TRANSLATOR QUOTE: "Mr Dark, in the teaching profession one cannot be of both mindsets. One is trying to impart truth to the students, and one is bound to see various odd things. If one is not liberal, but a devout conservaive, one will not be able to impart the truth without scoffs, getting angry, or showing some other emotion that will cloud the message."

My problem with you, Translator, in these exchanges, is your ridiculous world view in which there is only one valid world view. As you say here, it is apparently impossible for a conservative to impart truths. Is that what your're saying here? Or are you making the absolutely ridiculous claim that conservatives scoff at liberal views, but that liberals are tolerant? You did read about the hollywood/Kerry rally, didn't you? Was the language of those idiots conducive to open dialogue? Was the discussion designed to promote open and honest intellectual engagement? (Your constant referral of Bush as a murderer is tiresome. Your inability to distinguish between a war designed to take out those who would harm a nation and the act of targetting the innocent in ongoing acts of terror is not a strong testiment of your ability to be objective.)

Also, you don't have to be conservative to teach and understand conservative perspectives; nor do you have to be liberal to understand and teach liberal perspectives. Isn't the point of education, in part, to be able to grasp the world of ideas and opinions external to those you already hold?

Your assertion that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives is a farce. As I said, extremists on both sides are unable to honestly asses other's perspectives.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 07-23-2004).]

Anyone here familiar with the late Allan Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind"?

Translator,

It's been my unfortunate experience, as a Conservative, to learn that the tolerant seem to often be the most intolerant. A good recent example is the Linda Ronstadt hullabaloo. Sure, the audience acted poorly. But then this "tolerant" liberal, in an interview published after the incident but conducted before, stated how uncomfortable it makes her knowing that Republicans and Fundamentalist Christians are in the audience. Now, change Republicans and Fundamentalist Christians to Blacks and Gays and I'd be willing to bet you would say this was intolerant speech. Yeah, I know, this is only one example, and Ronstadt doesn't represent you or the vast Liberal/Progressive majority, but you get my meaning: we are all of us intolerant about some things.

I'll leave it to you and Mr. Dark and Pabillsman to debate conservative/liberal teachers with you. (Of course, I come down on their side: A conservative teacher is perfectly capable of teaching science or math or any other subject you think needs teaching. And Pabillsman: Er, I guess you missed the fine debate between Translator and me under the Ruled Paper thread. We were unable to change each other's views on the topics you've touched on. Interesting for me, and maybe for Translator, but, alas, probably not for others on this board.) Mr. Dark is a teacher and can better address that.

But maybe you'd be surprised at how tolerant a staunch Conservative like me can be. Sure, I'm of the Buckley standing-athwart-the-world-and-shouting-stop! variety Conservative but that doesn't mean I'm intolerant. I have to live in this world, after all. I just don't think there's much new under the sun. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a set of beliefs and obeject when those beliefs are threatened; you do the same.

You touched on homosexuality and you might be surprised at my view on that as well. But I've gone on long enough and it's probably best we return to the subject at hand. Unless there's an overwhelming urge out there to flog another, unrelated-to-Bradbury topic to death.

(Though isn't there a homosexual-themed story in one of Bradbury's latest story collections. One about parents learning their son is gay. The details escape me. Very moving, as I recall.)

Best,

Pete

Just to set the record straight, I never said I was conservative. I said I was non-liberal. It is possible to be moderate.
---Ok, point taken.

Ultra-left or ultra-right people won't agree but it is true. I teach English so there are very few political spins one can put upon writing skills.
---Absolutely false. English is not only about spelling, but about books and ideas - unless you are a grammarian, in which case you may be right.

As far as the literature I teach, I encourage students to find their own interpretations and think for themselves. However, I do not approach anything about gays in the class, contraception, or any of the other liberal issues that some educators try to ram down the throats of kids.
---which means you don't touch upon most books from, oh, say, 1930 onwards. You don;t also talk about Beecher Stowe, for example. You're missing great chunks of literary history, teacher.

Parents should discuss those matters with their kids. I educate.
---if you don;t educate about social issues, what then do you educate about? Science?

I do not have a social agenda. I do not criticize the priesthood because it is not at fault. The priests who performed terrible acts are at fault but not all priests.
---That's obvious. But if the topic comes up in class, are you going to suspend students for bringing it up?

After all, you liberals would not want me to say that black people commit crimes, would you? Do they? Yes, just like whites do, but that does not make them all criminals.
---I don't understand this analogy. The idea with the priests is that, to conservative religious people, the realm of the church is unassailable, no matter what it does. Blacks and gays are not revered by liberal atheists like god and priests are by religious conservatives. Your analogy is absolutely out of place.

As far as calling Moore an A-hole, and calling his message hateful, I would say that to anyone who goes to a country like France and badmouths the United States.
---Why? Would you call, say, Thomas Mann an A hole if you were german, and he went to France or the US to badmouth the Nazis? That's the exactly the same situation.

He can disagree all he wants with President Bush, but he should have respect for the presidency.
---1) why? Since when is the seat of presidency immunized from criticism (once again, a certain Fuhrer in recent history made himself unassailable. Guess what happened?). 2)Moore probably has respect for the presidency, which is why he badmouths Bush (or rather, assembles the life of Bush up to this point in a nice little package) - Bush defiles that seat.

Translator, for you to call Bush a murderer is disgusting. That is just another example of hate speech. 9/11 was murder, not our response to it.
---1) If I kill your wife, and you go on to kill my 7 kids, my wife, and my goldfish, you are not commiting murder? What judicial system did you grow up with? Spartan? 2) Those who comitted the 911 acts were in no significant way related with, say Iraq. It's like, after your wife was killed, you go on to bomb a wall mart because those who killed your wife were people who shopped at wall mart. Smarten up, teacher, and start making sense.

And please do not use the weak argument that Iraq was invaded for no reason. The WMD were there and were either destroyed or are still hidden.
---the reason why the wall mart was bombed was beacause your wife's killers also shopped at wall mart. Similar logic.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!
---God Bless America.

