There are some (myself included, just about every homosexual included) who would scoff at the idea of giving Card the respect of an "actual, clear, considered response," though what that is I'm not exactly sure. My response certainly exists--it's "actual". And I think it's pretty clear. You seemed to understand what I was saying, whether or not you agree with it. Whether Card's comment on "swift but mild punishment" is specifically about homosexual behavior is ambiguous, but considering that the sentence before it is about homosexual behavior, as well as the sentence after it, and every other sentence for that matter, and it's an article about homosexual behavior, I think it's a fair bet that he had homosexual behavior in mind when he wrote that sentence.
Now I'd rather not get into a flame war, mostly because this is someone else's blog, and that's disrespectful, but I will say this: Card's a douche and you're full of it. Why'd you pick my comment to defend him? Why don't you pick on the people who mentioned polygamy?
There are some [...] who would scoff at the idea of giving Card the respect of an "actual, clear, considered response," though what that is I'm not exactly sure.
Okay. That's certainly within your rights as an netizen. I don't think it adds much to the dialog, though.
considering that the sentence before it is about homosexual behavior, as well as the sentence after it, and every other sentence for that matter, and it's an article about homosexual behavior, I think it's a fair bet that he had homosexual behavior in mind when he wrote that sentence.
Aha. I think we have a different interpretation of what that essay is about.
'Hypocrites of Homosexuality' deals with how Scott Card thinks the Mormon church should handle homosexual members. (There are two paragraphs within the essay where Card explains why he thinks anti-sodomy laws and such should be kept on the books.) It was written within a Mormon-centric context; published in a largely Mormon-read magazine; and addresses a largely Mormon audience. To that end, Card frames his arguments within things that Mormons understand-- raising children, for example.
It IS true that responsible parents give young children swift but mild punishments to correct behavior. Card shows a parallel (note: not literal!) between this attitude and the treatment, within the Mormon church, of young people who experiment with homosexuality.
Within the Church, the young person who experiments with homosexual behavior should be counseled with, not excommunicated. But as the adolescent moves into adulthood and continues to engage in sinful practices far beyond the level of experimentation, then the consequences within the Church must grow more severe and more long-lasting; unfortunately, they may also be more public as well.
"Young person," I think, can safely be interpreted as different from "young child."
Your initial statement, "swift but mild punishment," what he advocates for young children engaging in same-sex experimentation" suggests that that Card's essay advocates a wider frame of punishment than what it actually does. It's misleading.
I'm sure there's enough in the article to object to without needing to misunderstand what's clearly being said.
Card's a douche and you're full of it. Why'd you pick my comment to defend him? Why don't you pick on the people who mentioned polygamy?
I pointed out your comment because it's objectively false. Most everything else (with the exception of the truly stupid armchair psychology going on a few posts up...) is opinion.
But since you bring it up...
Whether or not someone has the right to say "X behavior is wrong," does not depend on that person's historical behavior. Indeed-- if all we had to rely on for the strength of our moral arguments is our past, every single parent in the world would be screwed.
A parallel argument: "I'm surprised America throws such a fit about human-trafficking, considering their nation was built on the backs of slaves and indentured servants..."
Or, alternatively, "I'm surprised the Democrats draw so much attention to racial policies in the United States, considering that theirs was the party that kept segregation and racially discriminatory practices in force for so long..."
Regardless of the point of view, pointing out historical hypocrisies makes for an inelegant and unconvincing argument. (At least for those paying attention.)
If one is committed and convinced of their ideas, they don't need to resort to these sort of tricks. THAT'S a conversation I'd love to have.
And, interestingly, it's a conversation that CAN be had on Scott Card's website-- Hatrack.com (www.hatrack.com) There's some intelligent criticism (including my own) of Card's article on the Forums.
Not really looking for a dialogue. I'm comfortable in my assessment of Card as a douche and I really have no desire to revise that assessment. I give no attention to rationality; I have no devotion to civility, no adherence to principled disagreement. I suggest you decide to invest less in these discussion, both time-wise and in terms of mental processing. Your life's too short to deal with middle-school treatments of adult problems.
