[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

re:tuna's 957 comments

>>>>>>
dklein@dailynews.net David Klein writes:

"my claim was fairly explicit.  ADVOCATES OF VALUE RESOLUTIONS UNDER THE
 CLOAK OF "DIVERSITY AND CREATIVITY" ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.  the goal
 is to construct a certain method of debate and diversity and creativity is
 not the goal.  defend the benefits of debating a value resolution, as pat
 has done.  don't play some big tent game."

Your ability to read their minds and motives is astounding. I guess I don't
agree with doing that. Sorry, when I do the "big tent" it is either not a
game, or in a completely different context, is an expressive dance for a
circus.
>>>>>>

this answer still makes little sense to me.   do advocates of placing a 
value resolution do so for the nice words or is the motivation for that 
topic construct to be debated?  it seems absurd that those advancing value 
resolution do not actually want to see that type of topic wording win.  and 
it is only within a vacuum of this ballot that the choices could be 
considered diverse;  the vast majority of recent ceda topics have been 
non-policy.  finally, what is the terminal value of diversity?  i'll defend 
a policy only perspective.

>>>>>>
"there is also a big difference between presenting a topic paper and pulling
 some words out of one's ass.  what are the reasons for including a value
 resolution just for the sake of having one on the topic?  smacks of
 retardation to me."

I guess this qualifies as an ad hominem argument. In case you are curious as
to why this concerns me, I will simply note that any list of argumentative
fallacies features this rather prominently. I note it not because I am thin
skinned (I have feelings, but I can take the heat) but because I am a student
of argument. Just hang on, though, we have another test of the ad hominem
principle coming up.
>>>>>>

i have on multiple occasions defended the perspective that a topic paper and 
defense of topic wording choices is preferable to a lack thereof.  that even 
though a good deal of literature might exist on a general topic, if the 
wording chosen in the resolution is divergent from the literature base bad 
topics result.  last year's mexcio was a good case in point for a POLICY 
topic.  although the ad hom as a form of argument may be less compelling, 
the ad hom in this instance was not the full extent of the claim.

>>>>>>
dklein@dailynews.net David Klein writes:

"  perhaps you could look back at tuna's post  regarding me this morning, as
the ad homs were mutually provided.  for  example tuna wrote:

>Your questions illustrate a profound lack of information about these issues,

>but I am sure you need a topic paper to help you. We will be providing an 
>analysis of these topics later. Sorry I didn't type up a topic paper last 
>night."

If that is an ad hom, I give up. You say you don't know what deep ecology is,
and I say you "need a topic paper to help you." That just isn't in the same
league as "retardation." What I said was factually accurate. Now, if you
think I really am mentally retarded, it isn't name calling, but a factually
correct statement. 
>>>>>>

no, i did not say i lacked an understanding of the general deep eco 
discourse.  my initial question was one of whether the wording in the 
proposed topic had a basis in the literature.  the assumption of ignorance 
coupled with the language choice above constitutes the ad hom.

>>>>>>
By the way, gentle reader, David Klein and I have decided to be nice to each
other and elevate our discourse.
>>>>>>

within reason :)

>>>>>>
dklein@dailynews.net David Klein writes:

"fine, contribute to the marketplace of ideas.  write a topic paper
 supporting a value resolution.  defend the reasons for providing a value
 resolution.  this appeal to "significant number of people" want value topics
 does not justify the inclusion of a value topic for its own sake without the
 same standards as any other topic wording proposal."

A topic area paper and wording papers are designed to help the committee, NOT
TO REPLACE THE COMMITTEE. This might change if more people write papers, but
for now this is the way it is. I think this is a significant step, as it used
to be that we would show up at the meeting and start talking then.
>>>>>>

i agree that this topic committee has been extremely open and applaud their 
efforts to provide the best possible topic for the community.  we still 
disagree as to what constitutes that end result.  but perhaps in the future 
the topic process ought explicitly require topic papers defending wording 
choices.
david
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page