... rantings, ravings and ramblings of strange fiction writer, THE.... Sodomite Hal Duncan!!
Saturday, March 07, 2009
The Blank Reassertion — A valid argumentation process may begin with a blank assertion and develop through a process of interrogation, evaluation and rearticulation, (during which further blank assertions may be introduced, leading to further interrogation, evaluation and rearticulation,) with the eventual aim being a rearticulation by one or both participants that resolves the disagreement to the satisfaction of both. That argumentation process may however be sabotaged by a blank reassertion. Most commonly this is to be found in arguments where participants have developed a blank assertion through various stages of rearticulation only for a new participant to enter the discussion and restate the initial contention, with no consideration of the discourse through which that contention has already been dealt with. Arguers may be sidetracked (or, more accurately, looped-back) into reiterating the entire argument instead of simply referring the new participant to the previous stages of the discussion. Less commonly, but equally frustrating, the blank reassertion may take place where a participant engaged in the discussion disregards valid and relevant arguments and simply restates their own contention. It is important to note that a reassertion based on a negation of invalid or irrelevant arguments is not blank and is entirely acceptable; such negation does however require explication. The status of reassertions born of a Sufficiency Threshold Differential is arguable — i.e. where an advocate advances additional evidence and (blankly?) reasserts their contention and/or their opponent considers this evidence still insufficient and (blankly?) reasserts their rejection of that contention.