Artist Quits Superman Book Over Orson Scott Card Furor

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Therumancer:
SNIP

Yeah, Theru, you said gays should be registered...No matter what illusion of yourself as a "neutral middle ground person" you tend to paint that makes you so damn far out on the Anti-equal rights side that most religious would be uncomfortable with you.
My mother in law, right wing Christian that she is, don't want to allow gays to marry in church. But she would not paint a yellow star on them "just because of 'reasons'".

NortherWolf:

Therumancer:
SNIP

Yeah, Theru, you said gays should be registered...No matter what illusion of yourself as a "neutral middle ground person" you tend to paint that makes you so damn far out on the Anti-equal rights side that most religious would be uncomfortable with you.
My mother in law, right wing Christian that she is, don't want to allow gays to marry in church. But she would not paint a yellow star on them "just because of 'reasons'".

Actually your simply making my point for me to be honest. As I've said before the two sides here are extremely clear and I am in the middle between them. To those on either side of the pole on this issue, I am pushed into the other catagory. I've had this same exact discussion in reverse with people on the rightward side of things claiming I was over there with you in the left.

What's more political positions are not universal. Taking someone who has religious and/or right wing leanings in a general sense and saying they disagree with me here, just means that they happen to have leftward leanings on this issue. It's sort of like how I gravitate towards the far right in terms of international policy, BUT happen to be very far to the left when it comes to domestic policy on subjects like unions and workers rights, as well as when it comes to some of my sentiments involving business as you might guess from my rants about the gaming industry. On the issue of gay rights I happen to be a moderate, whether anyone wants to accept that, it happens to be true, and I maintain that position.

That said, I've already said more on the subject than I planned on, as I have no real desire to entre into an ongoing go-nowhere debate on the subject yet again for the moment. Especially seeing as it inevitably leads to flames and personal attacks, making any attempt at discourse pointless.

Therumancer:

NortherWolf:

Therumancer:
SNIP

Yeah, Theru, you said gays should be registered...No matter what illusion of yourself as a "neutral middle ground person" you tend to paint that makes you so damn far out on the Anti-equal rights side that most religious would be uncomfortable with you.
My mother in law, right wing Christian that she is, don't want to allow gays to marry in church. But she would not paint a yellow star on them "just because of 'reasons'".

Actually your simply making my point for me to be honest. As I've said before the two sides here are extremely clear and I am in the middle between them. To those on either side of the pole on this issue, I am pushed into the other catagory. I've had this same exact discussion in reverse with people on the rightward side of things claiming I was over there with you in the left.

What's more political positions are not universal. Taking someone who has religious and/or right wing leanings in a general sense and saying they disagree with me here, just means that they happen to have leftward leanings on this issue. It's sort of like how I gravitate towards the far right in terms of international policy, BUT happen to be very far to the left when it comes to domestic policy on subjects like unions and workers rights, as well as when it comes to some of my sentiments involving business as you might guess from my rants about the gaming industry. On the issue of gay rights I happen to be a moderate, whether anyone wants to accept that, it happens to be true, and I maintain that position.

That said, I've already said more on the subject than I planned on, as I have no real desire to entre into an ongoing go-nowhere debate on the subject yet again for the moment. Especially seeing as it inevitably leads to flames and personal attacks, making any attempt at discourse pointless.

You want to register consenting, adult people. What's the next step? Prison if not? You're not a middle grounder. The middle ground would be "I can see the issues of both sides and compromise."
Not "Yes, I think these are sub-humans we should brand like cattle, and see so that they don't go all pedophilia on the kids." You are an awful, awful human being.
Though you're right about this particular topic being rather apolitical...So enjoy the fringe with The Amazing Atheist, I'm sure he's looking for company.

These discussions always interest me. It becomes a matter of "where do you draw the line?"

Chick-Fil-A supports anti-gay legislation, would you buy from them?
That guy in Oregon denied lesbians a wedding cake, would you buy from him?
And now: Orson Scott Card is anti-gay, would you buy his stories or buy from a publisher that publishes his stories?

Truth be told. Until now, I did not know OSC was anti-gay. In fact, his works were first introduced to me by my liberal-leaning cousin.

