Forums | MacLife

I think I do understand.

You don't like that she passes judgement on others with no moral authority to do so.

Yet what moral authority do you have to pass this judgement on her? What authority gives you the right to say her authority is invalid.

You're standing on the same ground that you claim she is. Now I'm not trying to sound like a moral relativist. I'm not saying that no one can make judgements about others. I'm just saying that you need to be making logical judgements based on evidence. Maybe you could say that you think that she gives bad advice. That is something that is arguable. You could give examples of calls and suggestions made by her that you think were wrong and give evidence supporting your claim. You could make a logical argument. But to just say that you don't like her because she thinks she's superior, then in the same breath say that you are superior to her, is to be a hypocrite.

I do agree with one thing, she sometimes berates others. However, if you are stupd enough to call her then I think you deserve it. But it's not always berating. I don't think she "affects a moral authority that she does not posses". I think she does posses some authority in what she is saying. She does have schooling in the subject. She does have years of experience in dealing with people and their issues. She may have had isues in the past but has since rectified them. It is not a basesless moral authority that she is standing on, but one that has been earned by education and experience.

I end this with the same question I asked you above:
What authority (studies and experience) do you have that renders hers invalid. (Just comparing resumes here).

Last edited by pastor macman (2006-07-16 10:56 pm)

Wikipedia biography.

I know, wikipedia, eew. But if even half that information is accurate, her morals are at least as confused as those of her callers. People who frequently change their mind about things probably should avoid absolutist declarations of moral certainty. I certainly don't want to take advice from somebody who might decide that they're wrong at any moment, and then berate me for following their previous advice.

Seriously, if I want advice from an old-fashion family-oriented woman who has lived a pure, honest, upright life, I'll talk to my grandma, not some homewrecker. She's got her Master's degree, has been Lutheran for 74 years, married for 51 years, raised four kids, and never had an affair or been estranged from family. (Well, except for my uncle, but that was temporary and beyond both of their controls - and he divorced the bitch.) Whatever resides in the core of her soul, it's been a damned sight more reliable than whatever Dr. Laura is afflicted with.

I'll give her the nude photos thing. Those were taken in the 1970's, for a boyfriend, and were presumably supposed to be private. If he was enough of a smurfhead to post 'em on the internet, well, I'll not hold that against her.

I would say the chief difference between Dr. Laura and the posters here is she presumes to put herself forward as an expert, example and authority.
Everyone has an opinion and a right to express it. It take a whole higher level of hubris to go on national radio to promote your views and agendas.
It is also my opinion that it is perfectly fair to hold people who choose to play the role as authority to a higher standard than a private citizen simply voicing an opinion.

gulmatan wrote:

Why is Dr. Laura such a "witch with a capital 'b'"?  As far as I can tell, she's a frustrated mother who literally beat her kids into submission and somehow got a radio station to let her have a soapbox.

And now the Santa Barbara News Press has offered her space for a column in that paper.   Fortunately, the folks that make decisions about renting out space on Sterns Wharf, the local pier, chose to decline her application.