Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.
|
OK. No one is saying that, but I'm sure you can find some more windmills to tilt at, Mr Quixote.
Quote:
|
An allegation of causation.
|
Like what, when?
Quote:
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.
|
As a practical matter, why do you think any of this is important?
You don't see very concerned that we don't use "science" to "assess" the extent to which a given group has been disadvantaged by pervasive bias. Shouldn't you start there, if you're that worried about intellectual consistency?
For my part, I think it's pretty clear that there are systemic harms that have been done to different groups in this country and others, and I generally don't see a need to try to shift the "responsibility" for some of that harm back to the victim, unless it's something other than an exercise in blaming the victim and absolving society. Maybe it isn't, but if you think there's a case to be made you're doing a piss-poor job of making it.
