4 ms·

Sure it's reasonable. But do I judge Steve Jobs by what toppings he likes on his pizza or what kind of rap he listens to? No. I may agree or disagree with hi

Sure it's reasonable. But do I judge Steve Jobs by what toppings he likes on his pizza or what kind of rap he listens to? No. I may agree or disagree with him, but his opinions on those matters have no bearing whatsoever on my primary relationship with him, which is as a purchaser of the hardware and software he designs. Similarly with Card, I am a reader of his fiction and so I don't care what color socks he wears, how often he showers, or whether he has a framed picture of Ronald McDonald on his wall.

burgerbrain 15y ago
Preferred pizza toppings are in no way comparable to homophobic statements.
- grandalf 15y ago
  I think they are equivalent b/c both are simply aesthetic preferences. Neither is trying to persuade others to adopt his aesthetic preference. Neither is an expert on the topic being opined about. At best one might claim that such a statement is ignorant. I think we start to get into trouble when we assume that an expert in one narrow area (such as fiction writing) should be/act non-ignorant in other areas of life. That is wishful thinking. It also suggests that we ought to expect "more" from someone with a narrow talent. Should a NFL player have perfect spelling? Should an olympic pole vaulter have a nuanced understanding of morality? Human aptitude is very narrow and we should appreciate it where we find it and not look to put anyone on a broad pedestal.
  - stonemetal 15y ago
    Neither is trying to persuade others to adopt his aesthetic preference. He wishes to make it illegal how is that not pushing his views on others?
    - grandalf 15y ago
      Citation?
- nl 15y ago
  Perhaps a better comparison would be with Bobby Fischer. Fischer idolized Hitler, denied the Holocaust, was antisemitic and wrote fanmail to Osama bin Laden[1]. But the same Bobby Fischer played beautiful chess that it's impossible not to admire. I don't have a good philosophical framework to process how I can admire the beauty of Fischer's play (and Card's writing) and yet disagree incredibly strongly with their other views. None the less, it is possible. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Life_as_an_.C3.A9migr.C3.A9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Life_as_an_.C3.A9...
  - grandalf 15y ago
    Excellent point. I chose Jobs and bland opinions b/c I give equally low weight to someone's non-expert opinions no matter what domain they are in. Do I want to ask Jobs or Card or Fischer for voting advice? No thanks. For advice on what sexual partner to pick? No thanks. It's the premise that we should somehow look to these achievers for wisdom outside their domains that is absurd.
    - rogerbraun 15y ago
      He does not want to give you advice on which sexual partner to pick. He thinks that it should be forbidden by law to be homosexual. There is nothing about this in "Ender's Game", to get back to the topic. So, while I think it is right to criticize Card for his views on sexuality, I don't think it should color one's reading of the book too much.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I don't believe its all that hard to respect Bobby Fischer's chess (while despising everything else about him), while at the same time failing to respect Scott Card in general. Unlike chessplayers, authors play an important role in society by creating literature for that society to consume. They therefore, in my opinion, should be examined with more scrutiny.^ The fact that people hold up Ender's Game as a work with particular ethical/moral significance only strengthens my belief that we must hold Scott Card to a higher level. But hey, this is just how I operate. For each their own I suppose. ^particularly when they start using their talent to spread their hate, and start letting it seep into their other 'manstream' work.

burgerbrain 15y ago

Preferred pizza toppings are in no way comparable to homophobic statements.

grandalf 15y ago
I think they are equivalent b/c both are simply aesthetic preferences. Neither is trying to persuade others to adopt his aesthetic preference. Neither is an expert on the topic being opined about. At best one might claim that such a statement is ignorant. I think we start to get into trouble when we assume that an expert in one narrow area (such as fiction writing) should be/act non-ignorant in other areas of life. That is wishful thinking. It also suggests that we ought to expect "more" from someone with a narrow talent. Should a NFL player have perfect spelling? Should an olympic pole vaulter have a nuanced understanding of morality? Human aptitude is very narrow and we should appreciate it where we find it and not look to put anyone on a broad pedestal.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  Neither is trying to persuade others to adopt his aesthetic preference. He wishes to make it illegal how is that not pushing his views on others?
  - grandalf 15y ago
    Citation?
nl 15y ago
Perhaps a better comparison would be with Bobby Fischer. Fischer idolized Hitler, denied the Holocaust, was antisemitic and wrote fanmail to Osama bin Laden[1]. But the same Bobby Fischer played beautiful chess that it's impossible not to admire. I don't have a good philosophical framework to process how I can admire the beauty of Fischer's play (and Card's writing) and yet disagree incredibly strongly with their other views. None the less, it is possible. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Life_as_an_.C3.A9migr.C3.A9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Life_as_an_.C3.A9...
- grandalf 15y ago
  Excellent point. I chose Jobs and bland opinions b/c I give equally low weight to someone's non-expert opinions no matter what domain they are in. Do I want to ask Jobs or Card or Fischer for voting advice? No thanks. For advice on what sexual partner to pick? No thanks. It's the premise that we should somehow look to these achievers for wisdom outside their domains that is absurd.
  - rogerbraun 15y ago
    He does not want to give you advice on which sexual partner to pick. He thinks that it should be forbidden by law to be homosexual. There is nothing about this in "Ender's Game", to get back to the topic. So, while I think it is right to criticize Card for his views on sexuality, I don't think it should color one's reading of the book too much.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  I don't believe its all that hard to respect Bobby Fischer's chess (while despising everything else about him), while at the same time failing to respect Scott Card in general. Unlike chessplayers, authors play an important role in society by creating literature for that society to consume. They therefore, in my opinion, should be examined with more scrutiny.^ The fact that people hold up Ender's Game as a work with particular ethical/moral significance only strengthens my belief that we must hold Scott Card to a higher level. But hey, this is just how I operate. For each their own I suppose. ^particularly when they start using their talent to spread their hate, and start letting it seep into their other 'manstream' work.