85 réponses à ce sujet

[Bullets McDeath]

An important difference in the first statement, Orson Scott Card is not a politican addressing a government assembly. He's a whackjob writing anti-homosexuality theses for a Mormon website. Mormon should be ringing your "crazy ****" alarms anyway, and yes yes... religious freedom, but we are talking about Space Jesus and black people being in league with the devil here, Mormonism is not exactly mainstream.

When somebody like that says "overthrow the government", I don't picture them holding a telethon to do it.

It's not much use in an internet argument (PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!) but I know what I know, you don't have to believe me. Nevertheless,  your argument is so circular, I fail to see your point. I mean, do you draw no distinction between "Intolerance" and being "Intolerant of Intolerance"?

Modifié par outlaworacle, 05 janvier 2010 - 09:05 .

[fantasypisces]

imikedoyle wrote...

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

I am sure Bioware would not hire a writer who held racists views and displayed those views without shame. See http://mormontimes.c...t_card/?id=3237 . As a responsible consumer, I unfortunately will not be purchasing this item, despite my enjoyment of the world you have created. I find it sad you turned over a creative part of this output to someone like this.

What happened religious freedom?

Those views can be found most "main stream" christian church catechisms (certainly in the Catholic church of which I am a member) not just in the Mormon faith.

The comments expressed in that article are echoed on a daily basis on www.catholic.org. That doesn't make
OSC a catholic.

Does this mean game companies cannot employ any author who admits to being a church-goer ?

Game companies can employ whoever they want. If they do hire him I will not be anti-BIOWARE, but I will not buy a product he has a hand in (as stated above). What makes OSC an example of hatred is because he is a famous author, he is in the public eye, and he uses that exposure to flout his hatred views, to give them credence. Yes there are many many many people in the world that shares his views, the difference is they don't go regularly voicing them to everyone, online blogs, articles, interviews. It's the old phrase ignorance is bliss. For all I know every single person at BIOWARE could be like OSC, but because they don't voice their viewpoints so readily means I would never know and therefore I would keep buying things from them.

What OSC lacks is tact, but he gets away with it from hiding behind the religious claptrap. His problem is that he is so vocal, which makes it easy for people like you and me to determine whether or not they will buy his products.

The biggest problem is that ultimately a lot of what he says goes beyond religious backing. If I was an employer running a company and hired someone like OSC, and he brought up his religious background in the interview I would not be able to discard his application because of it. That is tolerance as defined by the government. But once he was under my employ, if he started being mean to other employees who may/maynot be homosexual, getting into religious banter about how they are 'evil' and degrading "human" values, then I would be getting very mad. I would have a talk with him and tell him to stop. He could pull the religious card on me as much as he wants, but if he keeps doing it (i.e. getting into those arguments, degrading other employees, brining morale down) after I warned him to stop doing it, then I would fire him. Because his comments have gone beyond religion and barged into the line of hatred, which he would then try to defend as religious dogma.

The point is that he is too vocal. Many people are anti-homosexual, but they have the good-graces to usually keep that fact to themselves in mixed company. OSC does not, and that is why I do not respect the man.

[Mummolus]

It's not much use in an internet argument (PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!) but I know what I know, you don't have to believe me.

Sorry, but I'm a history major - when someone makes such drastic claims it's my nature to ask for sources.

I mean, do you draw no distinction between "Intolerance" and being "Intolerant of Intolerance"?

Is there a distinction? Tolerance has its downside, one of which is the requirement to tolerate that which you don't agree with. Voltaire said, "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

[Mummolus]

Many people are anti-homosexual, but they have the good-graces to usually keep that fact to themselves in mixed company. OSC does not, and that is why I do not respect the man.

Where are the OSC quotes coming from, though? His personal and religious websites. He's not nailing his theses to your door in the middle of the night, here - you have to go out and look for his opinions because they're not apparent even in his own authored works.

[Ethical Scabs]

Mummolus wrote...

It's not much use in an internet argument (PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!) but I know what I know, you don't have to believe me.

Sorry, but I'm a history major - when someone makes such drastic claims it's my nature to ask for sources.

I mean, do you draw no distinction between "Intolerance" and being "Intolerant of Intolerance"?

Is there a distinction? Tolerance has its downside, one of which is the requirement to tolerate that which you don't agree with. Voltaire said, "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

However, he did NOT say "I will pay you for any works you write that include all those disagreeable words"

[Deran2]

 Here is a fun set of paragraphs from one of his rants:

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.

Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.

Just because homosexual partners wish to be called "married" and wish to force everyone else around them to regard them as "married," does not mean that their Humpty-Dumpty-ish wish should be granted at the expense of the common language, democratic process, and the facts of human social organization.

However emotionally bonded a pair of homosexual lovers may feel themselves to be, what they are doing is not marriage. Nor does society benefit in any way from treating it as if it were.

Modifié par Deran2, 05 janvier 2010 - 09:12 .

[Bullets McDeath]

I don't think it requires harmful brainbending to be generally tolerant, but not tolerant intolerance. The argument eats itself inwards until infinity. Like, hey, I don't like being told when I'm wrong, so, even though I think you're out of your damn mind, I shouldn't say anything.



I like the Voltaire quote. But I ask you this: If the speaker in question was saying "hey guys, let's go beat the **** out of Voltaire", do you think he would still defend their right to say it?

[David Gaider]

I think it's everyone's right to pass on material made by someone they object to, by all means. Discussions about Orson Scott Card's views, however, are not really Dragon Age-related... and that's really the point. Please take such a discussion to Off Topic. Thanks!

[Bullets McDeath]

Mummolus wrote...

Many people are anti-homosexual, but they have the good-graces to usually keep that fact to themselves in mixed company. OSC does not, and that is why I do not respect the man.

Where are the OSC quotes coming from, though? His personal and religious websites. He's not nailing his theses to your door in the middle of the night, here - you have to go out and look for his opinions because they're not apparent even in his own authored works.

See Tassiaw's post above yours. I'm not suggesting he writes his books only as anti-gay propaganda, but his thoughts and feelings about homosexuals are made clear in several works.

[Ethical Scabs]

Deran2 wrote...

 Here is a fun set of paragraphs from one of his rants:

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.Just because homosexual partners wish to be called "married" and wish to force everyone else around them to regard them as "married," does not mean that their Humpty-Dumpty-ish wish should be granted at the expense of the common language, democratic process, and the facts of human social organization.However emotionally bonded a pair of homosexual lovers may feel themselves to be, what they are doing is not marriage. Nor does society benefit in any way from treating it as if it were.

That's actually not true... the 'anywhere on earth' part.

It's present in India.  It was present in the plains cultures of the Native Americans. (though both of those involve a bit of gender role wishiwash).  It's present in New Guinea.

I, for one, refuse to let the Mormon church define what a word means for me.  

Also "Nor does society benefit in any way from treating it as if it were"-- huh?  That's a statement of opinion as fact.