For myself, I can buy the works of someone who has differing political beliefs as long as they don't get have racist, misogynist, or prejudicial beliefs. But I am torn; for instance, I enjoy the works of Daisuke Sato, but I've heard he's very right-wing, so I wonder if I soon will have to "draw the line."

NortherWolf:

Though you're right about this particular topic being rather apolitical...So enjoy the fringe with The Amazing Atheist, I'm sure he's looking for company.

Out of curiosity, why people consider the Amazing Atheist to be fringe? I don't watch many of his videos, but he seems very left (albeit angrily so).

I do agree though that Therumancer is not a "middle-grounder" as he claims.

DVS BSTrD:
Keep Sprouse, and make OSC work on Green Lantern instead :P

only the alternative universe kind of green lantern i guess..

Nicolaus99:
Typical liberal intolerance of dissent. I mean, who could ever agree with OSC's opinion on this, the monsters. What's that? Bill Clinton? Check. The majority of California? Check. Obama? Check only when he is RUNNING for office, he doesn't need to lie about it anymore after. The majority of US citizens? Check if you have to courage to poll it. But you know, lib's don't let anything like facts get in the way of their opinions.

Let me just change a couple of things to point out why this is not a good argument on any level.

Typical liberal intolerance of dissent. I mean, who could ever agree with the KKK's opinion on this, the monsters. What's that? Woodrow Wilson? Check. The majority of the Deep South? Check. The majority of US citizens? Check if you look at how long segregation lasted. But you know, any opinion is apparently correct as long as enough people agree with it.

A clue: no. Just because a point of view is popular does not make it morally right, and being intolerant of a viewpoint different to your own is entirely valid if it is an abominable viewpoint.

Edit: Making another post seems unnecessary just for this, but I can't stay silent, so I'll throw it in here. Therumancer, you are so not in the middle. Tracking gay people? Preventing them from going near children? That is as far right as you can get without criminalising being gay.

NortherWolf:
[

You want to register consenting, adult people. What's the next step? Prison if not? You're not a middle grounder. The middle ground would be "I can see the issues of both sides and compromise."
Not "Yes, I think these are sub-humans we should brand like cattle, and see so that they don't go all pedophilia on the kids." You are an awful, awful human being.
Though you're right about this particular topic being rather apolitical...So enjoy the fringe with The Amazing Atheist, I'm sure he's looking for company.

Actually that is the middle ground, the problem is that your not actually seeing the other side. Namely people who want to outright ban homosexuality, which has been on the books as a crime up until fairly recently.

The middle ground position I'm holding is EXACTLY what you describe. I can see both sides of the issue, and take a position in the middle. On one hand your correct, I don't think it should be inherantly criminal that your attracted to the same gender. I do not care what two consenting adults do in private, on their own time. On the other hand I do see the point about pedophillia when it comes to gay men, it's not a problem with ALL gay men, but enough where it comes up at least off the record during "Code Adam" training, fules organizations like NAMBLA, and is also something that I have a lot of personal experience dealing with, even having been a victim myself. Not all gay men are Pedos, maybe not even most of them, but enough for me to agree that it's a factor.

Your of course doubtlessly spitting with rage right now, due to being so far on the other side, but understand my "solution" isn't quite what your extremist rhetoric implies. Registration and tracking doesn't involve "treating them like cattle" or whatever else. For the most part it would work a lot like a sex offender registry except a bit more active, you simply have gay guys being forbidden to enter into areas where children congregate, and notifications to
the authorities such as security when they have to be on premises where kids tend to be, especially if the children are unattended.

For the most part this would have absolutly zero effect on the people being regulated if the left wing is correct and there is no issue here. I mean how often do you exactly go and hang around places with a bunch of unattended children? When is the last time you walked into a school, or day care center, or even a kid's arcade. Chances are you can't think of the last time because in day to day living it's not something you ever really do. Some gay guy isn't even likely to know or be reminded he's being tracked assuming he acts exactly as being supposed here.

A point that is also overlooked is of course that laws like this can later be repealed if they turn out to be pointless. That's a big part of why it's a compromise. If the left wing is right, it will get what it wants, but not all at once. The thing is though that social trends like this take a long time to be examined. Sort of like one peanut gallery comment here "we allowed homosexuality 8 years ago and it hasn't turned into a hotbed of pedophillia", you can't tell anything in that short a term, it takes generations. With people living 80 years in about 160 years (the full passage of a couple of generations) such laws can be examined, if the children of your grandchildren don't see any problems they can always changed the laws at that point, especially seeing if the regulatory infrastructure is costing money without ever actually doing anything.

