We are all Slave now.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That argument can be logically made. Refuting it is another issue.

??

Any argument can be made. This one gets dismissed pretrial with prejudice.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Also, the argument wasn't that the oppression is the oppressed group's fault. It's that the group's disadvantages can be argued, after a time, to be partly the group's fault.

Please make that argument for me. How the fuck can a group's disadvantages be partly the group's fault if they were oppressed? I think you'll need an example, but maybe not. So far, all I've heard from you is that this is a thing. You have yet to explain how the hell it's possible.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Totally agree that using groups here does not work when discussing allegations of personal responsibility.

You just did it like a sentence ago.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm pinning Ty down as advocating that certain arguments should not be made.

No. He's pinning you down by (i) stating that this argument can't actually be made in any logical way (and I have been arguing that as well) and (ii) asking you what the point of the argument is. The only people who want to make such an argument are looking to say, "This minority group is partly to blame for their own circumstances because as a group they ________."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

At core, my point is very simple: If you wish to assert claims that certain groups have been oppressed and consequently suffer disadvantages, you invite a rebuttal that the groups may bear some responsibility for some of those disadvantages.

No I don't because that rebuttal is fucking ridiculous. It's like saying, "If you say that the sky is blue, you invite a rebuttal that it is not."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Arguing whether it's true or not is of no interest to me.

Bullshit. Based on what you have posted, I think it is quite clear that you believe minority groups need to own a certain percentage of the blame for their circumstances.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What is of interest to me is Ty's suggestion, and Klein's, that such rebuttal should not be raised or considered. That strikes me as soft censorship.

You are conflating a response to a ridiculous rebuttal that says the rebuttal is complete bullshit and steeped in racism with soft censorship. It is a ridiculous position to take. Every time an argument is proven to be stupid and/or racist is not an example of "soft censorship," whatever the fuck that means.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

argument can be made. This one gets dismissed pretrial with prejudice.

Klein suggested it should not be made at all, but could not explain why, as he had no argument around Harris's assertion that it was a logical inquiry.

Please make that argument for me. How the fuck can a group's disadvantages be partly the group's fault if they were oppressed? I think you'll need an example, but maybe not. So far, all I've heard from you is that this is a thing. You have yet to explain how the hell it's possible.

I don't think the group's disadvantages are the group's fault. As I've said, I think the group concept does not work. But if one is going to have these debates by defining people by group, as Klein and Harris did, how else can I respond?

The truth is, each person is individually responsible for his own actions. Each should be assessed exclusively as an individual.

Here's a personal example. My grandfather was an immigrant from Eastern Europe. Came over with nothing. Started working in menial labor as did everyone else on the boat. But then he said "This shit's a train to nowhere." He took a chance and started a business. Life got better. Compare him to the other people who remained in menial labor (and this can be done, as he remained in his neighborhood for most of his life). The people who faced the same choice he did and decided to stick with the menial labor enjoyed a life a few degrees below the life he did. (Many died young, abused by oppressive corporate bosses at a time when there were few labor protections.) Some others took the same chance and failed. Still some others took the same chance and succeeded far beyond him. Are these people not partly responsible for the differentials between their success or lack thereof? Stated otherwise, because they were significantly disadvantaged at the start, do their personal decisions somehow not matter?

I have another grandfather who was an Ivy League fuckup. Blew a pile of opportunities. He owns 100% of his failures. But let's say he'd been oppressed, rather than advantaged. Would he then have no responsibility for his situation?

Each person always owns some % of responsibility for his life's circumstance. That's not a point up for debate. It's impossible for a contrary situation to exist. There can never be a scenario where it can be said, "[Name] bore absolutely no responsibility for his fortune or lack thereof." The percentages can vary wildly based on individual and outside forces acting upon that individual. And there can be discrete instances over a lifetime in which a person bears no responsibility. But there can never be a scenario where it can be said that a person has 0% responsibility.

No. He's pinning you down by (i) stating that this argument can't actually be made in any logical way (and I have been arguing that as well) and (ii) asking you what the point of the argument is. The only people who want to make such an argument are looking to say, "This minority group is partly to blame for their own circumstances because as a group they ________."

That a bunch of people want to abuse a logical argument doesn't render it invalid. For the 50th time, I do not think the group construct works. But if we use the correct construct, the individual, the argument is this:

"Is an oppressed person 0% responsible for his life's circumstance?" No. That's flatly absurd. Every individual owns some percentage of responsibility for where he's at.

No I don't because that rebuttal is fucking ridiculous. It's like saying, "If you say that the sky is blue, you invite a rebuttal that it is not."

I do not think the assertion that an individual owns some percentage of responsibility for his circumstances on par with arguing the sky is not blue. And I think I'm on fairly solid footing there.

Bullshit. Based on what you have posted, I think it is quite clear that you believe minority groups need to own a certain percentage of the blame for their circumstances.

No. I do not. I do not think any "group" owns a certain % of responsibility (blame is a different concept) for its circumstances. I think every individual person owns a percentage of responsibility for his circumstances. And this applies to the positive as well as the negative. The most wildly successful person owes a certain percentage of his success to luck and, if he had certain advantages, those advantages.

