Illuminati Kritik

Michael J.J. Tiffany michael
Sat Feb 6 04:05:54 CST 1999


I'm sure that interest in the Illuminati Kritik is high enough to
warrant the cites being posted to the list, not just emailed to
individuals.  I, too, would like these cites, and I'm sure there are
many like me.


Thanks in advance,

J.J.

>From  Sat Feb  6 08:12:50 1999
Message-Id: <SAT.6.FEB.1999.081250.MST.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 33617 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:19:03
 -0500
Received: from nw171.netaddress.usa.net (nw171.netaddress.usa.net
 [204.68.24.71]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id
 KAA17862 for <edebate at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:19:02 -0500
 (EST)
Received: (qmail 19883 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Feb 1999 15:12:51 -0000
Received: from 209.32.178.92 by www.netaddress.com via web-mailer(3.1) on Sat
 Feb  6 15:12:50 GMT 1999
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19990206151251.19882.qmail at nw171.netaddress.usa.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:12:50 MST
Reply-To: debatecoach at USA.NET
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Steve Clemmons <debatecoach at USA.NET>
Subject: Re Answer to Jeff Parcher and Dave getting IT ( Whatever IT is)

Jeff Parcher wrote:

> The motivation to strike minority judges who would otherwise be labled B's
> is created by David not the person doing the striking.  I don't believe the
> act is apriori sexist or racist.  But to the extent it has such an effect
> the cause is the affirmative action - the market lables these people B's.
> You are the one who creates an incentive to strike.
> Wishing for Utopia does not make it so.
>
> The notion that the benefit of the affirmative action vastly outweighs the
> negative educational effect of losing preferred judges assumes a level of
> solvency that has yet to be proven.
>
Jeff, this is where I think your rhetoric gets you in trouble.  the first
question that you need to ask yourself is, " How are preferred judges decided
upon?"  They are people in the activity that have played the game the longest.
 While this isnt the only criteria, it is the one that gets to the heart of
the matter, one of opportunity.  The minority judge will never become
preferred if they don't get the opportunities to judge the rounds that you and
the rest of the activity have deemed important.  The last check that I made
about debate, it is still a white male club, with token representation by
blacks, females and asians, but hispanics are an even smaller representation
in the room.  It is as if there is a party and we all are invitied to the
party, but only to serve drinks and take coats, roles that are not important
to the overall success of the party.
 Another question that I would pose to Jeff is what constitutes solvency for
you?  It would seem impossible to say something has solved when we haven't
tried it yet.  Remember who "preference" is built.  Someone from one of the
bigeer schools has to know you, partied with you, or respects you for
something that you did.  When going through the strike sheet, inevitably, the
question will come, "who is s/he?"  That is almost always answered with, " I
debated them, saw them in elims or that they are a judge from Wake or
somewhere else big, they can't be bad."  If we do not have representation in
the activity, then how are we supposed to have representation in the judging
pool?  A seperate side question Jeff, "How many women and minorities do you
recruit to Georgetown?  I am dying to know, because I dying to know.  I have
really not seen any, so this would be a time that I would love to be wrong.

> Your accusation that merit in debate is a marker for white male
> qualifications - is still the wholly unproven and unsupported assumption
> upon which your entire argument rests.


Would you accept the premice that the judging pool has less or more than 10
black faces?  I say less than ten, unless you count big guys like me and Ede
as two. Another question that I just thought of, how many of them are A judges
?( sorry Ede, but I think you and I can take them head up.  My knee is
rehabbing nicely)  How many women total would you say are in the judging pool?
50? and again, how many A's?

> As to enlightenment.  It's the typical MacKinnon type argument - "to hell
> with free speech and democracy because we know whats best - both for you and
> the victims I have decided are victims."  The logical conclusion to all such
> paternalism is despotism.

The lack of some paternalism is white sheet parties?  I don't know about you,
but I let my KKK/Skinhead dues lapse long ago.
What about the 70's in debate?  I can remember going to my HS and looking at
the nationals plaque in or debate room and remember looking at the fact that
they had boys and girls extemp. Should we have that in debate too?  If we did,
it would be a small group.
> To lable Phil's interuptions as sexist without any evidence of intent or
> effect is absolutely the worst kind of unethical public name calling.   You
> should be ashamed of such tactics.  If this were a debate round you'd get a
> loss and '0' points from me.

If this is the Phil that I know, I will be a stand up guy and say that I like
him as a person and I wouldn't say that it was overt sexism, but that there is
a lack of respect for her as a debater to make the "right" (whatever the hell
that means)arguments.  Somethings aren't worth sacrificing your humanity for,
and I guarantee that debate DEFINITELY is not one of them.  So, you lose a
round because the right argument isn't made.  SO WHAT?  Phil could do that if
Rachel was a man (although I don't know how she would feel about that) but the
issue is about respect and that is an issue about sexism as well.  As Bart
Simpson would say, cool your jets.  To impose your will like you are Solomon
proves nothing, except enlighten everyone that you are the Emporer with no
clothes, and to tell you that you are buck naked ( what a sight that would be)
would lead you to the gallows for a beheading.  If that point you are trying
to prove is that you make arbitrary decisions, point well taken.
> Deeply dismayed by the paternalism present in your posts,
>
> Jeff


Ditto,


Steve

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1




More information about the Mailman mailing list