Re: Guber is so cool -- Boston Public Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:52:56 03/01/03 Sat
Author: Wakener
Subject: Re: Guber is so cool
In reply to: juri 's message, "Re: Guber is so cool" on 01:29:24 02/27/03 Thu

>Meh... Guilt got the better of me. I'm not trying to
>trample on anyone's beliefs... Everyone is entitled to
>their own beliefs as long as they do not interfer with
>someone else's freedoms.

But, in the words of Han Solo, that's the real trick, isn't it? Publicly condoning one person or group's beliefs is *always* going to impinge on the freedoms of others in some way or other. You say that a GSA or presumably some other sexuality program in a public format--an acceptable one being school-run is necessary to combat STDs. Well, why are such formats always so opposed to teaching abstinence? And suppose a parent wants to emphasize abstinence to their child as the only method of combatting STDs and other consequences of sexual activity that is compatible with the beliefs they wish to uphold in their household? Why is it right to deny them that particular freedom? If someone wants to teach about condoms, why is it okay to force THAT teaching down the throat of others, but it is wrong to teach abstinence?

Just for perspective, if the mass media were treating teenage sexuality they way they are treating teenage smoking, people would be calling them fascists, and vice versa. You don't see anyone saying "Well, since the kids are going to smoke anyway, let's teach them about filters." Ever wonder why? Both actions can have negative repercussions, and both can be said "no" to. But smoking should be eradicated, and sexual activity among minors should be accommodated.

Personally, I think the reason is simple, and a throwaway line from Guber nailed it on the head. He said, "We're all liberals..." in a context that implied that liberals are virtuously open-minded, virtuously tolerant, and universally welcome. Well, it's clear that the war on smokers has resulted in a cash cow to be milked by trial lawyers and entitlements programs (while shifting blame to the producers of a legal product), while the education in how to use condoms results in more people, who then need entitlements programs, resulting in more votes for liberal tickets and policies.

In philosophy, there used to be a practice of writing a fictional debate with a character presenting the philosopher-author's position while other characters questioned him and presented counterarguments. The problem with this approach--which is easy to see if you approach such a text, say Plato's _Republic,_ from an an objective or opposing viewpoint--is that the character presenting the argument contrary to the author's views is still written by the author, and rarely does he present the case as an actual believer in that side would. Important points are misrepresented, distorted, and partially presented, so as to make it easier for the wise character who agrees with the author to make his point. This is something that happens all the time in television, especially where so-called "controversial" topics are discussed. It has been a mainstay of David E. Kelley's for some time now. Kelley is a liberal, and he has every right to be, just as he has a right to produce television shows--even ones that tout his point of view. But what I'd like to charge people who watch his, or anyone else's "controversial" shows to do is this: try playing the game that Guber does with his Debate Team. Pick the other side, see what the other side's representative says when he or she comes up in the story (in the case of the most recent episode, people from the swim team would be one group, and the concerned parents would be another group critical of sexuality discussion groups. Neither of them serve as a positive example, but is there a case to be made that could be made by someone who was not presented as inherently negative?) See if you can come up with a better argument for their side than they can--and it should be one based on facts, rather than emotions. If you lack the facts, you might want to look them up, especially if the issue is important enough--and how controversial could it be if it were not important?

Oh, and as for the genius girl . . . I am rather tired of seeing the same "genius" stereotype year after year. It makes me wonder if any of these Hollywood types ever did any research with actual prodigies. Believe me, I've met many over the years--I was one myself--and I have yet to meet any like the ones on TV. You know, the ones who do nothing but discuss Sartre and Camus, play chess with older people and always win, quote various dead folks, and cry a lot about the plight of their abnormality. The ones in my circles had their areas of interest, sure, and some of us were nerdy, but geez! We were always more interested in coming up with creative new ways to goof off and make logically-consistent utter absurdities. Not a one of us was maudlin.

And we would NEVER refer to Shakespeare as "The Bard," nor tolerate someone else doing so.

>Bah... I can't change people anyways. And now I'll
>stop rambling.

Well, so long as you're inviting discussion . . .

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Guber is so cool -- juri, 19:36:57 03/02/03 Sun