Now I get it, you don't like this, that's fine, your HARDLY alone, and your right, that not many people agree with me as most are on extreme poles, either for total acceptance, or a total ban of the behavior. Something I myself have said before. But don't sit here and try and act like I'm not in the middle of the issue. Understand noone who disagrees with you to the point of NOT giving gays acceptance would ever be viewed as anything but a reprethensible arsehole, by definition you refuse to accept any middle ground unless it's basically agreeing with you.

I mean god forbid someone be notified when a gay man enters a video arcade populated by kids. That's just so horrible that people might want to keep an eye on him, and security's job is made easier. To you, that's one step away from a concentration camp, which is not uncommon among the left wing, which is why I have such a hard time taking it seriously. Middle grounds are hard to stand on when your dealing with so many people pushing an "all or nothing" agenda from both directions.

That said, we're not going to agree, so I'm not going to write anything else here to you, or anyone else. What I happen to think personally has nothing to do with this thread anyway. To me your misguided and fanatical, to you I'm pretty much the worst kind of person ever. Understanding that, there isn't much for me to say to you or those with positions similar to yours and vice versa, other than to dance on the fine line of starting a flame war which isn't going to benefit anyone.

Therumancer:

Actually that is the middle ground, the problem is that your not actually seeing the other side. Namely people who want to outright ban homosexuality, which has been on the books as a crime up until fairly recently.

The middle ground position I'm holding is EXACTLY what you describe. I can see both sides of the issue, and take a position in the middle. On one hand your correct, I don't think it should be inherantly criminal that your attracted to the same gender. I do not care what two consenting adults do in private, on their own time. On the other hand I do see the point about pedophillia when it comes to gay men, it's not a problem with ALL gay men, but enough where it comes up at least off the record during "Code Adam" training, fules organizations like NAMBLA, and is also something that I have a lot of personal experience dealing with, even having been a victim myself. Not all gay men are Pedos, maybe not even most of them, but enough for me to agree that it's a factor.

Then you are ignorant. People should be judged for the crimes they do, not the crimes that they will "potentially" do, asking people to register themselves when they have done nothing wrong is a massive invasion of privacy. Why do you think the U.S. got so much shit for Japanese internment? It may have made "sense" at the time and was humane, but it was still wrong.

Being gay and being a pedophile are two different things.

Therumancer:

Some gay guy isn't even likely to know or be reminded he's being tracked assuming he acts exactly as being supposed here.

The whole "massive invasion of privacy" thing doesn't bother you?

Therumancer:

For the most part it would work a lot like a sex offender registry except a bit more active, you simply have gay guys being forbidden to enter into areas where children congregate, and notifications to
the authorities such as security when they have to be on premises where kids tend to be, especially if the children are unattended.

And for the gay people who have children? What happens to them?

Therumancer:

For the most part this would have absolutly zero effect on the people being regulated if the left wing is correct and there is no issue here.

You have way too much faith in authority. Gay guy being monitored helps a child who fell down? ZOMG CALL THE POLICE HE'S A PEDO.

Therumancer:

I mean how often do you exactly go and hang around places with a bunch of unattended children?

I mean god forbid someone be notified when a gay man enters a video arcade populated by kids. That's just so horrible that people might want to keep an eye on him, and security's job is made easier. To you, that's one step away from a concentration camp, which is not uncommon among the left wing, which is why I have such a hard time taking it seriously. Middle grounds are hard to stand on when your dealing with so many people pushing an "all or nothing" agenda from both directions.

That said, we're not going to agree, so I'm not going to write anything else here to you, or anyone else. What I happen to think personally has nothing to do with this thread anyway. To me your misguided and fanatical, to you I'm pretty much the worst kind of person ever. Understanding that, there isn't much for me to say to you or those with positions similar to yours and vice versa, other than to dance on the fine line of starting a flame war which isn't going to benefit anyone.

