[eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair
Morris, Eric R
Fri Jul 11 09:59:21 CDT 2008
This is a curious argument to me. It would seem to be exceptionally
conservative, in that it would limit debate to thoroughly mainstream
Think about the Republican opposition to public financing of elections -
the argument is that I should not have to pay for a campaign on the
other side to publicize ideas that I oppose. But now, instead of those
ideas being fairly mundane differences of the best path to achieve a
mutual goal, the ideas are revolutionary. In a country where large
numbers reject any affirmative action with teeth (while quoting Martin
Luther King to justify color blindness), would there really be majority
support for training which used a racially conscious aesthetic as a
primary educational tool?
I think public support levels would be higher for training 30 kids to
know both sides of an important public policy issue (Ag subsidies, I
would not single out chickpeas) than for revolutionary activist
This doesn't mean I'm saying such training should not occur, etc. - more
that the framework invoked in this post seems surprisingly conservative
in its implications, given who is advancing it.
From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
[mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Andy Ellis
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:38 AM
Subject: [eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair
Here is a framework question for choosing what you debate about. Is what
you debate about worth the investment that society puts into it. Like if
the state of kansas spent 500,000 training 30 people to know both sides
of the chickpea debate without expecting any application of that
knowledge to actual chickpea policy, would this be a expenditure of
funds you thought prudent?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman