Mr. Schild,
I must admit, you've made some good points. In explanation, the Daily News letters of the past few days, especially yesterday, really upset me. I posted the article yesterday in a well-intentioned, though not well thought-out, effort to lighten the mood. The point was to find humor in what those particular individuals featured in the article had written. It was by no means meant to imply that everyone who doesn't accept homosexuality is ignorant, though I can see why you might think so. For that, I sincerely apologize.
I see now how some people could interpret what I posted yesterday as a very arrogant attempt to over-generalize and characterize all those who don't accept homosexuality as illiterate. That was not my intention at all. It honestly didn't even occur to me that my post and that article could be taken that way. I was thinking only of my own anger, pain and frustration over the recent letters; I did not think at all about how those on the other side of the discussion would perceive the article. If someone posted an article ridiculing gays and lesbians in such a manner as what I posted yesterday, I would be upset, too.
Just as the over-generalization of gays and lesbians as all predatory, sick, and immoral individuals is wrong, so is the over-generalization that all those against gay rights are uneducated. For example, I know that there are many, many good people who just don't understand or accept homosexuality. That is fine. I strongly believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions and should not be pressured to change their own private beliefs by anyone. I know that there are many, many well-educated individuals who do not support gay rights, are not accepting of homosexual people. They are not necessarily ignorant, they just perhaps hold steadfast to an interpretation of scripture that I do not. Again, I'm accepting of that. I think all on each side of this argument must try to understand where the other is coming from and not to personalize the discussion. Myself included.
I agree that we should try to work toward understanding; that's the intention of this forum. But, on that note, you must also try to understand us, try to understand the reasons for the emotions that led to my poor judgement in posting that article. Can you try to understand why I was upset?
Sincerely,
Lori Baumgardt
At 12:20 PM 4/6/01, Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy wrote:
[Winona Online Democracy]
If I correctly understand Lori Baumgardt�s April 5 posting and the article
reprinted therein, the point is this: People who don�t accept homosexuality
must be ignorant. You can tell, because they don�t spell or write well.
So, to apply the same logic (and I use the term �logic� very loosely here),
are people who accept homosexuality ignorant, too, if they don�t spell or
write well? If you wonder why I ask, check Dwayne Voegeli�s April 5 posting.
Then ask yourself if Mr. Voegeli, a schoolteacher who wrote in to agree with
Ms. Baumgardt, is ignorant because he doesn�t correctly spell �difference� or
the preposition �to.� I trust that Ms. Baumgardt, Mr. Voegeli, and the authors
of the article reprinted in Ms. Baumgardt�s posting are less likely to equate
their own errors with ignorance than they are to do so with errors made by
those with whom they disagree.
A related point: Not long ago someone was thrown off this list for calling
someone else a �twit.� The article reprinted in Ms. Baumgardt�s posting is
nothing more than name-calling by another name. If Online Democracy�s goal is
to encourage and nurture debate, to get people to speak to and listen to one
another, to try to understand rather than to try to win, then participants on
the list should use better judgment--and more kindness--than is shown in the
article in Ms. Baumgart�s posting.
Steve Schild
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:20 PM 4/6/01, Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy wrote:
[Winona Online Democracy]
If I correctly understand Lori Baumgardt�s April 5 posting and the article
reprinted therein, the point is this: People who don�t accept homosexuality
must be ignorant. You can tell, because they don�t spell or write well.
So, to apply the same logic (and I use the term �logic� very loosely here),
are people who accept homosexuality ignorant, too, if they don�t spell or
write well? If you wonder why I ask, check Dwayne Voegeli�s April 5 posting.
Then ask yourself if Mr. Voegeli, a schoolteacher who wrote in to agree with
Ms. Baumgardt, is ignorant because he doesn�t correctly spell �difference� or
the preposition �to.� I trust that Ms. Baumgardt, Mr. Voegeli, and the authors
of the article reprinted in Ms. Baumgardt�s posting are less likely to equate
their own errors with ignorance than they are to do so with errors made by
those with whom they disagree.
A related point: Not long ago someone was thrown off this list for calling
someone else a �twit.� The article reprinted in Ms. Baumgardt�s posting is
nothing more than name-calling by another name. If Online Democracy�s goal is
to encourage and nurture debate, to get people to speak to and listen to one
another, to try to understand rather than to try to win, then participants on
the list should use better judgment--and more kindness--than is shown in the
article in Ms. Baumgart�s posting.
Steve Schild
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