So if two men enter a place with kids and one of them is gay. Do believe that the gay man is more of a threat to the kids than the straight man? That fails on logical and moral grounds, they are both a threat, and focusing on one of them would be putting the kids in danger.

Lovely Mixture:

Out of curiosity, why people consider the Amazing Atheist to be fringe? I don't watch many of his videos, but he seems very left (albeit angrily so).

I do agree though that Therumancer is not a "middle-grounder" as he claims.

In short, until a while back I didn't know my AA was considered fringe, then I read up a bit on what probably caused him to be let go from TGWTG, and it boiled down to a very hateful rant against women and rape survivors.

Therumancer:
[quote="NortherWolf" post="7.402698.16647876"][
Wordswordswords

Yeah, I'm going to be as nice about this as possible Theru...You're still not middle ground in any sense of the word because you want to brand people, register them like cattle. You might be middle ground in the fringe anti-gay camp, but that does not make you middle ground between anti-gay/pro-gay.
You're still a despicable human being, and I am not quite sure why the mods allow you to keep trolling every other damn thread you post in, but I'm done with you. You'll be my first ignore, grats.

NortherWolf:

Lovely Mixture:

Out of curiosity, why people consider the Amazing Atheist to be fringe? I don't watch many of his videos, but he seems very left (albeit angrily so).

I do agree though that Therumancer is not a "middle-grounder" as he claims.

In short, until a while back I didn't know my AA was considered fringe, then I read up a bit on what probably caused him to be let go from TGWTG, and it boiled down to a very hateful rant against women and rape survivors.

I think that's a misconception, I think he voluntarily withdrew from the site cause they were placing more emphasis on other video maker. But yes I have heard about his anti-feminists rants and his anger, I think he has some good points now and then, but his vitriol and anger does get in the way of his arguments.

Lovely Mixture:
I think that's a misconception, I think he voluntarily withdrew from the site cause they were placing more emphasis on other video maker. But yes I have heard about his anti-feminists rants and his anger, I think he has some good points now and then, but his vitriol and anger does get in the way of his arguments.

You could be right, I just don't believe in coincidences like that. It's similar to when Spoony left that site. Too many things happened to make me believe. "Oh yes, I left on my own free will." Though , I wasn't there so it's merely speculation on my behalf.

NortherWolf:

Therumancer:
[quote="NortherWolf" post="7.402698.16647876"][
Wordswordswords

Yeah, I'm going to be as nice about this as possible Theru...You're still not middle ground in any sense of the word because you want to brand people, register them like cattle. You might be middle ground in the fringe anti-gay camp, but that does not make you middle ground between anti-gay/pro-gay.
You're still a despicable human being, and I am not quite sure why the mods allow you to keep trolling every other damn thread you post in, but I'm done with you. You'll be my first ignore, grats.

Actually there is no "fringe" those who are anti-gay consist of roughly 50% of the population in the US, and over 90% of the population internationally. The vast majority of people globally are anti-gay. Remember the western first world accounts for a very, very, small percentage of the population, and it's a major issue here.

That said, and the other flame-bait post I received (starting out by insulting me with claims of ignorance) aside, I'll humor this with one final post:

Pray tell, what would you consider a genuine, middle ground position. Go ahead and spell that out hypothetically.

I think you'll rapidly find that you can't do it without winding out in the same general place that I am. The reason being that anything that winds up with acceptance of gays into society without any kind of controls or limitations is
by definition left wing. I mean it's fine that your there, roughly 50% of the US is, but understand that's not a middle ground, or anything close to it. To be middle ground you need to be somewhere between complete acceptance and and outright ban.

At the end of the day the best your going to do with a middle ground position is weight it a little more towards the left as opposed to dead center like me. By definition to be middle ground you cannot simply accept complete and unfettered acceptance of gays into society, since that represents one side of the equasion.

At any rate, I've tried to withdraw from this before, but this is pretty much over. There is really noplace for this conversation to go, and it's already attracting flames and rudeness, so there is no point in continueing it.

NortherWolf:

Lovely Mixture:
I think that's a misconception, I think he voluntarily withdrew from the site cause they were placing more emphasis on other video maker. But yes I have heard about his anti-feminists rants and his anger, I think he has some good points now and then, but his vitriol and anger does get in the way of his arguments.

