[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
a) "'We are quick to espouse individual rights and freedoms; and
unfortunately, just as quick to forget the responsibilities that go
with their expression' Justice Harold Brown."
truly stirring words.
who is/was "Justice Harold Brown"? i am familiar with Justice Harold H
Burton and with Justice Henry Billings Brown, author of the disastrously
stupid majority opinion in Plessy v Ferguson. but ain't never heard of
no Justice Harold Brown. judging by his words above, he must be a real
b) "Why is it that the very fact that we can do something or that it
occurs is often used as the justification for the doing or preservation
of the ability to do?"
Wellllll, what are you talking about?
swearing is proscribed communication: social norms disallow it. that
gives it power: "doing it" is powerful speech in virtue of the violation
of the social order.
there are lots of other reasons to swear, including but not limited to:
expression of strong emotion, group identification, humor, expressing
truth, and adding ornament to speech.
the "justification of the preservation of the ability to do so" is a
belief that freedoms of expression lie at the core of freedoms of
thought, religious liberties, democracy, the ability to discern and
understand the truth, our capability to create and discover beauty and
value, and our capacity to make of ourselves what we will without
interference from others.
your right to say what you will and how you will without first obtaining
permission from me, without a prior requirement to JUSTIFY your
utterance, may be important to you as well.
c) "In a debate round -- as the critic -- you are "looking" for my
ballot. The Constitution protects your Freedom of Speech within the
round; and as such, you are free to curse all you want. However, I am
also free to object to your speech. While I would not probably take the
ballot away from a winning side, I would probably demonstrate my
disapproval of your exercise in free speech in the speaker points box.
That is my right. So, please, feel free to say whatever you feel "man"
enough to accept the responsibilities and consequences for."
well, let's see. why is it that the very fact that we can do something
is used as a justification for doing it? it may be your "right" in some
degraded and meaningless form of the term, to dock debaters' speaker
points because they do not kowtow to your particular list of
pre-approved words, prejudices, social requirements, and unknown
idiosyncracies, but why does that justify your action?
and i do coach my debaters to be person enough to deal with the
consequences of fools as judges.
d) "Finally, as a communication theorist, I have never understood why
"good"and/or "effective" communication cannot be inoffensive speech?
Just because it is a means of communication, why must we teach it in
order to "maximize" our communication arsenal."
arsenal is your word, not mine: i don't think that either debate or
communication is or ought to be violence. argument is the antidote and
the alternative to force.
it is no accident that "dirty words" are "powerful speech" and that
users of taboo words are perceived as "dynamic" and "strong" speakers.
the previous post explains why: by breaking the social proscription,
speakers display that they are not bound by silly norms, that they have
sufficient courage and confidence to ignore social convention. the
powerless submit to the social organization of communication and do not
challenge social norms. that is why many believe that women are not to
swear, why some are particularly offended by women swearing, and why you
feel justified in "punishing" those upstart young savages for using
language in a manner which challenges the social order as you wish it.
finally, feel free to teach anything you wish. i think that those i
teach ought to learn integrity, honesty, compassion, and gentleness.
but they also better get from me the best training i can give them in
critical thinking and persuasive communication.
e) "Are we now in the profession of teaching our students how best to
hurt someone else?"
you forgot some important "bridging" concepts.
the research indicates that swearing is more likely CATHARTIC of actual
violence rather than inciteful of it.
the "hurt" of being offended is a particularly whiny and pathetic sort
of pain - get over it.
"conflict" is inherent in argument and in the real world there are
sometimes severe consequences for oneself and others if arguments or
persuasion are "unsuccessful".
you are not in the profession of miseducating my students about what
effective communication is.
f) "The research seems to indicate that men use offensive speech as a
means of asserting power and dominance over subdominant cultures. Women
have a tendency to refrain from the use of offensive speech."
read the last de Klerk card again. women are not taking it anymore:
they are availing themselves of powerful communication. please don't
insist that they remain good little girls who follow your rules of what
they can say and how.
the previous post explains why women have a "tendency to refrain". the
organization of communication tells them that they are not up to
challenging the extant structure of social relations: they are to be
the "fairer" sex and take it quietly.
and to which research do you refer?
g) "The research also indicates that women are much more successful at
relational communication than we males. Perhaps -- and this is merely a
suggestion-- we might learn something from the "fairer sex"?"
yes, men need to learn from women about very many things, including how
to communicate well in relationships. men who cannot or will not are
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page