Ender's Game

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

101 Replies - 5506 Views - Last Post: 22 May 2013 - 03:12 AM

#61 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4428
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,356
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:47 AM

View Postaaron1178, on 13 May 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

This really looks like it will be a good movie to watch :)/> Though I find it hard to read a book if their is a movie about it.

did everyone just miss this?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#62 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7294
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,134
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:04 AM

View Postsupersloth, on 14 May 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

View Postaaron1178, on 13 May 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

This really looks like it will be a good movie to watch :)/>/> Though I find it hard to read a book if their is a movie about it.

did everyone just miss this?


I was trying to ignore it. I mean, what can you say, right?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#63 baavgai  Icon User is offline

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon

Reputation: 5643
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,359
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:07 AM

Sad but honest. I figured it netted to zero.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#64 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4428
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,356
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:19 AM

i mean, we're talking about young adult fiction here.

BOOKS FOR CHILDREN.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#65 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7294
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,134
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:32 AM

View Postsupersloth, on 14 May 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

BOOKS FOR CHILDREN.


Well, about children anyway.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#66 baavgai  Icon User is offline

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon

Reputation: 5643
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,359
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:01 PM

Ender's Game is young adult fiction? Hmm...

I guess I never really considered it in that category. When I was a kid, I'm not sure that was a category. Today, they have a category for YA paranormal romance. *shudder* I guess you can categorize ad nauseam.

I mean, I read it when I was a young adult. Other authors I recall reading at the time, Michael Moorcock, John Norman, Harlan Ellison, I'm pretty sure wouldn't be on a YA list. Though, Ellison wrote wicked story in response to having something he wrote put on a children's list... :P

Found this, which was interesting: http://www.endersans...ame-a-ya-novel/
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#67 depricated  Icon User is offline

  • Behind Seven Proxies!

Reputation: 414
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:21 PM

View Postjon.kiparsky, on 14 May 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

So what term would you use for the sort of thing that all of these exemplify? I hope we can agree that "I will take action X, which you do not wish, unless you take action Y, which you also do not wish" constitutes some sort of threat, and an attempt to use [SOMETHING] against you to compel you to take action Y. "Force" seems a good word for that something, but if you want to call it something else, just pick a word. Ethically, it doesn't make any difference what you call it. The ethical questions are, who is allowed to compel another to do their will under threat of negative consequences, and what sorts of things may be compelled, and under what circumstances. You are claiming a set of answers that bring us back into a fairly Hobbesian war of all against all. I think that set of answers is indefensible.

I agree that the word force works for them, but your use is ambiguous and will need to be clarified. The word "construct" can be used to describe a building, a robot, a bike, and a whole lot of other crap besides. If I were to say "i'm so excited I got a construct for christmas!" you'd probably ask me to clarify what the fuck I was talking about, rather than assume that someone gifted me a Skyscraper instead of a Hookah. Force is likewise broad, and the way you've been using it I'm just waiting for arguments that gravity is a moral crime because it's force.

Quote

Yes, so advocating the boycott is the problem. I'm glad we can agree on this:
Strawman. I never said advocating a boycott is a problem. I said that advocating the boycott is itself the act of boycotting. But I'll address the points you raised.

Quote

it's not an issue about whether you or I or anyone buy the man's books, it's about the threat of economic [SOMETHING] to prevent someone from enjoying the right to freedom of conscience. Again: is this morally defensible? Who may do this, and under what circumstances?
Absolutely it's morally defensible - one might even say that it is a moral obligation. I'm not sure what you're referring to by freedom of conscience - I would never suggest that anyone be free to do either as their conscience demands or to disregard their conscience. Unquestioning abandon or loyalty to it is dangerous. He should be free to obey his conscience in so far as it does not harm or detrementally affect on others.

Quote

One way to explore this is to turn it around. Suppose that you were a writer or approximately Card's status, and you made public assertions about the way society should be organized, which you believed in firmly and knew to be controversial.
Would you consider a boycott against you to be ethical behavior? (if it makes a difference, let's assume that it is successful and either destroys your career or forces you to recant your firmly held belief)
Lets turn it doubly around. This is a game I've played a thousand times, and I have frequently stood by my convictions, even when it meant accepting that I was wrong or doing the right thing when life would have been much easier by not. Lets actually address what Card is doing, and discuss what the appropriate response is.

Card is pushing to legislate into law bills which would make it illegal for gays to marry, adopt children, share health insurance, and otherwise function the way a straight couple can. Words are actions. Are Card's actions morally defensible? What gives him the right to dictate what one person may feel for another? Under what circumstances? I'd say this actually answers those questions as you present them.

It is morally defensible to protect yourself. It is morally right to retaliate in kind against those who would destroy your freedom, whether their intent is malicious or simply a result of ignorance.

Quote

So you want him to keep believing whatever he wants, but only say the things that you agree with? I don't believe that makes any sense at all. You should get in touch with Kim Jon Un, I think he might have a job for you.
Again, not what I said. Now I'm starting to get offended by what seems to be intentionally flawed rhetoric :( lets keep it light and upbeat, eh? If you're just trolling, then well done. But I'll address it anyway.

He can say and advocate what he wants, and if that means advocating against me, my friends, or our freedoms, then we are likewise free to advocate against him and his vile attack on freedom.

Quote

Trying to convince someone not to do something evil is not the issue. We're talking about trying to convince someone not to believe something that you think is evil, or (if I thought your claim quoted above was coherent, which I don't) just trying to convince them not to say what they believe. I don't see how retreating to the latter is any less vile than the former, so you might as well just accept that you don't have any respect for other people or their beliefs.

Respect is another matter. You're right, I have no default respect for other people, nor do I give any respect to blind belief, ever. Respect is earned, and OSC has gone to great lengths to earn disrespect. As he is so eager to be disrespected, who are we to withhold it?

I have respect for the natural rights, and the rights of people as people, but no innate respect for any particular individual - though I default to polite.

Quote

As it happens, I agree that the position Card takes is wrong, but the two of us don't get to decide what he's allowed to say or to think.
Absolutely right we don't. But we can decided how we respond to his actions, and we can ignore them or address them.

Quote

What is evil is depriving other people of their rights to act without harming others, or harming them, without their consent - that is, actions are the sorts of things that we can regulate. Advocacy is not an action, it's speech, and speech is sacrosanct, if you believe in freedom at all. So I agree that preventing a couple from enjoying a particular legal status based on their race, religion, military status, physical handicap, or sexual preference is evil. however, I do not agree that disagreeing with me about this is evil.

I contend that advocacy is an action which involves speech, but other elements besides. While speech is sacrosanct, that sanctity is not protection from retribution - any more than the 2nd Amendment is protection from punishment when you shoot someone.

Quote

"Pushing for the oppression of a class of people" is, unfortunately, part of what we have to accept if we want to claim the right to push against that oppression. That's exactly what free speech means. If you think his ideas are wrong, then you should ask him to express them more loudly, so that everyone in the world can see how wrong they are. If there's something convincing about them, you need to listen more carefully to them - either you're going to end up being convinced, or you're going to find the flaw.*

Is that not what would be done by advocating a boycott? We're helping spread his message for him, and adding our opinion of it, right? "Orson Scott Card is a board member for the National Organization for Marriage and here's a bunch of the shit they believe. They're the force that kept Prop 8 tied up in the courts for years, and he's at the forefront. He's even threatened to go and attack the government if Gay Marriage is legalized. We think you shouldn't give money to NOM by buying his books or seeing Ender's Game when it comes out, that money will be used to further NOM's opposition to civil rights."

Quote

*You can make a useful parallel from Ricardo's arguments for open markets, if you like: if his ideas are viable in the marketplace of ideas, then yours should give way to them. If they are not, then they will give way of their own accord. In either case, only the marketplace can decide, and the best outcomes arise when all are allowed to contend, not when ideas are restricted.

Part of the duty of citizens in the market is to exchange opinions on ideas presented, correct?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#68 modi123_1  Icon User is online

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 8377
  • View blog
  • Posts: 31,138
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:26 PM

Ha.. "YA paranormal romance' is totes the bestest thing evea!

Funny as hell - "Is your YA paranomral romance cliche' enough"
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#69 Raynes  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 610
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,815
  • Joined: 05-January 09

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 12:57 PM

View Postsupersloth, on 18 December 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

i would have preferred animated. no way they let real kids do the things in the story. it's gonna be watered down, and that's a goddamned shame.


I recently had the privilege of meeting Orson Scott Card at the LA Times festival of books here in Los Angeles. It was a great experience. He had a conversation and answered questions, and most of them were about the movie.

He made very good points regarding it being 'watered down'. He spent a very long time with Ender's Game telling people to fuck off because they wanted to completely change it and destroy the story. He has very carefully picked the people who are making this film and he is satisfied. He pointed out that, at its core, Ender's Game is almost an unfilmable movie. Most of the book goes on inside of Ender's head. Unless you're Dexter Morgan, you can't really build a movie around someone's thoughts. They *have* to change things in fundamental ways to fit it inside of a movie and make Ender's thoughts and motivations known in a way that doesn't require us to be inside of his head.