You could be right, I just don't believe in coincidences like that. It's similar to when Spoony left that site. Too many things happened to make me believe. "Oh yes, I left on my own free will." Though , I wasn't there so it's merely speculation on my behalf.

Heh, that does happen, and believe me I wouldn't surprised if that was the case even if I haven't seen evidence to suggest it. But yeah it's clear on the Spoony thing though, there was a ton of anger on both sides of that incident.

Therumancer:

Pray tell, what would you consider a genuine, middle ground position. Go ahead and spell that out hypothetically.

I think you'll rapidly find that you can't do it without winding out in the same general place that I am. The reason being that anything that winds up with acceptance of gays into society without any kind of controls or limitations is
by definition left wing. I mean it's fine that your there, roughly 50% of the US is, but understand that's not a middle ground, or anything close to it. To be middle ground you need to be somewhere between complete acceptance and and outright ban.

If that were the case then Jim Crow Laws, the Separate But Equal Doctrine, and Racial Segregation were "left wing."

It's discrimination plain and simple, and that was banned.

Therumancer:

At any rate, I've tried to withdraw from this before, but this is pretty much over. There is really noplace for this conversation to go, and it's already attracting flames and rudeness, so there is no point in continueing it.

As much as you keep saying "this is over." You keep bringing up points for us to counter.

We're all reasonable people, it's not like who gets the last word wins.

Recently, the Jewish Philharmonic Orchestra played Wagner for the first time in decades, which I thought was a bold and brave move in a situation more highly charged than this one. Although there are differences, both in terms of the overall quality of the work being producted, the level of evil involved in the actions and the living nature of the person in question.

I guess it all depends on whether you can appreciate a person's art without feeling your are celebrating or affirming the person.

I have no answer to this myself.

I disagree with OSC's stance on this, but I can still enjoy his work. Long ago I had to reconcile the fact that I'd never be able to enjoy a lot of music, art or storytelling if I worried about my views and the views of the creators being in line on every little thing. Granted, there are limits, but I don't think OSC's blatant prejudices rise to the level of preventing me from appreciating his work. Yes, it probably does help that I read his work when I was very young and it was before he'd ever said or done anything to tip people off to his stance on the matter.

Still, what we've got here are a series of choices that exist when expression is involved in a free society. The artist can choose not to be associated with Card, and consumers can make a choice as to whether or not they feel his storytelling is worth supporting his stance on a particular matter.

Rogue 09:

You cannot punish someone for sharing their personal beliefs on an issue just because we disagree with it. The US Government isn't the only party who has to respect the amendments outlined in the constitution. We, as citizens, have an obligation to support every last one of them.

That doesn't mean that you can't disagree! However, you should use words to influence people to change. Using a mob punishment system is just as irresponsible as if the government were to lock up dissenters for speaking out.

I cannot 'punish' you for your beliefs the same way that the government can. I don't have the power to pass laws to have you arrested, or to tax you differently or otherwise interfere with your life like the government does. The freedom of speech works both ways here. I can absolutely do everything in my power as a private citizen to fight for or against what you espouse, and by doing so I'm exercising the same rights as you are. A lot of people disagreeing with you and refusing to do business with you, even calling for you to be fired, isn't 'mob punishment'.

Res Plus:
Recently, the Jewish Philharmonic Orchestra played Wagner for the first time in decades, which I thought was a bold and brave move in a situation more highly charged than this one. Although there are differences, both in terms of the overall quality of the work being producted, the level of evil involved in the actions and the living nature of the person in question.

I guess it all depends on whether you can appreciate a person's art without feeling your are celebrating or affirming the person.

I have no answer to this myself.

It's a lot easier to deal with that though cause Wagner isn't alive and won't get any royalties from the performance.
Heh, though it'd be amusing to see myself making that argument:

"Hey they're showing The Flying Dutchman at the theater."
"I'm not supporting Wagner, that filthy anti-semite!"
"Dude....Wagner's been dead for over a hundred years."
"Oh..So he won't get my money if I buy a ticket? Let's go!"

ChristopherT:
There's a small part of all this that I do not understand. There are people who want Card fired? or not be allowed to work on Superman comics. There are people who want someone to not have a job because of his personal beliefs. I don't care how much of a dick head, asshole, bigot Card is, isn't that still discrimination against him or possible other -ations?

