mormons currently alive would be converts.
It's just an estimation. No real statistics.
But just to be sure, I padded my assertion with the "some degree of inactivity" thing. Many of the active Mormons I know either grew up inactive, or went inactive briefly in college, or have a non-Mormon parent, or what-have-you.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seemed reasonable to me that more than half of the Mormons currently alive would be converts.
Though, to be fair, most of these are probably outside the US and Storm Saxon isn't as likely to be interacting with them on this forum or in RL.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one thing that simply doesn't work with this abortion leads to low crime theory is that it doesn't actually line up with the rest of the stats.
Despite abortion, the fraction of children living in single parent homes is on the rise. Despite abortion, a larger and larger fraction of US children are living below poverty level. Despite abortion, a larger fraction of US children are born to minority and underprivileged parents.
In fact, in every group that has a higher rate of criminalism, there is a higher birth rate than in groups with low criminal rates.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To analyze the effects of those trends, we'd need to see them plotted by year. If the rise in birth rates happened in the 80s, then the corresponding increase wouldn't show up until the very late 90s. Most of the analysis I've seen has concentrated on the ealry 90s (91-96), which should be compared to birth rates in 73-78 if there actually is an 18-year lagged correlation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: It surprises me that many people apparently do not draw a distinction between "encouraging/teaching/believing" and "forcing"
Talking about re-educating people, and saying that their genetics are the reason (or a major reason) they disagree with you about birth control and abortion is not a rational position to take if you expect them to listen to you.
Will, what "facts"? All I saw were baseless speculation, unsupported by actual research and/or documentation....Card even admits much of that in the article itself...and then goes on repeatedly as if it were established fact nonetheless. Let me repeat...I HAVE read a good deal of that book. I will probably read the rest of it, I was intrigued with it two months ago when I ran into to it at the bookstore, but with my impending move I have not had the time to go back and finish it....or the cash to buy it.
The points I am arguing against have more to do with Card's points, most of which are NOT presented in that manner in that book, that is why I ma discussing it. Also, not all of the concepts in that book are all that radical, and have been discussed before, by me and others. We talk about bias on a regular basis her at Hatrack, and some very good points have been made about that in other threads.
Since Card went FAR beyond what the book said, simply reading the book won't settle anything...although it is a good idea anyway, of course.
Geoff, I never said he was going to force people to do anything....but that was where your argument was leading. You used the suicide argument for effect...what would the first action be in that case?
Restraining him, then medicating him, then shipping him off to a hospital to be treated.
Removing the right to the Pill and abortion is forcing, no matter how you look at it....and last I checked your dad had made arguments, some even in that article itself, for doing all of that.
Now he wants to turn back the clock to a time when sexual repression and discrimination was at the highest point in the last 50 years, and say it is all better?
Sure...as long as you live at home with mom and dad, with a stay at home mother who doesn't work outside the house....and aren't gay, or a woman.
For decades women were sexually assaulted by fathers, and were not taken seriously when they complained...and were punished by the same rigid society even if they were believed by people who thought she "must have encouraged it".
Kids were beaten bloody, and had no recourse.
When things finally because better, all of that was reported....
And along come people from the same era, and the said " Look at all the crime now!".
I will take the freedoms that came with the lessening of societies restrictions on sex and consider it a fair trade. It may have gone too far, but we should never go back to where we were. Ozzie and Harriet are no more real than Will and Grace, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
Most likely books and newspaper articles.
I will take a pass, thank you very much....despite the fact that I live my life pretty much that way by choice right now.
Well, not the living at home with mom and dad part. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