Cheers, Translator

TRANSLATOR QUOTE: "Mr Dark, in the teaching profession one cannot be of both mindsets. One is trying to impart truth to the students, and one is bound to see various odd things. If one is not liberal, but a devout conservaive, one will not be able to impart the truth without scoffs, getting angry, or showing some other emotion that will cloud the message."
My problem with you, Translator, in these exchanges, is your ridiculous world view in which there is only one valid world view.
---Which is why it is tedious to argue things with you. You don't accept the idea that to some things the alternatives are so bad that there is really only one way to behave. If all things are equally valid to you, then why do you not stop breathing, for example, and simply commit suicide? Is it perhaps because living is just a bit more important to you than dying? Just a bit, maybe? enough to rule out options where you could die, if there are others that guarantee your life?

As you say here, it is apparently impossible for a conservative to impart truths. Is that what your're saying here?
---Religious conservatives cannot impart truths about the origins of species, yes, I am claiming that. Either they are lying to themselves that they are religious conservatives (when they say they believe in Adam and Eve), or they are lying to their students that evolution is rubbish. Or the gay issue. I am claiming that they cannot possibly accept gay behaviour as normal behaviour because it is exactly agaianst their notion of normality. In fact, they consider gays abnormal. Which is why they cannot, for example, be in close contact with homosexuality, which happens in schools all to often. Yes, I am claiming that some truths cannot be taught by religious conservatives.

Or are you making the absolutely ridiculous claim that conservatives scoff at liberal views, but that liberals are tolerant?
---The idea behind liberalism is that they are tolerant. Untolerant people are not liberals, no matter what they label themselves as. Look at the defintiton above (in the other post). So yes, I apparently am making this absolutley ridiculous claim that conservatives are intolerant, and liberals are tolerant.

You did read about the hollywood/Kerry rally, didn't you? Was the language of those idiots conducive to open dialogue? Was the discussion designed to promote open and honest intellectual engagement?
---This incident showed me that many liberals in the US are clandestine conservatives, and don;t know about it. All the more so to shed a tear or two for good ol' uncle Sam.

(Your constant referral of Bush as a murderer is tiresome. Your inability to distinguish between a war designed to take out those who would harm a nation and the act of targetting the innocent in ongoing acts of terror is not a strong testiment of your ability to be objective.)
---Your constant refusal to admit that wars kill people, and that those who instigate wars are resposible for killing people, which makes them murderers, is tiresome. Your inability to realize that Iraq was a peacful nation not threatning the US in any way is a marvel. Your further inability to realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 is an even bigger marvel. Marvelous.

Also, you don't have to be conservative to teach and understand conservative perspectives; nor do you have to be liberal to understand and teach liberal perspectives. Isn't the point of education, in part, to be able to grasp the world of ideas and opinions external to those you already hold?
---Of course, but the whole idea behind liberals is that they allow the other side a voice, while conservatives try to stiffle it out. Once again, go to the defintion. One is against looking at other views (the conservatives), and one is open to all points of view. Which means that your comment above brands you as a liberal. Congratulations.

Your assertion that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives is a farce. As I said, extremists on both sides are unable to honestly asses other's perspectives.
---Extremism and liberalism together? Oxymorons, are they not? Show me what an extreme liberal looks like.


Cheers, Translator

Translator,
It's been my unfortunate experience, as a Conservative, to learn that the tolerant seem to often be the most intolerant.
---I don't really understand that. The tolearnt are therfore intoleerant, which means that they were never tolerant. Which also means that you should have said "those who seemed most tolerant".

A good recent example is the Linda Ronstadt hullabaloo. Sure, the audience acted poorly.
---Not poorly - scandalously.

But then this "tolerant" liberal, in an interview published after the incident but conducted before, stated how uncomfortable it makes her knowing that Republicans and Fundamentalist Christians are in the audience. Now, change Republicans and Fundamentalist Christians to Blacks and Gays and I'd be willing to bet you would say this was intolerant speech.
---You see, the difference is that Fund Christinas and conservatives will lynch you if you are not like them, but gays and blacks will not. One is a violent group that will not tolerate commonly known facts. The other may become a violent group if you got out of your way to offend them (Ie, by making racists gay jokes), but is not against commonly accepted issues. So she was rightly uncofortable - the people in the audience were of the violent, "easily provokable" kind. I would be scared too.

Yeah, I know, this is only one example, and Ronstadt doesn't represent you or the vast Liberal/Progressive majority, but you get my meaning: we are all of us intolerant about some things.
---Exactly. But there is a diefference between being intolerant of others period, and being intolerant of the ones who are intolerant of others. I am very intolerant of bigots and racists and anti semitists. What does that make me?

I'll leave it to you and Mr. Dark and Pabillsman to debate conservative/liberal teachers with you. (Of course, I come down on their side: A conservative teacher is perfectly capable of teaching science or math or any other subject you think needs teaching.
---How will they teach genes?

And Pabillsman: Er, I guess you missed the fine debate between Translator and me under the Ruled Paper thread. We were unable to change each other's views on the topics you've touched on. Interesting for me, and maybe for Translator, but, alas, probably not for others on this board.) Mr. Dark is a teacher and can better address that.
---Look it up; it was indeed a fine debate.

But maybe you'd be surprised at how tolerant a staunch Conservative like me can be. Sure, I'm of the Buckley standing-athwart-the-world-and-shouting-stop! variety Conservative but that doesn't mean I'm intolerant. I have to live in this world, after all. I just don't think there's much new under the sun. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a set of beliefs and obeject when those beliefs are threatened; you do the same.

You touched on homosexuality and you might be surprised at my view on that as well. But I've gone on long enough and it's probably best we return to the subject at hand. Unless there's an overwhelming urge out there to flog another, unrelated-to-Bradbury topic to death.

(Though isn't there a homosexual-themed story in one of Bradbury's latest story collections. One about parents learning their son is gay. The details escape me. Very moving, as I recall.)
---But still, what do you think about gays, lesbians, contraceptives and all? I would really like to find out. Don;t feeel pressured into answering if you don;t want to, though.

Cheers, Translator

Translator,

Look for a massive, meandering reply coming soon.

Best,

Pete

[This message has been edited by pterran (edited 07-24-2004).]

I'll be online for the next hour or so - looking forward to it.

Cheers, Translator

Translator: Fundamdamentalist Christians and conservatives are lynching people? Where is this happening? Have you forgotten the communist take-over of Cambodia (over a million murdered the first year alone), and the Stalinist massacres (some estimate over 20 million dead). Yea, you're right, liberals are the epitime of tolerance. Your definition of what a liberal is seems a bit self-serving. As to my own experience, I've never, never met a fundamentalist christian or conservative who murdered someone because they weren't tolerant of them, their lifesytle or their views. These kinds of murders are genrally performed by white-trash jerks -- not fundamentalist christians or conservatives. What kinds of numbers and documentation are you able to put up on this claim?

Since when are communists liberals? I'm exaggerating with the lynching a bit, Mr Dark, to show a point. As the casino episode showed, though, I am not exaggerating that much.

Cheers, Translator

Translator,

I know I should stay out of this and let Pabillsman and Mr. Dark speak for themselves but, well, it looks like you and I are here on the board and we might as well argue between ourselves until they can come along. (Sorry, y�all, if I take a stand that doesn�t represent your viewpoint. You can correct me with your own post.)

Oh, and look. You�ve replied to my post. Might as well put all this together in one massive, yawn-inspiring post.

Everyone else: move along if you want. It gets pretty thick but there�s not much to see.

Ok, here goes:

Your response: �English is not only about spelling, but about books and ideas - unless you are a grammarian, in which case you may be right. �

My response: Uh, isn�t that what Pabillsman said: �There are very few political spins one can put on WRITING SKILLS.� (Use of big ol� caps mine.)

Pabillsman wrote: �As far as the literature I teach, I encourage students to find their own interpretations and think for themselves. However, I do not approach anything about gays in the class, contraception, or any of the other liberal issues that some educators try to ram down the throats of kids.�

Your response: �Which means you don't touch upon most books from, oh, say, 1930 onwards. You don;t also talk about Beecher Stowe, for example. You're missing great chunks of literary history, teacher.

My response: There�s plenty of good literature from 1930 onward that manages to skirt the liberal issues Pabillsman mentions. Bradbury, anyone?

Pabillsman wrote: �Parents should discuss those matters with their kids. I educate.
Your response: �If you don;t educate about social issues, what then do you educate about? Science? �

My response: Uh, no. I think Pabillsman said he teaches English.

Pabillsman wrote: �After all, you liberals would not want me to say that black people commit crimes, would you? Do they? Yes, just like whites do, but that does not make them all criminals.�

Your response: �I don't understand this analogy. The idea with the priests is that, to conservative religious people, the realm of the church is unassailable, no matter what it does. Blacks and gays are not revered by liberal atheists like god and priests are by religious conservatives. Your analogy is absolutely out of place.�

My response: The analogy is that one bad apple doesn�t spoil the whole bunch. Many Catholics were aghast about the priest scandals and likely didn�t revere those who were guilty. Others did. You unfairly characterize religious conservatives. Oh, and not all religious conservatives are Catholic. I�m Southern Baptist so don�t revere priests anyway. They�re as flawed as anyone else.

Pabillsman wrote: �As far as calling Moore an A-hole, and calling his message hateful, I would say that to anyone who goes to a country like France and badmouths the United States.�

Your response: �Why? Would you call, say, Thomas Mann an A hole if you were german, and he went to France or the US to badmouth the Nazis? That's the exactly the same situation.�

My response: Ah, the ol� America is just like Nazi Germany argument. Sorry. It�s not exactly the same situation.

Pabillsman wrote: �He can disagree all he wants with President Bush, but he should have respect for the presidency.�

Your response: �1) why? Since when is the seat of presidency immunized from criticism (once again, a certain Fuhrer in recent history made himself unassailable. Guess what happened?). 2)Moore probably has respect for the presidency, which is why he badmouths Bush (or rather, assembles the life of Bush up to this point in a nice little package) - Bush defiles that seat.

My response: Yep, the ol� Bush is a Nazi/Fuhrer analogy. Really, don�t you think you do a dis-service to those who suffered under Hitler and the Nazis by making this comparison. I know we disagree about Bush and his actions but he�s hardly defiled the seat. He�s done a fine job.

Pabillsman wrote: �Translator, for you to call Bush a murderer is disgusting. That is just another example of hate speech. 9/11 was murder, not our response to it.�

Your response: �1) If I kill your wife, and you go on to kill my 7 kids, my wife, and my goldfish, you are not commiting murder? What judicial system did you grow up with? Spartan? 2) Those who comitted the 911 acts were in no significant way related with, say Iraq. It's like, after your wife was killed, you go on to bomb a wall mart because those who killed your wife were people who shopped at wall mart. Smarten up, teacher, and start making sense.�

My response: Talk about analogies that don�t make sense. You and I have been over this before: Iraq was not solely about 9/11. It�s about the larger issue of terrorism. Bush isn�t a murderer. You know all this. You�re just throwing fire-bombs.

Pabillsman wrote: �GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!�

Your response: �God Bless America.�

My response: God Bless America!

Mr. Dark wrote: �TRANSLATOR QUOTE: "Mr Dark, in the teaching profession one cannot be of both mindsets. One is trying to impart truth to the students, and one is bound to see various odd things. If one is not liberal, but a devout conservaive, one will not be able to impart the truth without scoffs, getting angry, or showing some other emotion that will cloud the message."
My problem with you, Translator, in these exchanges, is your ridiculous world view in which there is only one valid world view.�

Your response: �Which is why it is tedious to argue things with you. You don't accept the idea that to some things the alternatives are so bad that there is really only one way to behave. If all things are equally valid to you, then why do you not stop breathing, for example, and simply commit suicide? Is it perhaps because living is just a bit more important to you than dying? Just a bit, maybe? enough to rule out options where you could die, if there are others that guarantee your life?�

My response: This goes to my point about the tolerant being intolerant. You mis-state Mr. Dark�s point by making an extreme analogy. Yes, we all agree that it�s better to live. That�s neither Liberal nor Conservative. Mr. Dark�s point is that, ins some areas, there�s room for more than one view. Yours seems to be there isn�t: You�re Liberal view is right and every Conservative view is wrong.