Why should I give my money to a company, and therefore a writer, when he feels the need to give us his opinion and work against equality? I wouldn't give my money to white supremacist or those that support apartheid either.

As an artist myself, I can respect the passion Card has for the Superman comics and it's a shame he couldn't finish the project.
On the other hand, what he was doing was his own downfall along with going so much out of his way to discriminate same sex marriages.

I don't see Card as an evil person, just his actions are what led him to be disliked to the degree his work was dropped. You can have opinions even if most don't agree with you, but when you support an organization to take action in a sense it's violating human rights- yeah it will backfire, i'm just saying.

Lovely Mixture:
[
As much as you keep saying "this is over." You keep bringing up points for us to counter.

We're all reasonable people, it's not like who gets the last word wins.

Despite how it might look I'm not trying to have the last word, simply trying to withdraw while giving it to someone else. I just happen to keep getting pulled back in by seeing something I feel I should answer myself.

That said, the thing is your not really "countering" anything, merely re-stating an opinion as if it's fact, and trying to draw me into a more in depth debate which I am setting out to avoid for the moment as it would go on for months with nothing being resolved. What you happen to think is fine, but understand that a lot of what your saying is based on the assumpsion of acceptance of other points you try and make. Your position is based around the idea that homosexuals are entirely harmless and as a group tend to spawn more dangerous deviants than the norm. This allows you to "logically" follow through with arguements based on it being simple discrimination.

When you cut through the chase we are simply not going to agree, because at the end of the day I believe gay men are far more likely to be pedophilles than anyone else. You do not. You tend to believe political studies conducted by those setting out to prove equality that say this is not true, and based on what gay people tell you to your face. I on the other hand am someone who was not only a victim, but also happened to have gone through things like Code Adam training, and then had to go out and use that training in the real world and actually chased away/caught a whole heck of a lot of creepy gay guys trying to lure young kids over an extended period of time. I've also had access to the reports by actual professionals, and also engaged in surveillance and such with a kind of pseudo-authority that goes beyond what anyone conducting these studies could do. I also know that most people who do "serious" security work, police work, corrections, etc... having dealt with tons of them, wind up becoming extremely bigoted due to experience, both towards gay men, and also towards certain minority cultures. It's not a matter of these tendencies being there to begin with but what the job, authority, and the kind of information you get with the training and using it day after day to see "behind the curtain" constantly makes you that way.

The irony is that the information gained by the people who can actually gather it, is not something that can be put out in official studies due to the policies intended to limoit this kind of information gathering even when it happens. No study conducted by politicians, university students, professors, etc... can ever really give you the real picture because they don't have the authority to gather it. To really find the truth of matters like this you need to be able to really dig into a of a lot of people who are unaware they are being observed.

At the end of the day the bottom line is you, or others I'm argueing with need to either accept what I'm saying since it comes from personal experience and observations, OR flat out call me a liar. If you think I'm a liar, then we have nothing to talk about.... the end. Entire debate concluded.

Speaking for myself, one of the reasons why I mentioned tracking and suerveillance is because I kind of know what will happen if people ever really look behind this curtain. I think on some level everyone does. After years of wearing those "colored glasses" of training and experience... on a lot of subjects, I've come to the conclusion that people are simply happier with the illusion, and don't want to be forced to confront the truth. A lot of it is that accepting the truth on a lot of touchy matters would require change throughout society, and even worse, people to actually do something. Blind acceptance and enforced ignorance is very much the path of least resistance.

Incidently, this is also one of the reasons why I believe in a sort of Heinlan-esque ideal that to hold any kind of govermental position at the state or federal level, someone should have a minimum of 5 years practical experience in Law Enforcement or other trained "eye opening" profession. In my opinion only someone who sees the world properly and was able to be trusted to do these things to begin with, should be making social policies, or arguably should be trusted wielding any kind of authority. Basically I don't think someone who has never been trusted enough to arrest someone or (under the right circumstances) engage in suerveillance, should be trusted enough to pass laws or set social policy.

