Carol Platt Liebau: How Times Change . . .

Saturday, November 26, 2005

How Times Change . . .

Kathleen Parker takes note of the litigious, pregnant teacher (referenced here), beginning her piece with this pithy observation:

What a funny world. Where once it was scandalous to be unmarried and pregnant, now it is scandalous to disapprove of another's being unmarried and pregnant.

Indeed. How interesting that, today, it's deemed perfectly legitimate to judge another's clothes/politics/habits (drinking or smoking spring to mind). The only area where none of us are supposed to exercise any judgment at all is that of sexual morality. Even when it undermines the tenets of one's religion. Even if it leads to teen pregnancy, and all the social dysfunction that follows therefrom. Even if it leads to the spread of misery and disease.

Who could have guessed that sexual mores would change so drastically so quickly: From a time when one could hold moral views and express them (but "sex talk" was off the table) -- to a time when "sex talk" is constant and graphic (but moral values are, apparently, off the table).


Blogger Draino said...

Talk is cheap. Carol, you are a judgemental blowhard who could raise the moral standard instantly by cutting down on your constant cyber-bashing. 99% of your posts are negative attacks on others. How christian and moral is that? Take the telescope you have trained on everyone else's bedroom and turn it on yourself.

10:18 AM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

Let's please stop the personal attacks and name calling. It reflects worse on the caller than the callee.

If we believe in diversity (and free exercise of religion), why can't a private religious school have a own code of conduct for staff in keeping with the school's religious mission? And if it can have a code of conduct, why can't the school enforce it?

What strikes me as curious in this stroy is why, after having pinned the Scarlet Letter on this women, her religious community did not at least praise her for choosing not to abort the baby.

And where's the father in this story? I haven't read that he's ready to stand up and do the right thing by his lover and child.

11:13 AM  
Blogger Draino said...

You're asking me to stop personal attacks on THIS blog? That's a laugh. Do you even read anything that Carol Liebau posts? It's nothing BUT personal attacks.

Of course why should I expect anything less. By now we all know the conservative playbook by heart. Sling mud all day long and then cry foul when anyone calls you on your B.S.

1:19 PM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

If the blog contains nothing but personal attacks, then why read it (or comment on it)?

I suppose some people watched Monday Night Football just so they could rant at Howard Cosell. Personally, I turned the volume off on the TV and tuned into Jack Buck abnd Hank Stramm on CBS-Radio.

Let's assume one can be as bad. The question is whether one can do better.

5:25 PM  
Blogger Carol Platt Liebau said...

Uh, 'scuse me, RZafft. "As bad as" whom? :)

8:53 PM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

As bad as whomever Draino thinks is bad.

I am not agreeing -- and most certainly do not agree -- with Draino's assessment of the blogspot (or blogger) but am encouraging Draino to raise by personal example whatever standard Draino finds to be too low.

My critical comments on this blogspot have focussed on the arguments presented or a desire for fuller explanation of them (e.g., "Where's the beef" re Xmas trees).

Blogs remind me of the Monty Python skit about the man who is looking for the room in an office building where you can pay someone to argue with you, but accidentally enters the room where they provide verbal abuse. The worst blogs are verbal abuse, the middle ones are contradiction and the best ones are arguments, in the sense of intellectual discourse (and hopefully with a sense of humor).

Any argument with that?

9:38 AM  
Blogger Draino said...

Umm, you can visit my blog whenever you like. It's linked to my screen name.

11:15 AM  
Blogger Draino said...

By the way rzafft, to suggest that I not visit this blog because I disagree with it is narrow-minded. The fact that I visit it and ocassionally espouse my opinions is, conversely, open minded (whether or not you agree with my opinion). I learn much from coming here even though I disagree with most of it. This is known as discourse. It is a central feature of democracy and in theory makes Carol, myself and maybe even you better for it. This isn't about enjoying a football game - it is about doing my part as a citizen, which includes questioning and challenging the guy (or gal) on the soapbox.

Is that a good enough reason for you?

11:35 AM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

This string of posts began with a call for discourse (which can be illuminating) rather than ad hominim attacks (which are not).

There is a difference between insulting, and questioning/challenging. I believe we all agree to focus on the latter.

12:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home