<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Prince Op-Ed Controversy: Where We Go From Here</title>
	<atom:link href="http://equalwrites.org/2010/02/24/the-prince-op-ed-controversy-where-we-go-from-here/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://equalwrites.org/2010/02/24/the-prince-op-ed-controversy-where-we-go-from-here/</link>
	<description>Feminism and Gender Issues at Princeton University</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:33:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brenda</title>
		<link>http://equalwrites.org/2010/02/24/the-prince-op-ed-controversy-where-we-go-from-here/#comment-1905</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brenda]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:29:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equalwrites.org/?p=2420#comment-1905</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I hope that the Neagu as well as the editors of the Prince will attend the discussion and engage in the conversation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope that the Neagu as well as the editors of the Prince will attend the discussion and engage in the conversation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Multitudinous, God-Omnipresent Coral Insects</title>
		<link>http://equalwrites.org/2010/02/24/the-prince-op-ed-controversy-where-we-go-from-here/#comment-1901</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Multitudinous, God-Omnipresent Coral Insects]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:28:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equalwrites.org/?p=2420#comment-1901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A discussion that addresses disputed issues in a reasonable way:
You: P
Me: not-P
You:  No, P for reasons Q, R, S,T
Me: No, not-P because Q is logically incoherent for reasons U and V, there is insufficient evidence for believing R, S is irrelevant, and T, if true, would prove too much.  Therefore, not-P.
You:  Your objections are mistaken because.... Therefore P.
(and so on)

Amelia et al.&#039;s idea of a conversation that addresses disputed questions in a reasonable way:
You: P
Me: not-P for reasons Q,R,S,T
You: (pause)  We as a community need to channel our feelings about our respective opinions into a productive discourse.  Let&#039;s have an open and honest conversation next Wednesday. 

Do you see what&#039;s wrong here? The conversation is already going on, here and now--you&#039;re in it.  But instead of continuing on in the discussion and responding to your opponent&#039;s challenges in a rational way, you call the debate off completely.  This is not a way of seriously addressing a problem.  It&#039;s an evasion.

Amelia or any of the rest of you: I have presented one side of the argument in my several comments. None of you have tried to defend the other.  I&#039;m willing to have an open and honest conversation.  Are you?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A discussion that addresses disputed issues in a reasonable way:<br />
You: P<br />
Me: not-P<br />
You:  No, P for reasons Q, R, S,T<br />
Me: No, not-P because Q is logically incoherent for reasons U and V, there is insufficient evidence for believing R, S is irrelevant, and T, if true, would prove too much.  Therefore, not-P.<br />
You:  Your objections are mistaken because&#8230;. Therefore P.<br />
(and so on)</p>
<p>Amelia et al.&#8217;s idea of a conversation that addresses disputed questions in a reasonable way:<br />
You: P<br />
Me: not-P for reasons Q,R,S,T<br />
You: (pause)  We as a community need to channel our feelings about our respective opinions into a productive discourse.  Let&#8217;s have an open and honest conversation next Wednesday. </p>
<p>Do you see what&#8217;s wrong here? The conversation is already going on, here and now&#8211;you&#8217;re in it.  But instead of continuing on in the discussion and responding to your opponent&#8217;s challenges in a rational way, you call the debate off completely.  This is not a way of seriously addressing a problem.  It&#8217;s an evasion.</p>
<p>Amelia or any of the rest of you: I have presented one side of the argument in my several comments. None of you have tried to defend the other.  I&#8217;m willing to have an open and honest conversation.  Are you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kl</title>
		<link>http://equalwrites.org/2010/02/24/the-prince-op-ed-controversy-where-we-go-from-here/#comment-1891</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kl]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:41:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equalwrites.org/?p=2420#comment-1891</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the ONLY reasoned response I have read.  All others bash the author and bash men.

Good job Amelia!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the ONLY reasoned response I have read.  All others bash the author and bash men.</p>
<p>Good job Amelia!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexis</title>
		<link>http://equalwrites.org/2010/02/24/the-prince-op-ed-controversy-where-we-go-from-here/#comment-1890</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alexis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:09:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equalwrites.org/?p=2420#comment-1890</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great column, Amelia.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great column, Amelia.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