At any rate, the point is that while I state my opinion in brief in threads, there is nothing to discuss. You have nothing to counter or dispute here. At the end of the day either everything you say is wrong, or I'm a liar. There is
no room for discussion. That said, while you might "know a lot of gay people" or whatever, how many of those people have you ever spied on (and who trained you/provided the equipment to do it?)?. Have you ever been assigned to keep a bunch of kids safe in a high traffic, public area? How many years did you do that? Who trained you for it? What authority did you have (even if just on paper as was my case)? Chances are you don't KNOW anything, you've just been told things, and probably by people who had their own agenda and didn't have the authority or abillity to ever really know anything themselves.

Card's got a right to his beliefs. But it's not necessarily wrong for someone to feel consequences for their beliefs.

For example, if X believes that homeopathic remedies work, and relies upon them exclusively when their child is severely ill, and the kid dies, because that's what happens when fake medication meets real health problems, then their beliefs have had a real consequences. Also, they're probably looking at charges of criminal neglect causing death, or something similar.

In Card's case, a lot of people think he hates them and wants the apparatus of state used against them. And he does give that impression rather strongly. So while he's a good writer, the weight his name carries isn't all positive. He's famous, yes, and famous for the quality of his writing, but also for his hatred. DC needs to weigh that very carefully, because if someone decides to turn a spotlight on Card's hostility towards folks on the Queen Side of The Force, it might not do their book sales any favours.

It's like putting Micheal Vick on the cover of a football game. Might not be a great plan.

Therumancer:

Despite how it might look I'm not trying to have the last word, simply trying to withdraw while giving it to someone else.

Actually I meant to say that I wasn't trying to get the last word.

Therumancer:

I just happen to keep getting pulled back in by seeing something I feel I should answer myself.

Fair enough.

Therumancer:

That said, the thing is your not really "countering" anything, merely re-stating an opinion as if it's fact, and trying to draw me into a more in depth debate which I am setting out to avoid for the moment as it would go on for months with nothing being resolved. What you happen to think is fine, but understand that a lot of what your saying is based on the assumpsion of acceptance of other points you try and make.

I explained to you why your surveillance scenario is flawed because it's not equal. I've explained to you why your middle-ground is not middle-ground because you're advocating different treatment. I've explained to you that you don't judge people based on their sexual preference because that is discrimination.

Therumancer:

Your position is based around the idea that homosexuals are entirely harmless and as a group tend to spawn more dangerous deviants than the norm. This allows you to "logically" follow through with arguements based on it being simple discrimination.

When you cut through the chase we are simply not going to agree, because at the end of the day I believe gay men are far more likely to be pedophilles than anyone else. You do not.

Yes, I believe people are people who can do good or evil. Try as I might not to, I might judge them on cultural background or sexual orientation, but my judgements are not law

Therumancer:

You tend to believe political studies conducted by those setting out to prove equality that say this is not true, and based on what gay people tell you to your face.

No, I believe in judging people as individuals and not collectives. Just because I've had bad experiences with gay people or Chinese people does not give me the authority to say how they should be treated.

Therumancer:

I on the other hand am someone who was not only a victim, but also happened to have gone through things like Code Adam training, and then had to go out and use that training in the real world and actually chased away/caught a whole heck of a lot of creepy gay guys trying to lure young kids over an extended period of time. I've also had access to the reports by actual professionals, and also engaged in surveillance and such with a kind of pseudo-authority that goes beyond what anyone conducting these studies could do. I also know that most people who do "serious" security work, police work, corrections, etc... having dealt with tons of them, wind up becoming extremely bigoted due to experience, both towards gay men, and also towards certain minority cultures. It's not a matter of these tendencies being there to begin with but what the job, authority, and the kind of information you get with the training and using it day after day to see "behind the curtain" constantly makes you that way.

The irony is that the information gained by the people who can actually gather it, is not something that can be put out in official studies due to the policies intended to limoit this kind of information gathering even when it happens. No study conducted by politicians, university students, professors, etc... can ever really give you the real picture because they don't have the authority to gather it. To really find the truth of matters like this you need to be able to really dig into a of a lot of people who are unaware they are being observed.

At the end of the day the bottom line is you, or others I'm argueing with need to either accept what I'm saying since it comes from personal experience and observations, OR flat out call me a liar. If you think I'm a liar, then we have nothing to talk about.... the end. Entire debate concluded.

You make gay men out as if they are another race or something. Experience and information are two different things.

