Skip to main content

Chapter 3

It's hard to be in an argument when someone's only response is "because". It's hard to go anywhere from that answer and in my opinion is an unfair reason and response. Of course, the reason "because" easily doesn't check off the list of what a good response is but it's an easy response for anyone adult or child to say. They don't have any claim or reason drawn from logic. There's no good story behind the reason. There's no science to it, or feminist theory. And finally there's no Alternative Dispute Resolution.

In fact, it's kind of a buffer, it allows the person to think of whether or not they should say the real reason or that maybe the person won't take the argument any farther with the annoying reason of because. The person doesn't have to make sense of this response, there's no power of authority, moral obligation, listener benefit, or social pressure in this context.

In the end there's no way to test this reason. It's not it's pretty much one voice, not very consistent, there's no starting point, and it's not a complete reason. The reason "because" is just one of those reason's that isn't really a reason but we all use it as one. It's become part of our culture and who we are. It's a reason that we are just going to have to figure out to fight back in a argument or just try not to use it anymore because it's annoying and not fair. It definitely isn't a good reason.

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 25, 2018 at 11:44 AM

    Overall, I really enjoyed reading your blog post and found it very easy to relate to. Often times I will be in an argument, whether it be with my brother, parents, or friends, and someone will respond to me saying “because.” So, when I am responded to like this it irritates me because a solution is not reached and often times the argument is unable to progress. I agree with your statement that “because” is more of a buffer in a conversation because it restricts the speaker from sharing their actual emotions in the argument and does not take the argument any farther. Also, I agree with you that “because” is not a good response because there is no logic or reason to the statement.

    In addition to all of this, I found your blog post to be an interesting way to create a connection to what we read in chapter 3. Chapter 3 discusses what makes a sensible argument and how good reasoning can help to strengthen an argument. So, I found your blog post to be interesting as it shows what does not make a sensible argument and how “because” does not serve as good reasoning in an argument.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A...
1 comment
Read more

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more