taking on the "bear"...critiques are still bad things man..bad things.

[00jegosnell@bsuvc.bsu.edu]

Bear.
	"call a closed minded speaker a closed minded speaker," surely you are
not talking about me.  after all i'm not the one who is completely missing the
boat on the annalisis i gave in my original post:)  
	a quick question: what is the answer to my proposed disclaimer... i 
have yet to see anything outside "don't use evidence containing sexist 
language."  how does this answer any of  my annalisis that you then wouldn't 
be able to blame the speaker.  after all they are appoligising for the language
and thus have shown that they are not the sexist, their author is.  i guess if
you want to hunt the author down and shoot him like a dog in the street:) you're
probably intitled, but don't punish the speaker.  next, you can certainly 
cross-apply Kelly's market place of idea stuff here.(i know none of you have 
seen it yet, but it's comming i promise.)  i guess i'm supposed to think that 
this "disclaimer" i propose isn't a good idea because Bear says, "don't use 
the cards."  i may have only been debating for 4 years, but i don't see this 
as anything more than blank refutation.

	in terms of my second argument, i know that the phisical composition...
ie, how they are structured... is not the same(kritiks/resolutional "j" args),
i just fail to see how it matters.  i think the exhample i give on this is 
very good, remember that if "punishment is amoral, and my only answer is to 
say that it is, i am justifying the use of the word/action punishment.  it is
thus the arguments content not the structure that i am arguing.  besides i 
still think joey's arguments on games player stradegy from long ago is pretty
good: he said that when two teams enter a turny they are agreeing to discuss 
the resolution..ie punishment..be it moral or not.  my next argument is that
you can certainly apply kelly's rhetoric='s reality stuff here, and we would 
certainly see that none of this really matters.
	
	next Bear tells me that kel and i are holding up his discource with
others.  i think i will conceed this argument and turn it.  
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)8)8):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)8)8):):):):)
1)  a: remember that critiques are "goo", Bear conceeds this to me.
    b: goo is amoral
	from Gosnell in '94
		"the continued discusion of "gooey" argumentation is the single
		thing our society should strive to prevent, as it will lead us
		all into its merky amoral depths."
    c: i think we must reject Bears continued discource on goo, and everyone
	else's for that matter, after all; i don't want to end up in the "gooey"	amoral depths. do you?
    
2) i think my arguments are pretty good, and shouldn't be rejected only because
   Bear says they are "bad".  they simply are not answered, so if i can prevent
   him from moving forward until these issues are properly addressed, i will.
   i guess a majority of Bear's coments here stem from the fact that he does 
   not know kel nor me very well.  certainly we don't see him at many turny's 
   and i know he has never judged me personally.  if he had he might have known
   that i am usually first to jump on the band-wagon of any kind of inovative 
   new argument stradegy created.  i do usually stop and think about them 
   first.  it just seems that this time when kel and i did our initial brain 
   storm on kritik theory, we found more problems with the position than we did
   plus'.  i don't think you'll find anyone finding this many theoretical 
   problems with disad theory, and no one is arguing that c-p's are always 
   illegitimate, because the theory's used in these arguments are being applied
   properly.  i think both kel and i are doing an excellent job of showing how 
   the theory used when discussing critique's is mis applied.  i guess that is 
   where i have my problems with this position, and why i personally hate them.
   at least i won't ask for you to be punished because you mentioned them.

Eric Gosnell
Ball State University

p.s. Bear, maybe we could do lunch at UMSL?

---

• Prev by Date: rollin' down the critique highway.....
• Next by Date: rollin' down the kritik highway....
• Prev by thread: rollin' down the critique highway.....
• Next by thread: rollin' down the kritik highway....
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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