Mr. Dark wrote: �As you say here, it is apparently impossible for a conservative to impart truths. Is that what your're saying here?�

Your response: �Religious conservatives cannot impart truths about the origins of species, yes, I am claiming that. Either they are lying to themselves that they are religious conservatives (when they say they believe in Adam and Eve), or they are lying to their students that evolution is rubbish. Or the gay issue. I am claiming that they cannot possibly accept gay behaviour as normal behaviour because it is exactly agaianst their notion of normality. In fact, they consider gays abnormal. Which is why they cannot, for example, be in close contact with homosexuality, which happens in schools all to often. Yes, I am claiming that some truths cannot be taught by religious conservatives.�

My response: It�s not an either/or proposition. Personally, I don�t know how God operates but I believe He created all things. If the theory of Evolution proves true, then it�s only another of His marvels. Do I then have to look at Adam and Eve in a different light? Not necessarily. Scientists researching DNA like to point to a common ancestor; seems to me that�s proving the story. About gays, some Christians have done a poor job reaching out in Christian love to gays. They deserve the same consideration as all sinners do. But nothing precludes us from �close contact� with homosexuality. That�s a sweeping generalization that actually made me laugh. Christians, like everyone else, interact with homosexuals every day.

Mr. Dark wrote: �Or are you making the absolutely ridiculous claim that conservatives scoff at liberal views, but that liberals are tolerant?�
Your response: �The idea behind liberalism is that they are tolerant. Untolerant people are not liberals, no matter what they label themselves as. Look at the defintiton above (in the other post). So yes, I apparently am making this absolutley ridiculous claim that conservatives are intolerant, and liberals are tolerant.�
My response: So since you�re intolerant of Conservatives, you�re, by your definition, a Conservative. Don�t worry, Translator. It�s not a fatal disease.

Mr. Dark wrote: �You did read about the hollywood/Kerry rally, didn't you? Was the language of those idiots conducive to open dialogue? Was the discussion designed to promote open and honest intellectual engagement?

Your response: �This incident showed me that many liberals in the US are clandestine conservatives, and don;t know about it. All the more so to shed a tear or two for good ol' uncle Sam.�

My response: You dodged the question. The incident Mr. Dark refers to was a Liberal fund-raising event. Liberals, despite your dictionary definition, who are amazingly intolerant. Not Conservatives.

Mr. Dark wrote: �(Your constant referral of Bush as a murderer is tiresome. Your inability to distinguish between a war designed to take out those who would harm a nation and the act of targetting the innocent in ongoing acts of terror is not a strong testiment of your ability to be objective.)�

Your response: �Your constant refusal to admit that wars kill people, and that those who instigate wars are resposible for killing people, which makes them murderers, is tiresome. Your inability to realize that Iraq was a peacful nation not threatning the US in any way is a marvel. Your further inability to realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 is an even bigger marvel. Marvelous.�

My response: Yes, wars kill people. I don�t think Mr. Dark refuses to admit that. But those responsible for waging war aren�t always murderers, and you know this, too. For example, let�s take World War II. I�ll assume you�ll agree that war was justified. (Then again, maybe not.) In your view, Churchill and FDR should be labeled murderers. Sorry. Doesn�t work. About the rest of your statement, again, you and I have hashed and re-hashed that issue.

Mr. Dark wrote: �Also, you don't have to be conservative to teach and understand conservative perspectives; nor do you have to be liberal to understand and teach liberal perspectives. Isn't the point of education, in part, to be able to grasp the world of ideas and opinions external to those you already hold?�

Your response: �Of course, but the whole idea behind liberals is that they allow the other side a voice, while conservatives try to stiffle it out. Once again, go to the defintion. One is against looking at other views (the conservatives), and one is open to all points of view. Which means that your comment above brands you as a liberal. Congratulations.�

My response: Or could it mean that Mr. Dark is a tolerant Conservative? Or is that an oxymoron like intolerant Liberal? Come on, Translator. You�re playing with words. No doubt you�d call Michael Moore Liberal in his views yet he doesn�t allow room for a Conservative view in his movie. He�s � Ohmygoodness � an intolerant Liberal. Or, by your definition, a Conservative. Man, it�s a topsy-turvy world we live in.

Mr. Dark wrote: �Your assertion that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives is a farce. As I said, extremists on both sides are unable to honestly asses other's perspectives.�
Your response: �Extremism and liberalism together? Oxymorons, are they not? Show me what an extreme liberal looks like.�

My response: An extreme liberal? How �bout Michael Moore?

I wrote: �It's been my unfortunate experience, as a Conservative, to learn that the tolerant seem to often be the most intolerant.

Your response: �I don't really understand that. The tolearnt are therfore intoleerant, which means that they were never tolerant. Which also means that you should have said "those who seemed most tolerant".�

My response: I think I said that, only with a slightly different word order.

I wrote: �A good recent example is the Linda Ronstadt hullabaloo. Sure, the audience acted poorly.

Your response: �Not poorly - scandalously.�

My response: At last! A point we can agree on. I�ll go with your word.

I wrote: �But then this "tolerant" liberal, in an interview published after the incident but conducted before, stated how uncomfortable it makes her knowing that Republicans and Fundamentalist Christians are in the audience. Now, change Republicans and Fundamentalist Christians to Blacks and Gays and I'd be willing to bet you would say this was intolerant speech.�

Your response: �You see, the difference is that Fund Christinas and conservatives will lynch you if you are not like them, but gays and blacks will not. One is a violent group that will not tolerate commonly known facts. The other may become a violent group if you got out of your way to offend them (Ie, by making racists gay jokes), but is not against commonly accepted issues. So she was rightly uncofortable - the people in the audience were of the violent, "easily provokable" kind. I would be scared too.�

My response: Was much like Mr. Dark�s and I see your response about exaggerating so I�ll delete my point.

I wrote: �Yeah, I know, this is only one example, and Ronstadt doesn't represent you or the vast Liberal/Progressive majority, but you get my meaning: we are all of us intolerant about some things.

Your response: �Exactly. But there is a diefference between being intolerant of others period, and being intolerant of the ones who are intolerant of others. I am very intolerant of bigots and racists and anti semitists. What does that make me?�

My response: Um, by your definition, you�re Conservative. You see why your definition doesn�t work? You can be Liberal and intolerant but only if your intolerant of the right things. Bigots and racists and ant-semites are extreme examples but what about gun-owners? Pornographers? Those who believe the sky is green?

I wrote: �I'll leave it to you and Mr. Dark and Pabillsman to debate conservative/liberal teachers with you. (Of course, I come down on their side: A conservative teacher is perfectly capable of teaching science or math or any other subject you think needs teaching.�

Your response: �How will they teach genes?�

My response: Genetics doesn�t contradict Conservative ideals.

I wrote: �And Pabillsman: Er, I guess you missed the fine debate between Translator and me under the Ruled Paper thread. We were unable to change each other's views on the topics you've touched on. Interesting for me, and maybe for Translator, but, alas, probably not for others on this board.) Mr. Dark is a teacher and can better address that.�

Your response: �Look it up; it was indeed a fine debate.�

My response: Two things we agree on! We�re on a roll!

I wrote: �But maybe you'd be surprised at how tolerant a staunch Conservative like me can be. Sure, I'm of the Buckley standing-athwart-the-world-and-shouting-stop! variety Conservative but that doesn't mean I'm intolerant. I have to live in this world, after all. I just don't think there's much new under the sun. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a set of beliefs and obeject when those beliefs are threatened; you do the same.
You touched on homosexuality and you might be surprised at my view on that as well. But I've gone on long enough and it's probably best we return to the subject at hand. Unless there's an overwhelming urge out there to flog another, unrelated-to-Bradbury topic to death.
(Though isn't there a homosexual-themed story in one of Bradbury's latest story collections. One about parents learning their son is gay. The details escape me. Very moving, as I recall.)�

Your response: �But still, what do you think about gays, lesbians, contraceptives and all? I would really like to find out. Don;t feeel pressured into answering if you don;t want to, though.�

My response: I touched briefly above about Christians and homosexuality. Bottom line: I know what my religious teaching tells me but personally I have no quarrel with homosexuality. I�m a live and let live kind of person in that area. As I mentioned above, as a Southern Baptist, I have no problem with contraception per se. I just don�t think it should be available to my daughters at school without my permission. You didn�t mention it but abortion comes under contraception. I�m pro-life but realize that abortion on demand is the law of the land. I don�t advocate the bombing of abortion clinics or the killing of abortion providers and I condemn those who do.

Well, dang, I see you and Mr. Dark have already gotten started. I�ll post this one and let you have at it.

Best,
Pete

Pete: Nice job.

I still maintain that liberals, in their smug self-righteousness are often actually less tolerant than are conservatives. This is simply my own anecdotal experience.

Pterran, congrats on the email; I think you outwrote everybody here today. Here is my response:


Translator,
I know I should stay out of this and let Pabillsman and Mr. Dark speak for themselves but, well, it looks like you and I are here on the board and we might as well argue between ourselves until they can come along. (Sorry, y�all, if I take a stand that doesn�t represent your viewpoint. You can correct me with your own post.)
---NIce intro.

Oh, and look. You�ve replied to my post. Might as well put all this together in one massive, yawn-inspiring post.
---Awe-inspiring, that is.

Everyone else: move along if you want. It gets pretty thick but there�s not much to see.
---But if you're interested, stay.

Ok, here goes:

Your response: �English is not only about spelling, but about books and ideas - unless you are a grammarian, in which case you may be right. �

My response: Uh, isn�t that what Pabillsman said: �There are very few political spins one can put on WRITING SKILLS.� (Use of big ol� caps mine.)
--------Pbillsman said he was an English teacher, and english is not restricted to grammar. I thought he was using the general defintion of "english teacher", which meant that he was teaching all things related to english - history, styles, grammar, and author bios. I could have been wrong - he could be only a gramarian - so I specified that. Let us see if he is only restricted by grammar, or is he the all-pupose English teacher I suspect he is.

Pabillsman wrote: �As far as the literature I teach, I encourage students to find their own interpretations and think for themselves. However, I do not approach anything about gays in the class, contraception, or any of the other liberal issues that some educators try to ram down the throats of kids.�

Your response: �Which means you don't touch upon most books from, oh, say, 1930 onwards. You don;t also talk about Beecher Stowe, for example. You're missing great chunks of literary history, teacher.

My response: There�s plenty of good literature from 1930 onward that manages to skirt the liberal issues Pabillsman mentions. Bradbury, anyone?
------Yeas, but one who teaches history of germany, for example, and misses the years 1939-1945 is doing a great injustice to the spirit of education. If Pabillsman is missing a great chunk of lit in those areas, he is commiting an educational crime (in my humble opinion, at least).

Pabillsman wrote: �Parents should discuss those matters with their kids. I educate.
Your response: �If you don;t educate about social issues, what then do you educate about? Science? �

My response: Uh, no. I think Pabillsman said he teaches English.
-----Once again, English (in the broad sense of the word - the one with hitory of lit and why books were written) has very much to do not only with the structure of the language, but also with the social issues surrouding it. How else would you teach Swift? Or Wilde? So - if he is a grammarian - fine, but if not, not fine.