For future reference, it's best to not call somebody a preadolescent if you're trying to engage in a dialogue with them. Hell, but what do I know, after all, I don't read Orson Scott Card.
I suggest you decide to invest less in these discussion, both time-wise and in terms of mental processing. Your life's too short to deal with middle-school treatments of adult problems.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ellen_datlow) wrote2008-07-29 08:35 pm
Re: Swift but Mild Punishment
Now I'd rather not get into a flame war, mostly because this is someone else's blog, and that's disrespectful, but I will say this: Card's a douche and you're full of it. Why'd you pick my comment to defend him? Why don't you pick on the people who mentioned polygamy?
Re: Swift but Mild Punishment
Okay. That's certainly within your rights as an netizen. I don't think it adds much to the dialog, though.
considering that the sentence before it is about homosexual behavior, as well as the sentence after it, and every other sentence for that matter, and it's an article about homosexual behavior, I think it's a fair bet that he had homosexual behavior in mind when he wrote that sentence.
Aha. I think we have a different interpretation of what that essay is about.
'Hypocrites of Homosexuality' deals with how Scott Card thinks the Mormon church should handle homosexual members. (There are two paragraphs within the essay where Card explains why he thinks anti-sodomy laws and such should be kept on the books.) It was written within a Mormon-centric context; published in a largely Mormon-read magazine; and addresses a largely Mormon audience. To that end, Card frames his arguments within things that Mormons understand-- raising children, for example.
It IS true that responsible parents give young children swift but mild punishments to correct behavior. Card shows a parallel (note: not literal!) between this attitude and the treatment, within the Mormon church, of young people who experiment with homosexuality.
Within the Church, the young person who experiments with homosexual behavior should be counseled with, not excommunicated. But as the adolescent moves into adulthood and continues to engage in sinful practices far beyond the level of experimentation, then the consequences within the Church must grow more severe and more long-lasting; unfortunately, they may also be more public as well.
"Young person," I think, can safely be interpreted as different from "young child."
Your initial statement, "swift but mild punishment," what he advocates for young children engaging in same-sex experimentation" suggests that that Card's essay advocates a wider frame of punishment than what it actually does. It's misleading.
I'm sure there's enough in the article to object to without needing to misunderstand what's clearly being said.
Card's a douche and you're full of it. Why'd you pick my comment to defend him? Why don't you pick on the people who mentioned polygamy?
I pointed out your comment because it's objectively false. Most everything else (with the exception of the truly stupid armchair psychology going on a few posts up...) is opinion.
But since you bring it up...
Whether or not someone has the right to say "X behavior is wrong," does not depend on that person's historical behavior. Indeed-- if all we had to rely on for the strength of our moral arguments is our past, every single parent in the world would be screwed.
A parallel argument: "I'm surprised America throws such a fit about human-trafficking, considering their nation was built on the backs of slaves and indentured servants..."
Or, alternatively, "I'm surprised the Democrats draw so much attention to racial policies in the United States, considering that theirs was the party that kept segregation and racially discriminatory practices in force for so long..."
Regardless of the point of view, pointing out historical hypocrisies makes for an inelegant and unconvincing argument. (At least for those paying attention.)
If one is committed and convinced of their ideas, they don't need to resort to these sort of tricks. THAT'S a conversation I'd love to have.
And, interestingly, it's a conversation that CAN be had on Scott Card's website-- Hatrack.com (www.hatrack.com) There's some intelligent criticism (including my own) of Card's article on the Forums.
Re: Swift but Mild Punishment
My apologies...
Re: Swift but Mild Punishment
Hatrack.com (http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005050;p=1&r=nfx)
That will take you right to the thread in question.
Re: Swift but Mild Punishment
For future reference, it's best to not call somebody a preadolescent if you're trying to engage in a dialogue with them. Hell, but what do I know, after all, I don't read Orson Scott Card.
I think we can stop here, don't you?
Re: Swift but Mild Punishment
:-)
Good advice.