Mr. Card pointed out that you absolutely should not expect it to be the same as the book. It can't be, because the book is unfilmable. Beyond the fundamental issue that the book mostly centers around Ender's thoughts, the film would also be several hours long. He seemed convinced that what it will be is the story told as best as they can make it on film by people who care about the story.

I also got books signed by him that day. That was a good day. :D/>

View Postsupersloth, on 14 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

i mean, we're talking about young adult fiction here.

BOOKS FOR CHILDREN.


Actually not at all. This was one of the questions posed to Mr. Card, and he was very adamant that Ender's Game was not at all meant for a youth audience. He was baffled that it became so.

EDIT: If you're wondering about the bazillion edits, I was having a disagreement with smileys. They won.

This post has been edited by Raynes: 14 May 2013 - 01:06 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#70 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4428
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,356
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:13 PM

that answer doesn't really say anything about how it's watered down or what effect that has on the story. that's an answer about adaptation that is generic to everything said since adaptations started.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#71 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is offline

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7294
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,134
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:19 PM

View Postdepricated, on 14 May 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

I agree that the word force works for them, but your use is ambiguous and will need to be clarified. The word "construct" can be used to describe a building, a robot, a bike, and a whole lot of other crap besides. If I were to say "i'm so excited I got a construct for christmas!" you'd probably ask me to clarify what the fuck I was talking about, rather than assume that someone gifted me a Skyscraper instead of a Hookah. Force is likewise broad, and the way you've been using it I'm just waiting for arguments that gravity is a moral crime because it's force.


Quote

Quote

Yes, so advocating the boycott is the problem. I'm glad we can agree on this:
Strawman. I never said advocating a boycott is a problem. I said that advocating the boycott is itself the act of boycotting. But I'll address the points you raised.


I like your word, "contextomy". It's a good one. Did you come up with it yourself?
Here's what you and I agreed on:

Quote

I'm glad we can agree on this: it's not an issue about whether you or I or anyone buy the man's books, it's about the threat of economic [SOMETHING] to prevent someone from enjoying the right to freedom of conscience.


That is, it's not a matter of your decision to buy a copy of Speaker for the Dead or Ender's Shadow. It's about someone trying to use a threat of dire consequences to stop someone from speaking their mind. Or, as you put it, exercising retribution against someone for advocating something that you disagree with.


Quote

Absolutely it's morally defensible - one might even say that it is a moral obligation.


Defensible how? Make an argument.

Quote

I'm not sure what you're referring to by freedom of conscience


I mean, in the normal sense. Wikipedia's definition is reasonable: "the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints." I do not mean the freedom to use "conscience" as a blanket excuse for acting in a manner harmful to others, but again, speech is not an "act".



Quote

Lets turn it doubly around.


No, let's just turn it around once and you answer the question. Is it morally defensible for someone to attempt to destroy you for your beliefs? Would you stand up for Card's right to assault you, personally, in the same way you're standing up for someone else's right to assault him, personally?


Quote

Card is pushing to legislate into law bills which would make it illegal for gays to marry, adopt children, share health insurance, and otherwise function the way a straight couple can. Words are actions. Are Card's actions morally defensible? What gives him the right to dictate what one person may feel for another? Under what circumstances? I'd say this actually answers those questions as you present them.


Yes, they are morally defensible. He has a view, which I disagree with, and he has every right to promote that view. By saying what he believes, he harms nobody.

Quote

It is morally defensible to protect yourself. It is morally right to retaliate in kind against those who would destroy your freedom, whether their intent is malicious or simply a result of ignorance.


In kind. So, for example, responding to arguments with arguments - that's exactly what I'm advocating. Responding to ideas with an attempt to destroy a man's livelihood is not responding "in kind".

Quote

Again, not what I said.


I think it is what you said. Try again, if you want. Try to say "I'm fine with destroying this man's livelihood for speaking his mind when I disagree with him" without meaning "I support free speech, but only for those who believe what I believe". It'll be an interesting rhetorical challenge.


Quote

He can say and advocate what he wants, and if that means advocating against me, my friends, or our freedoms, then we are likewise free to advocate against him and his vile attack on freedom.


Hobbes again. By your lights, he and his friends have only one response, and that's to try to destroy you and your friends. Now we're in "solitary, nasty, brutish, and short" territory, no?
The Enlightenment was a good thing. You should look into it.

Quote

I have respect for the natural rights, and the rights of people as people, but no innate respect for any particular individual - though I default to polite.


Unless they disagree with you - then out come the knives, yes?

Quote

As it happens, I agree that the position Card takes is wrong, but the two of us don't get to decide what he's allowed to say or to think.
Absolutely right we don't. But we can decided how we respond to his actions, and we can ignore them or address them.

Quote

I contend that advocacy is an action which involves speech, but other elements besides. While speech is sacrosanct, that sanctity is not protection from retribution - any more than the 2nd Amendment is protection from punishment when you shoot someone.


Retribution? For speech? I'd think you would have learned about "sticks and stones" in kindergarten...

Quote

Is that not what would be done by advocating a boycott? We're helping spread his message for him, and adding our opinion of it, right? "Orson Scott Card is a board member for the National Organization for Marriage and here's a bunch of the shit they believe. They're the force that kept Prop 8 tied up in the courts for years, and he's at the forefront. He's even threatened to go and attack the government if Gay Marriage is legalized. We think you shouldn't give money to NOM by buying his books or seeing Ender's Game when it comes out, that money will be used to further NOM's opposition to civil rights."


So the boycott turns this into a public ad hominem attack on one proponent of the crimethink. 'Cause you know, that always works. You're right, though. One dead certain outcome for this is to boost sales of his books, and another is to help firm up convictions on his side. It's not only ethically indefensible, it does the opposite of what it's intended to do.
Go on, have you got anything that actually supports your position?

Quote

Part of the duty of citizens in the market is to exchange opinions on ideas presented, correct?


Yes. You should discuss Card's ideas, and make better arguments that show how foolish his position is. That would be a useful thing to do. Attacking my freedom of speech is less welcome.

View PostRaynes, on 14 May 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

EDIT: If you're wondering about the bazillion edits, I was having a disagreement with smileys. They won.


Use the full editor. Under Post options, uncheck Enable emoticons?
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#72 Raynes  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 610
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,815
  • Joined: 05-January 09

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:22 PM

View Postsupersloth, on 14 May 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

that answer doesn't really say anything about how it's watered down or what effect that has on the story. that's an answer about adaptation that is generic to everything said since adaptations started.


IIRC he apologized for not having details. I imagine there was only so much he could say. He did point out that he had met the actors and was extremely impressed. It was very clear that he thinks he has placed the story in very good hands and *hopes* it will work out. I think he is hoping just as much as the fans are that it'll turn out great.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#73 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4428
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,356
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 01:34 PM

i'm sure, but nonetheless there's a big difference between the question you say was asked and the answer that you say he gave. not having an internal monologue is an adaptation decision. removing a child murdering another child in the shower is a watering-down decision.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#74 depricated  Icon User is offline

  • Behind Seven Proxies!

Reputation: 414
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 14 May 2013 - 04:00 PM

View Postjon.kiparsky, on 14 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

I like your word, "contextomy". It's a good one. Did you come up with it yourself?
Here's what you and I agreed on:
My bad. I misread that as a semicolon separating those statements, as if you were saying we agreed on the boycott, and then continuing on a line of reasoning - rather than the colon presenting the next sentence.

Quote

That is, it's not a matter of your decision to buy a copy of Speaker for the Dead or Ender's Shadow. It's about someone trying to use a threat of dire consequences to stop someone from speaking their mind. Or, as you put it, exercising retribution against someone for advocating something that you disagree with.
Dire consequences at the grandest scale perhaps - yet on the same scale his villainy would be likened to the Pope or Stalin, killing millions and reaping praises.

Quote

Defensible how? Make an argument.

That's what I went on to do but to summarize what I'd said: because he is on the offensive and attacking, it is appropriate to respond counterpoint. It would be wrong to initiate the use of force, but it is not wrong to respond with like force.

Quote

I mean, in the normal sense. Wikipedia's definition is reasonable: "the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints." I do not mean the freedom to use "conscience" as a blanket excuse for acting in a manner harmful to others, but again, speech is not an "act".
I disagree on only one point considering the sanctity of the mind: you are entitled to an informed opinion. Facts are not opinions, and viewpoints are entirely subjective therefore providing no valid excuse for action.


Quote

Quote

Lets turn it doubly around.


No, let's just turn it around once and you answer the question. Is it morally defensible for someone to attempt to destroy you for your beliefs? Would you stand up for Card's right to assault you, personally, in the same way you're standing up for someone else's right to assault him, personally?
Too late, already did turn it back on Card. No, he is not right to assault anyone for their beliefs. However, it is justified to return that assault. Since the specific matter at hand is a counterattack, it is entirely reasonable.


Quote

Quote

Card is pushing to legislate into law bills which would make it illegal for gays to marry, adopt children, share health insurance, and otherwise function the way a straight couple can. Words are actions. Are Card's actions morally defensible? What gives him the right to dictate what one person may feel for another? Under what circumstances? I'd say this actually answers those questions as you present them.


Yes, they are morally defensible. He has a view, which I disagree with, and he has every right to promote that view. By saying what he believes, he harms nobody.
So would you stand in defense of CISPA? Did you argue in favor of SOPA? Are you going to vote again for candidates who supported those bills, since it would be wrong to let their beliefs affect their jobs? Words are power, words have strength. By saying what he believes, he further poisons minds and destroys lives. He is in a position that what he says has more weight than what I say, at least, and I suspect most others here.

Quote

Quote

It is morally defensible to protect yourself. It is morally right to retaliate in kind against those who would destroy your freedom, whether their intent is malicious or simply a result of ignorance.


In kind. So, for example, responding to arguments with arguments - that's exactly what I'm advocating. Responding to ideas with an attempt to destroy a man's livelihood is not responding "in kind".

If it were only arguments and words he offered, no one would likely care. He's not a scientist speaking with authority on the nature of genetics when he calls homosexuality "unnatural," he's a Mormon playwright with a popular short story that he capitalized on. It's not like listening to Lawrence Krauss's insight into physics or even Bob Ross's opinions on paint and happy little clouds. He has no qualification to speak on what he does, and if it were as simple as that no one would take his words with any more weight than they take mine or yours. However, he rallies people and donates, he takes action, to actively thwart civil rights and not just destroy livelihoods but actually lead directly to peoples deaths when Kevin can't be put on his boyfriend's insurance and develops a nasty tumor.

Quote

Again, not what I said.


I think it is what you said. Try again, if you want. Try to say "I'm fine with destroying this man's livelihood for speaking his mind when I disagree with him" without meaning "I support free speech, but only for those who believe what I believe". It'll be an interesting rhetorical challenge.
[quote]
See above. If he were simply speaking his mind, I wouldn't care. I actually didn't care until earlier when I looked into exactly what he was doing. Now I'm appalled and disgusted with him. Up til then I had just been playing devil's advocate on your friend's behalf.

Quote

Hobbes again. By your lights, he and his friends have only one response, and that's to try to destroy you and your friends. Now we're in "solitary, nasty, brutish, and short" territory, no?
The Enlightenment was a good thing. You should look into it.
Other way around, but essentially. As he is trying to murder my friends, following your precedent to draw the action to its direst of potential consequences, it is only right to try and stop him.

Quote

Unless they disagree with you - then out come the knives, yes?
Have I stabbed you yet? We disagree, it seems, but I've done nothing more than try to explain why I believe I'm right and why I believe you're missing an essential point: it is not wrong to attempt to dissuade someone from destructive action, whether by threat of reaction or reason.

Quote

Retribution? For speech? I'd think you would have learned about "sticks and stones" in kindergarten...
Someone cited shouting fire in a crowded theatre earlier. That would be met with retribution in the form of arrest and likely a fine. Again, freedom of speech is not freedom from being slapped down when you do something offensive. Try going to downtown Detroit and shouting racial epithets at the top of your lungs, then defending yourself with the argument that you have a right to say what you want. Make a bomb threat? Not protected speech. And rightly so.

Quote

So the boycott turns this into a public ad hominem attack on one proponent of the crimethink. 'Cause you know, that always works. You're right, though. One dead certain outcome for this is to boost sales of his books, and another is to help firm up convictions on his side. It's not only ethically indefensible, it does the opposite of what it's intended to do.
Go on, have you got anything that actually supports your position?
My position is that it's not unaligned with your friends beliefs for him to advocate against Card for Card's abhorrent actions. I don't speak to the effectiveness of it, I'm not advocating a boycott of the guy. But he's more than just one proponent, he's the face and stands at the head of an entire organization bent on the destruction of lives.

Quote

Yes. You should discuss Card's ideas, and make better arguments that show how foolish his position is. That would be a useful thing to do. Attacking my freedom of speech is less welcome.
How does telling you about Card's actions against civil rights and suggesting you not give money to him to continue his fight against equality if you believe in it, violate your freedom of speech? Realize that a boycott is nothing more than that, and I think we'll be on the same page.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#75 h4nnib4l  Icon User is offline

  • The Noid
  • member icon

Reputation: 1175
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,661
  • Joined: 24-August 11

Re: Ender's Game

Posted 15 May 2013 - 06:21 AM

View Postmodi123_1, on 14 May 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Ha.. "YA paranormal romance' is totes the bestest thing evea!

Funny as hell - "Is your YA paranomral romance cliche' enough"


In other news, I'm starting a book. I'm thinking a vegan vampire with a penchant for 16th centruy poetry...
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7