Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have yet to hear you say why, in the real world, you would ever want to be able to say that an oppressed group is x% responsible for its circumstances (were that even possible to "assess," which it is not, with "science" or otherwise -- which is the point of my Albania hypothetical, which you ducked). Why? You've talked about tort cases, but there are no tort cases for systemic, societal discrimination -- the design and operation of the courts is part of the problem, not the solution. So what's the point?
If you're exhausted with trying to explain the pointless and inane, that's fair.
|
You've just argued that certain facts should not be discussed. But to say that is to assert that certain defenses may not be raised. If you say "X suffers because of the actions of Y," then you've accused Y of something. In your bizarre construct, Y is not allowed to assert it is not the entire cause of X's issues. You see no problem with allowing accusation, but banning defense?
This is not a court concept. This is basic rational thought. You can't assert an accusation and tell the accused it may not defend itself. If you don't allow a defense, how can the accusation ever be fully tested? Until it's surmounted the defense, it's just a charge. Are you suggesting there are certain allegations that are self-proving in their entirety merely for having been leveled? Situations where mitigation is somehow invalid? That kind of thinking, right there, veers into authoritarian-speak.
