A Justice Site
MIRROR SITES: CSUDH - Habermas - UWP
ISSUES AND CONCEPTS: Susan's Archive at UWP
Academic Resources - Daily Site Additions
Lectures - Notes - Texts - Self Tests - Discussions
Visual Sociology - Graduate Exam Study
POST TO: Tutoring - Learning Records - Transform-dom
SEARCH: Topics Index - Site Index - Issue Archives
Google Web Search - Google Site Search
California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: March 9, 2006
Latest Update: March 9, 2006
Discussion Thread from transform_dom", Our Open Discussion Group on Yahoo.
Greg wrote in Message No.11072:
Oh, forget it. I cite my sources, then you tell me they aren't good enough. Bill O'Reily is not a Republican, he is a centrist. Read his beliefs. He is pro-choice, he is pro-drug.
jeanne's first response:
I had no idea who Greg was responding to. So someone else is questioning Greg's sources? The message that Greg is apparently answering is just below his answer; that's Susan. But there is a series of dots (. . .=ellipses) in front of Susan's message, which is following Greg's message with little carat signs in front (>). Ellipses usually indicate that something has been skipped over. See A Handbook of Selected Punctuation Marksin References below.
Susan had written in Message No.11035:
jeanne is correct. that's not the source citing that we are looking for on transform_dom.
jeanne has spent a tremendous amount of time and energy finding sources for you to read and review. have you gone to any of them?
But the answer Greg gave in Message No. 11072 was about "Bill O'Reily is not a Republican, he is a centrist. Read his beliefs. He is pro-choice, he is pro-drug." jeanne didn't even know who Bill O'Reily was."
The Up Thread in the horizontal menu line just above the messages list, you can see who Greg was responding to. You have to do this from the message itslef or the message list. You can't get the earlier message from your reply screen. But you could jot it down before you switch to the reply screen by linking on reply.
Greg was responding to Jason, not to Susan and jeanne. OR Greg was misinterpreting jeanne's protest against the use of his own individual morality and belief system as valid when extrapolated (or extended by reference) to others.
jeanne had written in Message No.11010:
Greg, your own morals and ethics are not adequate. You need also to study what is known through science and research, as well as what you base your theological concerns on. You don't get to define murder by yourself. And you're not the one who goes through childbirth and the illnesses to health that may come with it (including diabetes, whic becomes life threatening, for many women). That South Dakota law says no abortioin unless it's to save the woman's life. It's not your life at stake, but hers.
Please read the Evangelical Lutheran Call for Study and Dialog. No individual is an island unto himself. (John Donne) Even more so when you want to impose your rule on others. And especially if you want them condemned to eternal punishment if they disagree with yoou.
love and peace, jeanne
- Do we sometimes try on transform_dom to convince each other of what we consider a better position on a social issue?
Consider how passionately we feel about some of these issues. So, of course, we try to persuade one another. But that's instrumental discourse, discourse with the purpose of changing someone's mind. We're trying to learn the skills of illocutionary discourse. And we all have trouble with it. In illocutionary discourse we're trying to understand the other, not win an argument with the other.
Listen to how susan says it in Message No. 11079, posted after Greg's "Oh, forget it. I cite my sources, then you tell me they aren't good enough.":
by citing sources, we get away from the "informal" chatting and begin to discuss issues at a more technical or formal level; getting away from the affective domain. do you understand what i'm trying to explain here?
- Why do we have so much emotion attached to what we "know"?
Consider that we are curious creatures, and that we struggle to learn things that really intrigue us. After all that effort, cognitive dissonance theory would predict that we would be averse to having someone contradict us, or suggest that we have missed some unstated assumptions. That's one reason we try to move to a more technical level of citing sources so that some of the affect will be suppressed.
Affect-laden accusations and labelling make it even harder to calm the emotions, because they take us down to an informal level, where affect is highest. Hall's Levels of affect in learning theory.
Links that will lead us to more in-depth reading.
- A Handbook of Selected Punctuation Marks. By Sandra Penrose. March 6, 1997. Consulted on March 9, 2006.
I found this site when checking for a source to tell you what the three little periods in front of Susan's Message No. 11035 meant. You have to scroll down to "ellipses." Alphabetical order. Perhaps you should bookmark this as an interesting and helpful site. jeanne
- Hyper TextBooks This is the HomePage for the Punctuation handbook above. You can register freely for this site, and it would seem to be very helpful with writing. Check it out, jeanne
Brief explanation of what we're supposed to see, like an unstated assumption, in the link, and how it relates to the issue we're discussing.