[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
taking on the "bear"...critiques are still bad things man..bad things.
"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.
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.
Ball State University
p.s. Bear, maybe we could do lunch at UMSL?
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page