Posted on 11/09/2001 8:04:52 AM PST by jrherreid
Where did I say that? Or did you just assume, like you assume things about the books you are discussing?
Therefore, on a deep level you do not comprehend the mistrust parents have for books about witchcraft aimed at their impressionable eight-year-olds, or the contempt parents hold for those who would corrupt their kids under the guise of "literacy."
I see a lot of parents on this thread who do not hold these paranoid objections that you do. I thought because they had children they were experts on Child Behavior and Development?
Read whatever you want. Just don't tell me you understand anything about the mind of a four-year-old, except what you remember from your own childhood, what you've seen on TV, or what you've read in the Child Psychology 101 syllabus.
Hmmm... If I recall my under-grad work in psychology, Intro to Psych was 101, Child Psych was 211, Behavioral Development was 345, and Patterns of Learning and Memory was 440. Of course, if I don't have children, education about development is nonsense; almost like magic, huh?
Because that's not proof enough for most parents that you know what you're talking about, especially those parents who've read Rowling for themselves and find H.P. vapid, derivative and dangerous.
Declaring Rowlings "vapid" and "derivative" shows that either you have not read her writings or you have no ability to recognize good writing. Good Doctor, please quit trying to change the debate when you are losing. I answered your challenges in full and instead of a rebuttal, I recieve a reply full of indignation that I can't understand children. Bad form.
Why am I not surprised?
I've read all H.P. books, and you have no idea of my literary qualifications. Unfortunately, you've shown yourself to be what so many parents fear -- an 'expert' on other people's children.
After you've raised a few kids, we'll talk some more.
That is your position that I rebutted. Now defend it. You call yourself a parent, but you argue like a child. You won't defend your position, you merely assume that I don't have children and therefore can't understand children. Obviously, good doctor, any doctorate you hold cannot be in a scientific field. Your debating skills are laughable. I don't want to hear again how I am unqualified to understand children, you don't know my qualifications, I want to hear your defense of the above assertions in light of the rebuttal I have given. Anything less is diversion and distraction. Now, do you have the intellectual ability to do so, or are you going to continue to disqualify me based upon assumption?
Aquanisfan, we agree about a lot, a whole lot, but we disagree about this issue. I respect your position and respect your ability to rationally discuss it. This is the type of "defense" of your position though that I have repeatedly stood up against. Please understand why so many get frustrated about this issue from my side. It is the lack of any ability to do anything but say "I'm right, you're wrong, and you are unqualified to speak about it."
OWK, we disagree on a lot, a whole lot, we even disagree a bit on this issue. I implore you however, to take note that Aquanisfan does indeed defend his position and stick to the topics raised during rebuttal. He does not run on a tangent nor try to disqualify anybody from discourse. With the movies coming out in the next few days, I see a pick up in these threads. Let us all agree that we will conduct ourselves in good faith towards defending what we believe and in furthering thought upon this issue.
You're not one of those types, and I don't consider myself one of those types, but you have to admit that the pro-Harry side certainly does its share of religion (i.e. Christain) baiting. You can form your own judgement regarding which side is worse.
Soon, however, the focus of the Hollywood propaganda machine will focus on LoTR and away from Harry Potter, and we can all relax a bit.
I'll just let this one hang out there in the breeze a bit.
Cheers Tony
I think that would eliminate about 90% of the posts! Anyway, sometimes the flames are good for a laugh.
This one's been around for about a week, and was beginning to die out...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.