Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I married an anthropology major, but please -- it's not a science.
Why? If you are trying a tort case, you don't need to consider the intervention of invisible aliens using technology we can't understand, even though it's a potential cause.
What if you just accept that systemic oppression is evil in part because it enlists its victims in their own degradation? Black policemen sometimes shoot young black men for no good reason. Women blame other women's clothes for sexual assault. And so on. You don't need science to acknowledge that. But you do need to explain why you think it matters.
|
1. It uses the scientific method. It’s a soft science. But the only applicable one here.
2. Invisible aliens are not “potential.” The actual humans involved in these issues, and their actions, are real actors and facts to examine.
3. I do accept that. Who doesn’t? But that has nothing to do with the logical point made. And that members of oppressed groups may also be oppressors is of no moment here.
Stop using “victim blaming.” It’s not a valid construct in any logical assessment. It’s an appeal to emotion and an argument from authority, among other logical fallacies.
I stated my reason for concluding it matters. If blame is to be fully accorded and rigorously assessed, in ANY instance, all potential (non-invisible alien) inputs must be considered. To allow otherwise converts a complaint to a judgment (without mitigating offsets for any comparative negligence).* To allow otherwise is to determine something to finality without assessment all facts. Is that ever wise? If you see no danger in this sort of thing, I can’t discuss this any further.
——-
* True comparative negligence (the liable pay all of their share, with an offset only to the exact % of others’ acts), not that horrible and unfair form used in the bus case. I have always found that sort of arbitrary culpability shifting offensive and unjust.
ETA: You see how an allegation/narrative = judgment/proof dynamic is dangerous, and dangerously authoritarian, I’d add. The ultimate point here actually has little to do with the subject at hand. It’s that if we slide into a world where “credibly accused” becomes a standard against which mitigating factors including comparative liability may not be offered in defense - to allegations against or assessments regarding an indindividual or society at large - we’ve conceded our most essential freedoms. An unpopular view or defense may never be squealched because it’s impolitic. It must be beaten on the merits. That may be annoying, or offensive, but it’s also the only way to be intellectually honest, logical, and preserve freedom.
ETA2: I’m also defense oriented, personally. The same analysis that causes me to conclude our justice system is corrupt, discriminatory, and often rigged, is the same one that causes me to recoil at the suggestion certain logical arguments sounding in defense or skepticism should not be raised. Those are arguments over which the govt’s worst Torquemadas and Roy Cohns salivate. “Limit skepticism and defenses we don’t like.” Could anything be more Trumpian?
I’d die before I’d prosecute. Only the money got me through plaintiff’s work.
