1996-12-22 - Re: Ebonics

Header Data

From: “Matthew J. Miszewski” <mjmiski@execpc.com>
To: “Timothy C. May” <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: e48e5122d9aa34390b0b783bf244ec7ee181b413ae7bae453c9692ead769fa04
Message ID: <>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-22 22:49:23 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 14:49:23 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: "Matthew J. Miszewski" <mjmiski@execpc.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 14:49:23 -0800 (PST)
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Ebonics
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>You're confusing issues. As with similar confusions about "right to work"
>(where the putative conflict is between Alice's right to hire whom she
>chooses and Bob's putative "right to a job"), the confusion lies in what
>one calls a right.

I assume you are talking about right-to-work labor laws, in which case, it
does not refer to the above.  It has to do with union-membership (which you
more than likely similarly disagree with...)

I agree that there is rampant abuse of the word/idea of "rights" in this
country and around the world.  I similarly think that many political
disagreements can be boiled down to this problem.

>And just where did anyone in any of these posts call for outlawing any
>particular language, pidgin, slang, creole, jive, or invented lingo?

I was actually joking, Tim.  My original response was sent before I knew of
the Oakland initiative.  I do not hail from California, the land of
Proposition XXX, and find some of them silly.  

You do advocate the unemployment of people who do utilize such a
dialect/language.  And I do fear that many people subscribe to your line of
thinking.  So I do respond to some of your posts earlier than I sometimes
should to present a different point of view.

>Really, Matt, go back to Rhetoric 101 and learn how to argue.

That's a good argument.  Do they teach that ad hominem stuff in that class?