And if they "don't have authority to gather it" then you're also questioning accuracy the reports you talked about. What is "authority" ? You can't know if someone is capable.

Therumancer:

Speaking for myself, one of the reasons why I mentioned tracking and suerveillance is because I kind of know what will happen if people ever really look behind this curtain. I think on some level everyone does. After years of wearing those "colored glasses" of training and experience... on a lot of subjects, I've come to the conclusion that people are simply happier with the illusion, and don't want to be forced to confront the truth. A lot of it is that accepting the truth on a lot of touchy matters would require change throughout society, and even worse, people to actually do something. Blind acceptance and enforced ignorance is very much the path of least resistance.

To me it sounds like you're making up "the truth" in order to justify your position, cause the actuality of the situation is more complicated. You can't know how people are. It's funny that you mention "enforced ignorance" because your stance seems more ignorant than rational, I'd say blind faith in that "truth" is also a path of least resistance.

Therumancer:

At any rate, the point is that while I state my opinion in brief in threads, there is nothing to discuss. You have nothing to counter or dispute here. At the end of the day either everything you say is wrong, or I'm a liar. There is
no room for discussion. That said, while you might "know a lot of gay people" or whatever, how many of those people have you ever spied on (and who trained you/provided the equipment to do it?)?. Have you ever been assigned to keep a bunch of kids safe in a high traffic, public area? How many years did you do that? Who trained you for it? What authority did you have (even if just on paper as was my case)?

We all wear masks. If we judged people on who they were in private then I would be arrested for various thought crimes.

And I won't call you a liar, I'll call you ignorant like I did before.

Therumancer:

Chances are you don't KNOW anything, you've just been told things, and probably by people who had their own agenda and didn't have the authority or abillity to ever really know anything themselves.

Ditto to you. How do you know those you've talked to didn't have their own agenda? That they really knew anything themselves? That they just didn't just dislike gay people?

"Chances are you don't know anything." is an incredibly arrogant thing to say.

Let me ask you this. If someone said your ethnic group was more capable of doing such and such and needed to be monitored....Would you be ok with it?

JaredXE:
Being intolerant of someone's bigoted beliefs is not hypocritical. It is wrong to unfairly discriminate against others for things they have no say over. Gender, race, disabilities....these are uncontrollable things and punishing someone based on them is ignorant. But a person's choices....THAT is perfectly okay to persecute. Religion is a choice. Racism is a choice, and OSC being a homophobic douche-canoe is a fucking choice. And choices, opinions and beliefs are fair game to be shot down and the holder of those beliefs to be punished.

OSC made the choice to hold those beliefs, and so the consequences against him are perfectly fair.

Marrying someone of the same sex is a choice, and that is what Card is against. Being against someone simply for being gay is one thing, but there is nothing wrong with being opposed to gay acts.

Therumancer:
snip

I've studied anthropology, where a lot of emphasis is put on moral relativism.
So I can appreciate your objective approach in so far as not dismissing anyone's beliefs outright.

However, the idea of "compromising" between dissenting opinions is problematic.
Obviously, you can't humour every opinion. What about a group of people who believe young children should actively engage in homosexual sex rituals (I'm not making this up btw)? Surely that's the actual opposite end of the "homosexuality is wrong" side of the spectrum, in which case merely accepting homosexuality as a lifestyle is the compromise.

Beliefs and opinions arising from personal experience are notoriously unreliable and unscientific, which is why proper scientists strive to remove or minimise all forms of bias.

Scientific consensus is that homosexuality is not harmful to society, and occurs naturally even among other animals.
The idea that all first world governments conspire to suppress dissenting studies is conspiratorial and requires a lot of logical leaps, so can be safely disregarded as per Occam's Razor.

Thus the objective conclusion is that homosexuality should be about as much concern to a person as eye colour.

As an egalitarian, I respect people's right to eschew the objective conclusion in favour of their own personal biases which they have accumulated over their lifetime. However, attempting to affect other people's lives without a very large amount of data backing your personal beliefs is draconian and unacceptable.

This means that if there is an issue where scientific consensus hasn't been reached, the default solution should be to minimise the immediate impact a given issue has on people's lives; civil liberty should take precedence over preventative measures.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here