Quote:
|
From an intellectual perspective, I'm open to the idea that some groups do some things that make things worse for them. For example, there are aspects of Romany culture that have made things worse for them. The question is, what do you do what that idea. I'm still waiting for your explanation of why we need to "assess" with what you call "science" those sorts of facts. You don't have one.
|
We don't. But if one says it's impossible to do so, or a violation of logic to attempt to do so, we have a duty to flag that as untrue.
Quote:
|
In what sense is it a "defense"? A defense to what?
|
An allegation of causation.
Quote:
|
I'm having a hard time understand when you think it's a "defense" to what to argue that an oppressed minority was responsible for its own abuse. Please explain.
|
Not its own abuse. Its disadvantages. One can never argue that any person is responsible for his own abuse or oppression, as they were things he could not control. But logically (I know, broken record), one can always argue that a person is partly or fully responsible for his disadvantages. To state otherwise requires one to assert that a group or person once oppressed is consequently absolved of any responsibility for all disadvantages that group or person has going forward. I believe you disagreed with that earlier.
If you're wondering where this goes, the argument over whether one can do something and whether one should do something are very different things. You can't go mixing those notions. It invites the worst sorts of sophistry.