Pabillsman wrote: �After all, you liberals would not want me to say that black people commit crimes, would you? Do they? Yes, just like whites do, but that does not make them all criminals.�

Your response: �I don't understand this analogy. The idea with the priests is that, to conservative religious people, the realm of the church is unassailable, no matter what it does. Blacks and gays are not revered by liberal atheists like god and priests are by religious conservatives. Your analogy is absolutely out of place.�

My response: The analogy is that one bad apple doesn�t spoil the whole bunch. Many Catholics were aghast about the priest scandals and likely didn�t revere those who were guilty. Others did. You unfairly characterize religious conservatives. Oh, and not all religious conservatives are Catholic. I�m Southern Baptist so don�t revere priests anyway. They�re as flawed as anyone else.
-----I'm glad no priests are revered in your religion, but they are in others - and to those others my words were adressed.

Pabillsman wrote: �As far as calling Moore an A-hole, and calling his message hateful, I would say that to anyone who goes to a country like France and badmouths the United States.�

Your response: �Why? Would you call, say, Thomas Mann an A hole if you were german, and he went to France or the US to badmouth the Nazis? That's the exactly the same situation.�

My response: Ah, the ol� America is just like Nazi Germany argument. Sorry. It�s not exactly the same situation.
----No, but the premise is the same - do not badmouth your country to another country or you are an a hole. I disagree with that premise, and showed one example where it was reasonable to do so. Also, Moore doesn't badmouth AMerica per se, but Bush and his followers. Much different than the American Bashing that Pabillsman attributed to him.

Pabillsman wrote: �He can disagree all he wants with President Bush, but he should have respect for the presidency.�

Your response: �1) why? Since when is the seat of presidency immunized from criticism (once again, a certain Fuhrer in recent history made himself unassailable. Guess what happened?). 2)Moore probably has respect for the presidency, which is why he badmouths Bush (or rather, assembles the life of Bush up to this point in a nice little package) - Bush defiles that seat.

My response: Yep, the ol� Bush is a Nazi/Fuhrer analogy. Really, don�t you think you do a dis-service to those who suffered under Hitler and the Nazis by making this comparison. I know we disagree about Bush and his actions but he�s hardly defiled the seat. He�s done a fine job.
----The analogy here wasn't that Bush is a Hitler, but that presidents should be assailable. Big distiction which seemed blured in your response.

Pabillsman wrote: �Translator, for you to call Bush a murderer is disgusting. That is just another example of hate speech. 9/11 was murder, not our response to it.�

Your response: �1) If I kill your wife, and you go on to kill my 7 kids, my wife, and my goldfish, you are not commiting murder? What judicial system did you grow up with? Spartan? 2) Those who comitted the 911 acts were in no significant way related with, say Iraq. It's like, after your wife was killed, you go on to bomb a wall mart because those who killed your wife were people who shopped at wall mart. Smarten up, teacher, and start making sense.�

My response: Talk about analogies that don�t make sense. You and I have been over this before: Iraq was not solely about 9/11. It�s about the larger issue of terrorism. Bush isn�t a murderer. You know all this. You�re just throwing fire-bombs.
----On the contrary, Pterran, the analogies work just fine. tell me How they are flawed. Perhaps you and I were over the 911-Iraq link, but others here (ie, Pabillisman) is probabaly still convinced that it was Hussain who sent the terrorists. Otherwise he wouldn't make a refference to 911, would he? Also, the issues of terrorism and the issues of Iraq were different issues, and in no way connected - until Bush decided to bring terrorists to Iraq by overthrowing Saddam. If that was your point, then I agree with you. If your point was that Bush was fighting terrosrism by overthrowing Saddam, I am sitll in 100% disagreement with you.

Pabillsman wrote: �GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!�

Your response: �God Bless America.�

My response: God Bless America!

Mr. Dark wrote: �TRANSLATOR QUOTE: "Mr Dark, in the teaching profession one cannot be of both mindsets. One is trying to impart truth to the students, and one is bound to see various odd things. If one is not liberal, but a devout conservaive, one will not be able to impart the truth without scoffs, getting angry, or showing some other emotion that will cloud the message."
My problem with you, Translator, in these exchanges, is your ridiculous world view in which there is only one valid world view.�

Your response: �Which is why it is tedious to argue things with you. You don't accept the idea that to some things the alternatives are so bad that there is really only one way to behave. If all things are equally valid to you, then why do you not stop breathing, for example, and simply commit suicide? Is it perhaps because living is just a bit more important to you than dying? Just a bit, maybe? enough to rule out options where you could die, if there are others that guarantee your life?�

My response: This goes to my point about the tolerant being intolerant. You mis-state Mr. Dark�s point by making an extreme analogy. Yes, we all agree that it�s better to live. That�s neither Liberal nor Conservative. Mr. Dark�s point is that, ins some areas, there�s room for more than one view. Yours seems to be there isn�t: You�re Liberal view is right and every Conservative view is wrong.
----The conservative view is that others not like conservatives are not right. The Liberal view is that all people might be right, except those who say that some might be wrong. Aside from the tiny circular logic flaw in this argument - it appears that liberals are really conservative when it comes to conservatives - the argument is fine. It is ok to be bigoted against bigots.

Mr. Dark wrote: �As you say here, it is apparently impossible for a conservative to impart truths. Is that what your're saying here?�

Your response: �Religious conservatives cannot impart truths about the origins of species, yes, I am claiming that. Either they are lying to themselves that they are religious conservatives (when they say they believe in Adam and Eve), or they are lying to their students that evolution is rubbish. Or the gay issue. I am claiming that they cannot possibly accept gay behaviour as normal behaviour because it is exactly agaianst their notion of normality. In fact, they consider gays abnormal. Which is why they cannot, for example, be in close contact with homosexuality, which happens in schools all to often. Yes, I am claiming that some truths cannot be taught by religious conservatives.�

My response: It�s not an either/or proposition. Personally, I don�t know how God operates but I believe He created all things. If the theory of Evolution proves true, then it�s only another of His marvels.
-----Ok, great, but: What will you teach your kids? When your daughter asks you "Daddy, where do babies come from?", will you say "from the combination of the genetic haploids found in the sperm and the ova of sexually mature people", after which you will proceed to teach your kids about genes and chromosones and traits and evolution, and Darwinism (or a form of it), and of physiscs governing our lives? Or will you not? And if you do, and she asks about the Adam and Eve story, will you say it was made up, or will you say that it was true? And confuse your daughter very much?

