Re: [OPE-L] compromise

From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Wed Nov 29 2006 - 10:21:58 EST

At 6:32 -0800 29-11-2006, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>>I want to stres that I am very happy of this 
>>compromise. I value very much Rakesh's 
>>contributions, as well as Jerry's and his role 
>>as coordinator.
>>Point 2) seem to me the ABC of the ethics of 
>>conversation, but weel, ok, let's repeat it ..
>To me that point is more like a a fabulated 
>letter imposed on the real alphabet .
>To me there are other keys to the ethics of 
>conversation--honest use of evidence, avoidance 
>of straw men, open acceptance of the persuasive 
>arguments and existence of interlocutors, 
>concern that your positions will not needlessly 
>injure in an ad hominem manner the deliberative 
>capacities of the more vulnerable, recognition 
>of the effects of the social and (in this case) 
>academic field on the differential power of the 
>conversants, an attempt to think through the 
>very complicated relationship between emotion 
>and logic, the provision of actual publically 
>comprehensible reasons for one's judgements.

There is no contradiction in accepting your other 
keys (though you forgot to add that in human 
conversation does not exist any third party, 
outside point of view, to judge : hence, in the 
lists, the need for rules and moderators, which 
may be fallible but better than nothing), and 
holding to my view.

I repeat that I am happy you're back, and will 
leave the "procedural" discussion here.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST