[eDebate] [CEDA-L] The costs of a game, part 1: An unethical,
Sat Nov 17 06:06:20 CST 2007
Hey, you're pretty smart yourself. And correct. I'll engage this paradox more directly in a minute. But let's phiolosophize together: if institutional structures produces different outcomes on different groups even though it treats everybody the same, then should that institution treat everyone the same? And if your answer is yes, then how do we address those differences in outcome? And if your answer is, no, the new question is can that institution treat folks differently in a competitive game that calls for "equity and fairness"?
I feel less like Plato and more like the Riddler (from the TV series or the movie).
From: <helwich at macalester.edu>
To:"scottelliott at grandecom.net" <scottelliott at grandecom.net>, "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>, "ceda-l at ndtceda.com" <ceda-l at ndtceda.com>, Ede Warner <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>, matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com>
Date: 11/17/2007 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] The costs of a game, part 1: An unethical,
If Louisville's arguments are about method, and the negative is structurally required (or incentivized) to dispute the affirmative, how could any debate with Louisville _not_ be about method?
Other than that, this reminds me of Gorgias. Perhaps Ede is Plato/Socrates in disguise (although certainly smarter and of finer metal).
In jest (sorta),
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman