Daniel Peterson wrote:The winning door, incidentally, was Door #2.
Absolutely, unambiguously, beyond question Door #2.
Here's Door #2:
2) Argue that the rhetorical set-up, "How long before married people answer the dictators thus," means that OSC wasn't necessarily endorsing destroying the government
The funny thing is that for being so unambiguous and beyond question, I've yet to see a single source who has commented on this story interpret Card's comments in any other way than as as advocating overthrow of the government if these gay-rights issues do not go his way. And this story has been getting a fair amount of coverage because of how "out there" it seems to some people. I've seen it come up maybe a dozen times now. That's how the humor piece that opened up this thread saw it.
The most recent example was a blogger I regularly read who reminded me of this thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008 ... s.php#more
It was in reference to Andrew Sullivan picking it up here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... rd--7.html
Granted, I see DCP's attempt to read Card here in this way to absolve him as ridiculous and obviously contradicted by the context, but what I'm wondering is what he thinks about so many people out there reading him in a way that contradicts an interpretation he regards as unambiguous and beyond question. It causes him to express disappointment in the reading level of those who disagree here. In fact, I haven't seen anyone anywhere adopt his reading, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere does. What does DCP think of all this?