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

re: tuna's topic 961

tuna wrote:

>>>>>>
dklein@dailynews.net 

"its interesting using terms like bigotry to describe advocacy of a policy
 only perspective.  it makes easier the off-hand dismissal of the arguments
 because nobody wants to be a bigot.  the recent past of ceda would indicate
 the more pervasive exclusion came from the value resolution advocates; it
 was not that long ago that teams were dropped for running a plan in ceda."

Let's try this definition thing.
"bigot n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics
and is intolerant of those who differ." [AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY].

OK, your position is: strongly partial and intolerant of the position of
others (not even allow it on the ballot). I think it works.
>>>>>>

my position may indeed meet the wonderful dictionary defintion of "bigot," 
but my argument is that the term carries a much more severe pejoritive 
connotation than "strongly partial and intolerant."  the term "fuck" can 
also be defined as "a sexual union," but the context of "fuck you" implies a 
very different commonly accepted meaning.

>>>>>>
"sounds vaguely similar to the "silent majority."  and that the community
 could "handle" a value topic is not a reason to debate one for the year or
 even to place one on the ballot."

They are not silent. They answered a survey and expressed themselves. 
>>>>>>

neat.  but the context of the quote was a response to claims of proof of an 
"overwhelming majority" supporting non-policy resolutions.

>>>>>>
"there are several reasons why there should be no non-policy resolutions on
 the ballot.  the first, and one which I have yet to see a rejoinder offered
 to, is that this is a unique year for merger and cross-over between ndt and
 ceda. the ndt community acted in good faith in altering their topic
 selection process with the apparent assurance that a policy topic would be
 debated."

There is no merger, but there may be cross over. I believe the committee was
mindful of this while at the same time indicating that we have to represent
the members of the organization. I want cross over. I worked very hard to get
the two necessary motions passed (early release, year long topic), I
sponsored them and then led the discussion at the meetings and on the
listserv, and while I think each was a good idea in the CEDA context alone, I
favor increasing options for ADA, CEDA, and NDT schools to debate each other.
However, my work, hope, and interest in this direction is insufficient for me
to tell 20%+ of CEDA schools their desires don't count because of my
particular political agenda. 
>>>>>>

how about superceded by the political agenda then?  

>>>>>>
"a second reason is that just as the claim has been made that  policy only
advocates should not get what they want simply because they want  it,
advocates of non-policy topics should likewise not get it just because  they
want it. "

In a democratic system you take different approaches which are offered and
submit them for consideration and voting. We have done that, and you would
not. I would stand strong by your side if there was an attempt to put all
non-policy topics on the ballot.
>>>>>>

geez, you're the defender of "democracy" while i represent "bigotry."  i 
think i like the communists better anyways.

>>>>>>
"finally, the non-policy topic wordings are at this point undefended with
 topic papers or literature.  I understand that these are "forthcoming," but
 that also seems a bit hollow."

Are you saying that people are lying about writing defenses for these topics?
Seems a bit hollow? That means you don't trust them. The vote goes out on
July 14th. Is 30 days enough time for you?
>>>>>>

my point is for the process of constructing topic wording, the defense 
papers are a tad late.  suppose the topic paper points to a fatal flaw in 
the resolutional wording, or perhaps literature would highlight a superior 
wording choice.  that constructive criticism for topic wording is forclosed 
when the ballot is written.

>>>>>>
And what am I doing here but defending these topics? Is this a discussion?
Just as John Meany carried his ideas through by way of writing to the
listserv, talking to people personally, and back channel, so I am fully
engaged in this process.
>>>>>>

i do not doubt that in any way.  nor do i question your sincerity in 
defending your vision.  my objection is that topic wording would have been 
enhanced by earlier provision of defense papers.

david
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page