Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You aren't getting off the hook here. The issue is abstract.
For the 50th time:
If you assert that someone is disadvantaged because of oppression, a person has a right to disagree with you. And within that disagreement, he has a right to offer the argument that the disadvantages accrue to some extent from the oppressed person's own actions.
Is it true? Is it not? I don't know or care. What I care about is you and Klein buying into the notion - the illogic - that certain assertions should be placed beyond skepticism.
You aren't weaseling out of this by demanding an example in a dispute regarding the abstract. Nor are you going to do so by turning it into a discussion of the "concrete" impacts. (I would say the potential harms to our free speech rights from people like Klein and you are enormous and quite concrete, but that kicks the door open for you to change the issue.)
Every assertion of every kind may be met with a defense or skepticism. There is no assertion of any kind, about any subject, which may not be met with a defense or skepticism. Do you agree with that? Or do you think certain defenses or skeptical replies should be off limits, taboo?
|
I'm not weaseling out of anything. Your whole idea here is stupid, from top to bottom. You have a stupid abstract idea. It's stupid because it's not science, because it's incoherent, because it's impossible to execute, and also -- here is the point I was getting to most recently -- because however attractive to you it may be in the abstract, it's fundamental stupidity is revealed when you try to find a concrete application.
On the very last point, prove me wrong: Describe a single meaningful and useful practical application of your abstract principle.
