Chez HQ is beginning its long ascent to normalcy. Yesterday I started arranging the books on the shelves and setting up the wireless and whatnot, and although there’s one or two odd jobs left for Juan, Kwan and the stoners (who also have plenty of even jobs left in other areas of the chez), I’m just about ready to reclaim the place. There’s not much furniture in it yet, however, so seating will be limited if I decide to throw a chez meeting for any reason. I don’t have any on the immediate horizon, however. Soon, though.
And here’s a shock. Nov-Dec is, yet again, a topic we hadn’t picked. I haven’t given it much thought, but off the top, to argue cold philosophical constructs as if they are meaningful to hot situational explosions can’t possibly be any picnic, and should lead debaters initially into some really bizarre case areas. But sticking to the resolution, we’re simply talking self defense. So it’s not about beaters and beatees, but about courts, what should or shouldn’t be legal (or, if you’re really fey, it’s about what should or shouldn’t be moral). Then again, since it’s not about US (thanks a lot, guys--again), no doubt people will—the first week--discuss things like genital mutilation and honor killings (although the word repeated is in the rez, and you can just honor kill someone the once). But in the world of people with brains, courts it pretty much has to be, so in other words, is “deadly force” against repeated abuse a form of acceptable self-defense? Well, let me think about that for 38 years and get back to you? Hello, as they say in the Valley. There’s simply no debate here. Either you accept a principle of killing always being wrong (an extreme and virtually untenable position), or you allow for situations where killing is not wrong, and this one would have to be right at the top of the not wrong list. In other words, you’ll either have to argue something non-rez like honor killings or argue the virtually inarguable resolution. To argue that this should or shouldn’t be on the not wrong list can only lead to sophistry, silliness, and dare I say it, good CT arguments wasted. Or maybe there will be people (probably of the novitiate persuasion) who will spend a lot of time counting pin angels and talking about the nature of the abuse in the first place, or mis-defining deadly force. Aaarrgghhh!!! Send me a postcard from the front. I’ll be in the back. O’C is making me judge at Big Jake. Thank God he’s Sept-Oct!
Pffft anyone?
Monti is this weekend. Big Jake is next weekend. Then newbies and Catholics and bears, oh my. And through it all, the continuing roil of the Red Light District. Reactions, such as they are, are less mixed than I would have thought. I went to the race track on Saturday (really), and picked 6 out of 8 winners (and 4 place horses to boot); I actually do know how to classically handicap a Thoroughbred race (and am old-fashioned enough to capitalize the word). To handicap the Red Light situation, at the moment I’d say it’s even money on disbanding/not disbanding. Whoda thunkit. Since Ripon probably thinks that putting the fear of God into us would somehow get us pounding the pavement to get new members, and I cannot honestly see what benefits NY members get if they can’t go to NatNats because of the time of year it is always held, and there’s not much else worth wresting $100 per school in times of cutbacks, Ripon’s intentions have backfired completely. Or maybe they really do want to get schools out of the NFL, or dramatically change NatNats. It doesn’t matter much, because the only real result will be a slight diminution of the number of teams, and not much else. Way to go, guys! It's nice to know that, in this era of inclusion, we've been included out.
No comments:
Post a Comment