Subject:
|
Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Aug 2001 20:40:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
216 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> You'd have to actually read the book(1) to see why the premise of child
> warriors, in context, isn't nutty at all. The author does a pretty good job
> of setting the stage for why there is a clearcut need to use small children
> (who have been genetically modified, as it turns out) to combat a menace
> that apparently is bent on exterminating the entire human race across all
> the planets we have so far colonized and apparently has zero interest in
> even communicating, much less negotiating about it.
Sounds kind of freaky. I've never been much of a novel reader so I'll
probably never get to it. But I imagine the author's choice to use little
tykes as protagonists serves his commentary on modern societal values (or
lack of)?
> As said by others in the thread, it's a gripping read and will very likely
> make you think about a number of deep and important things, as well as being
> entertaining in its own right to many readers. YMMV of course.
"South Park" is that way, I think. A good mixture of social commentary and
fart jokes.
> One of the big questions that Card poses and then doesn't answer to my
> satisfaction in the book or any of the 3 sequels and 2 parallel (different
> viewpoint) books is this:
>
> Is it OK to do what the authorities did to these kids in order to save the race?
Is he going after the notion of "Desperate times call for desparate
measures?" That can be an altruistic notion in and of itself, I think. But
when it gets confounded with politics, rather than the basic biological need
to survive, then the notion becomes suspect.
> I don't know the answer either. It *IS* a situation where rights based
> calculus does seem to break down. These kids have rights, but are too young
> to be asked to volunteer because they can't understand what they are
> volunteering for, and it's not clear that parents have the right to
> volunteer them either.
Well, there are similar situations in the world today. I know we've got into
this before, but the situation with the Palistinians comes to mind. Is it
right for Palistinians to teach their kids to resist and rise up against the
Israeli occupation? Is it right for the Israelis teach their kids that
Israel/Palistine is the exclusive home of the Jews (European and otherwise)?
If the issue is brainwashing, who is the bigger brainwasher? Well, you know
what I think...
What if California were invaded by China (the Chinese claim right to the
land because their ancestors worked on the railroads and mines)? Of course
America would resist and there'd be bloody war. If it dragged on, would it
be right to teach our kids that California belongs to America and we should
fight to get it back? Should we surrender and let China have California?
Where do all the Californians go? Do Californian children "become Chinese"
and start singing the Chinese national anthem? How far does it or should it
go as far as using children for political or societal causes?
I'm for leaving children completely OUT of politics (and religion),
especially avoiding nationalism and ethnocentrism, until they can reason and
decide entirely for themselves what they what to be and do. It is very easy
to mislead and manipulate children for corrupt purposes.
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
