I realize I have hurt you. If that is the case, I apologize. I offer another angle, which might make it easier on you. Feel free to answer it or not.
1) Has your professor provided you with an operational definition of violence?
a) Did he say what process he adopted to get to his operational definition of violence?
b) Did he contrast it with other operational definitions offered by different authors (feminist as well as anti-feminist authors)?
2) Has your professor given you criteria for determining who is a perpetrator of violence and who is a victim?
a) Did he say how he got to select these criteria?
b) Did he contrast it with other criteria offered by other authors (feminist as well as anti-feminist authors)?
3)If he indeed did contrast both the operational definition and the criteria, and did indeed say how he proceeded to select his own, what made you prefer his over some of the other authors'?
If you do not want to answer to me, I urge you, at the very least, to try to answer those questions for yourself. It is important that you do so for all of these sakes:
1 - Owning up to rationality and «facts» claims. It is not sufficient to claim that research results or that particular approaches (behaviorism, critical theory - or constructivism, say) are scientific, rational and sound in order to prove them as such. One day you will get asked by someone else than myself to back up what you are saying. Being prepared will help you. 2 - Learning the tools of critical thought is extremely precious. It makes the difference between caving in to ad verecundiam fallacies (appeals to authority) and gradually making our own minds about things. Do we believe things because an authority figure said them or because we have had the opportunity to compare and analyze all other perspectives, finally concluding that what that authority figure said made indeed more sense? 3- Since this issue is highly important on a human level, it is critical to be able to solidly back up whatever we claim about it - or recognize where we make leaps of faith.
no subject
1) Has your professor provided you with an operational definition of violence?
a) Did he say what process he adopted to get to his operational definition of violence?
b) Did he contrast it with other operational definitions offered by different authors (feminist as well as anti-feminist authors)?
2) Has your professor given you criteria for determining who is a perpetrator of violence and who is a victim?
a) Did he say how he got to select these criteria?
b) Did he contrast it with other criteria offered by other authors (feminist as well as anti-feminist authors)?
3)If he indeed did contrast both the operational definition and the criteria, and did indeed say how he proceeded to select his own, what made you prefer his over some of the other authors'?
If you do not want to answer to me, I urge you, at the very least, to try to answer those questions for yourself. It is important that you do so for all of these sakes:
1 - Owning up to rationality and «facts» claims. It is not sufficient to claim that research results or that particular approaches (behaviorism, critical theory - or constructivism, say) are scientific, rational and sound in order to prove them as such. One day you will get asked by someone else than myself to back up what you are saying. Being prepared will help you.
2 - Learning the tools of critical thought is extremely precious. It makes the difference between caving in to ad verecundiam fallacies (appeals to authority) and gradually making our own minds about things. Do we believe things because an authority figure said them or because we have had the opportunity to compare and analyze all other perspectives, finally concluding that what that authority figure said made indeed more sense?
3- Since this issue is highly important on a human level, it is critical to be able to solidly back up whatever we claim about it - or recognize where we make leaps of faith.
So here goes, best of luck!