Do I then have to look at Adam and Eve in a different light? Not necessarily. Scientists researching DNA like to point to a common ancestor; seems to me that�s proving the story.
----Common ancestor meaning a humanoid - like homo erectus - which evolved from Lucy - which evolved from yet more monkey-like creature, which came from the sea, which had gill, etc, until we reach a single-cell organism much like the blue-green alagea currently found in our waterways? That common ancestor? (Or will you talk about the left rib being yanked out of adam to create eve?). If you teach evolution, you must go to the end - you cannot combine the two theories together; they are irreconciable.

About gays, some Christians have done a poor job reaching out in Christian love to gays.
----Witness gay marriage bashing.

They deserve the same consideration as all sinners do.
----I prefer the term people.

But nothing precludes us from �close contact� with homosexuality. That�s a sweeping generalization that actually made me laugh. Christians, like everyone else, interact with homosexuals every day.
----Of course they do - and they spit and trample over gays whenever they get the chance. Again, witness the gay Mariage bashing that is coming from nearly all christian circles.

Mr. Dark wrote: �Or are you making the absolutely ridiculous claim that conservatives scoff at liberal views, but that liberals are tolerant?�
Your response: �The idea behind liberalism is that they are tolerant. Untolerant people are not liberals, no matter what they label themselves as. Look at the defintiton above (in the other post). So yes, I apparently am making this absolutley ridiculous claim that conservatives are intolerant, and liberals are tolerant.�
My response: So since you�re intolerant of Conservatives, you�re, by your definition, a Conservative. Don�t worry, Translator. It�s not a fatal disease.
------hey - I came to the same concusion above - kudos to your logic. But being a total liberal means that you accept kiddie porn, for example. I don;t. Some lines have to be drawn (opening a can of worms here).

Mr. Dark wrote: �You did read about the hollywood/Kerry rally, didn't you? Was the language of those idiots conducive to open dialogue? Was the discussion designed to promote open and honest intellectual engagement?

Your response: �This incident showed me that many liberals in the US are clandestine conservatives, and don;t know about it. All the more so to shed a tear or two for good ol' uncle Sam.�

My response: You dodged the question. The incident Mr. Dark refers to was a Liberal fund-raising event. Liberals, despite your dictionary definition, who are amazingly intolerant. Not Conservatives.
----As I said, some people calling themselves liberals are more conservative than hard core consertvatives. That is a requisite of being uneducated. To me, such people - no matter what colors of the flag they wave - are in the same boat as people who openly admit that they think gays and blacks and Jews and whatnot should be shot.

Mr. Dark wrote: �(Your constant referral of Bush as a murderer is tiresome. Your inability to distinguish between a war designed to take out those who would harm a nation and the act of targetting the innocent in ongoing acts of terror is not a strong testiment of your ability to be objective.)�

Your response: �Your constant refusal to admit that wars kill people, and that those who instigate wars are resposible for killing people, which makes them murderers, is tiresome. Your inability to realize that Iraq was a peacful nation not threatning the US in any way is a marvel. Your further inability to realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 is an even bigger marvel. Marvelous.�

My response: Yes, wars kill people. I don�t think Mr. Dark refuses to admit that. But those responsible for waging war aren�t always murderers, and you know this, too. For example, let�s take World War II. I�ll assume you�ll agree that war was justified. (Then again, maybe not.) In your view, Churchill and FDR should be labeled murderers. Sorry. Doesn�t work.
-----Why not? They were not murderers? They were. But they were justified murderers. I'm pretty sure they knew that becasue of their actions people were killed, which meant that they were murderers. I challange you to show me they did not kill. If they killed, as they did, they are killers. Nothing can cloud this logic. That they thought themselves justified is different. I consider Churchill a justified murderer. I consider Bush an unjustified murderer.

About the rest of your statement, again, you and I have hashed and re-hashed that issue.
-----True, but we have not came to any real conclusions. If you want to, we could go back to where we left off.

Mr. Dark wrote: �Also, you don't have to be conservative to teach and understand conservative perspectives; nor do you have to be liberal to understand and teach liberal perspectives. Isn't the point of education, in part, to be able to grasp the world of ideas and opinions external to those you already hold?�

Your response: �Of course, but the whole idea behind liberals is that they allow the other side a voice, while conservatives try to stiffle it out. Once again, go to the defintion. One is against looking at other views (the conservatives), and one is open to all points of view. Which means that your comment above brands you as a liberal. Congratulations.�

My response: Or could it mean that Mr. Dark is a tolerant Conservative? Or is that an oxymoron like intolerant Liberal? Come on, Translator. You�re playing with words. No doubt you�d call Michael Moore Liberal in his views yet he doesn�t allow room for a Conservative view in his movie. He�s � Ohmygoodness � an intolerant Liberal. Or, by your definition, a Conservative. Man, it�s a topsy-turvy world we live in.
-----All of the above refers to the same mini fault - that liberals should not be tolerant of those who are intolerant of others. Think of the police. They are supposed to protect people, but if they must kill somone about to kill others, they will. Were they not doing exaclty what they were there to stop? yes, but it was justified. They were trying to stop people from getting hurt, and they had to hurt the hurter. Same with Conservatives. If a liberal is intolerant towards a conservative, he is being, in effect, tolerant to all those whom the conservative is intolerant to. By sort of "punishing" the conservative, he is ensuring the "well-being" of everyone else around. Find me something wrong with this.

Mr. Dark wrote: �Your assertion that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives is a farce. As I said, extremists on both sides are unable to honestly asses other's perspectives.�
Your response: �Extremism and liberalism together? Oxymorons, are they not? Show me what an extreme liberal looks like.�

My response: An extreme liberal? How �bout Michael Moore?
----Show me his extremism. If you say he is extreme towards conservatives, I'll point you to the comment I made directly above.

I wrote: �It's been my unfortunate experience, as a Conservative, to learn that the tolerant seem to often be the most intolerant.

Your response: �I don't really understand that. The tolearnt are therfore intoleerant, which means that they were never tolerant. Which also means that you should have said "those who seemed most tolerant".�

My response: I think I said that, only with a slightly different word order.
----Ok - pardon for the confusion.

I wrote: �A good recent example is the Linda Ronstadt hullabaloo. Sure, the audience acted poorly.

Your response: �Not poorly - scandalously.�

My response: At last! A point we can agree on. I�ll go with your word.
----Yay! Progress!

I wrote: �But then this "tolerant" liberal, in an interview published after the incident but conducted before, stated how uncomfortable it makes her knowing that Republicans and Fundamentalist Christians are in the audience. Now, change Republicans and Fundamentalist Christians to Blacks and Gays and I'd be willing to bet you would say this was intolerant speech.�

Your response: �You see, the difference is that Fund Christinas and conservatives will lynch you if you are not like them, but gays and blacks will not. One is a violent group that will not tolerate commonly known facts. The other may become a violent group if you got out of your way to offend them (Ie, by making racists gay jokes), but is not against commonly accepted issues. So she was rightly uncofortable - the people in the audience were of the violent, "easily provokable" kind. I would be scared too.�

My response: Was much like Mr. Dark�s and I see your response about exaggerating so I�ll delete my point.
----Ok.

I wrote: �Yeah, I know, this is only one example, and Ronstadt doesn't represent you or the vast Liberal/Progressive majority, but you get my meaning: we are all of us intolerant about some things.

Your response: �Exactly. But there is a diefference between being intolerant of others period, and being intolerant of the ones who are intolerant of others. I am very intolerant of bigots and racists and anti semitists. What does that make me?�

My response: Um, by your definition, you�re Conservative. You see why your definition doesn�t work? You can be Liberal and intolerant but only if your intolerant of the right things. Bigots and racists and ant-semites are extreme examples but what about gun-owners? Pornographers? Those who believe the sky is green?
------Gun owners - I am not intolerant of them, I just think they're stupid. Pornographers - I say live and let live. If someone gets off porn, let them. If it is kiddie porn, however, I say kill them.
Sky green people - I'm very tolerant of them. I actually worked with some for a while - they are called the mentally handicapped.

I wrote: �I'll leave it to you and Mr. Dark and Pabillsman to debate conservative/liberal teachers with you. (Of course, I come down on their side: A conservative teacher is perfectly capable of teaching science or math or any other subject you think needs teaching.�

Your response: �How will they teach genes?�

My response: Genetics doesn�t contradict Conservative ideals.
-----Which is why I should have added "religious conservatives" if I wanted to talk about genes, or if I wnated to talk about conservatives only I should have said "how will they teach about homosexuality".

I wrote: �And Pabillsman: Er, I guess you missed the fine debate between Translator and me under the Ruled Paper thread. We were unable to change each other's views on the topics you've touched on. Interesting for me, and maybe for Translator, but, alas, probably not for others on this board.) Mr. Dark is a teacher and can better address that.�

Your response: �Look it up; it was indeed a fine debate.�

My response: Two things we agree on! We�re on a roll!
-----Oh yeah, Keep em' coming!

I wrote: �But maybe you'd be surprised at how tolerant a staunch Conservative like me can be. Sure, I'm of the Buckley standing-athwart-the-world-and-shouting-stop! variety Conservative but that doesn't mean I'm intolerant. I have to live in this world, after all. I just don't think there's much new under the sun. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a set of beliefs and obeject when those beliefs are threatened; you do the same.
You touched on homosexuality and you might be surprised at my view on that as well. But I've gone on long enough and it's probably best we return to the subject at hand. Unless there's an overwhelming urge out there to flog another, unrelated-to-Bradbury topic to death.
(Though isn't there a homosexual-themed story in one of Bradbury's latest story collections. One about parents learning their son is gay. The details escape me. Very moving, as I recall.)�

Your response: �But still, what do you think about gays, lesbians, contraceptives and all? I would really like to find out. Don;t feeel pressured into answering if you don;t want to, though.�

My response: I touched briefly above about Christians and homosexuality. Bottom line: I know what my religious teaching tells me but personally I have no quarrel with homosexuality. I�m a live and let live kind of person in that area. As I mentioned above, as a Southern Baptist, I have no problem with contraception per se. I just don�t think it should be available to my daughters at school without my permission. You didn�t mention it but abortion comes under contraception. I�m pro-life but realize that abortion on demand is the law of the land. I don�t advocate the bombing of abortion clinics or the killing of abortion providers and I condemn those who do.
-----Welcome to the liberal club. If you tolerate such things, you are a liberal. I seriously think you have found a better religion than most (contraception is ok), and that you reserve the right to an opinion (which is, alas, a thing all too commonly abandoned by religious people) is a very great attribute. (Interestingly enough, I'm ardently pro life myself. I think any girl who goes for a voluntary abortion (ie, if it is not a medical issue) should have been aborted herself).
Now, what then makes you a conservative, Pterran? If you are ok on all those social issues, you seem to be a very liberal kind of guy. Where is your conservatism, and what does it relate to?

Well, dang, I see you and Mr. Dark have already gotten started. I�ll post this one and let you have at it.
-----As usual, it was a pleasure.

Cheers, Translator

Once again, Translator: The difficulty in engaging in dialogue with you (for me, at least, Pete is amazing at it) is that I get very frustrated with your self-serving and fluid definitions and with your either/or world view. Perhaps as you get older, you'll recognize that there is more gray in the world than you allow for now. Perhaps not.

Once agian, Mr Dark, my definitons are not fluid but stable. When I bring in the dictionary you cry foul at the simplicity. If we cannot agree on the meanings of words, we have nothing to work on. Also, my either/or worldview is based solidly on the ground (whenever I have it - and I happen to have it very infrequently). Your constant gray area talk just shows that you cannot, so to speak, "cut through the crap", and are instead lost among all the choices you think are viable alternatives (but which on closer inspection are not). I fear with age you may just continue on that downward path.

Cheers, Transaltor