This is a big part of why looking at people as groups first, individuals second, is dumb. But that's what Klein and Harris did, and a lot of fans of identity politics do. I'm not fighting the hypo.

You are conflating a response to a ridiculous rebuttal that says the rebuttal is complete bullshit and steeped in racism with soft censorship. It is a ridiculous position to take. Every time an argument is proven to be stupid and/or racist is not an example of "soft censorship," whatever the fuck that means.

The argument wasn't proven to be bullshit. I provided Ty with a study from Duke, based on data, doing the assessment he claimed could not be done. (I think it's flawed because, again, it's using groups where the only valid measure is individuals.) I could offer many more similar studies, I'm sure.

But Klein suggested we not even engage in that kind of study. That's foreclosing inquiry. That's not a "marketplace of ideas," as Ty put it, but the preclusion of certain ideas. Klein is not a judge, nor is Ty. They don't get to decide what gets dismissed with prejudice on a 12(b)(6) based on their sensibilities.

TM[/QUOTE]

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Klein suggested it should not be made at all, but could not explain why, as he had no argument around Harris's assertion that it was a logical inquiry.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I guess I'll just keep doing so. It is not a logical inquiry. It is not an exercise one can perform. I don't give a shit about Klein. I have given you reason after reason after reason.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think the group's disadvantages are the group's fault. As I've said, I think the group concept does not work.

Your argument has shifted so often that I don't know what the fuck you're saying. You say things like this:

"This takes right back to Murray and Harris and Klein. To talk effect is to examine inequality between races, which involves an analysis of causes. That analysis includes an examination of how much responsibility a disadvantaged group has for its circumstances versus how much was inflicted by outside forces beyond its control.

I agree with the approach, but this is the third rail conversations of all third rail conversations, apparently."

And you've said this often. You talk about logical inquiry into a group's responsibility for their circumstances. Then you turn around the next minute and talk about how this can't be done for groups. You are making no sense. The argument you have seized on and keep making (and denying you're making) is ridiculous. But you can't drop it no matter how stupid it is.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But if one is going to have these debates by defining people by group, as Klein and Harris did, how else can I respond?

Defining people by group? I haven't read the Klein and Harris piece, but what are you talking about? Blacks, as a group are at a disadvantage because of racism and oppression. If they weren't, they would never be defined as a group when it comes to achievement or treatment or whatever because they'd be treated like everyone else. I don't think even you understand what you're saying anymore.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The truth is, each person is individually responsible for his own actions. Each should be assessed exclusively as an individual.

Here's a personal example. My grandfather was an immigrant from Eastern Europe. Came over with nothing. Started working in menial labor as did everyone else on the boat. But then he said "This shit's a train to nowhere." He took a chance and started a business. Life got better. Compare him to the other people who remained in menial labor (and this can be done, as he remained in his neighborhood for most of his life). The people who faced the same choice he did and decided to stick with the menial labor enjoyed a life a few degrees below the life he did. (Many died young, abused by oppressive corporate bosses at a time when there were few labor protections.) Some others took the same chance and failed. Still some others took the same chance and succeeded far beyond him. Are these people not partly responsible for the differentials between their success or lack thereof? Stated otherwise, because they were significantly disadvantaged at the start, do their personal decisions somehow not matter?

I have another grandfather who was an Ivy League fuckup. Blew a pile of opportunities. He owns 100% of his failures. But let's say he'd been oppressed, rather than advantaged. Would he then have no responsibility for his situation?

This is the dumbest fucking analogy to support an argument I've seen in quite some time.

Either we discuss the impact of the disadvantages an individual faces in the context of the treatment that person endured as a part of a group or we don't. Discussing what an individual does outside of that context is fucking pointless because it has nothing to do with whatever impact on that class of people the negative treatment has had.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Each person always owns some % of responsibility for his life's circumstance. That's not a point up for debate.

Brilliant. No one is debating that.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's impossible for a contrary situation to exist. There can never be a scenario where it can be said, "[Name] bore absolutely no responsibility for his fortune or lack thereof." The percentages can vary wildly based on individual and outside forces acting upon that individual. And there can be discrete instances over a lifetime in which a person bears no responsibility. But there can never be a scenario where it can be said that a person has 0% responsibility.

Again, you are arguing a point that no one is making anywhere.

The whole point of the conversation is that if one group suffers a difference in circumstances than another after disparate treatment, whatever evidence you think you're analyzing about why part of it is their fault is really evidence of how they are treated differently. I don't know why you keep bringing up individuals in the context of this conversation to make your point. It makes absolutely no sense.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That a bunch of people want to abuse a logical argument doesn't render it invalid.

It's not a logical argument. That's the whole fucking point. You can't shift the conversation into something that no one was discussing and call it logical. It is illogical to try to figure out a percentage of blame that you can assign to a group that has suffered oppression for their current circumstances. Period. End of story.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

For the 50th time, I do not think the group construct works. But if we use the correct construct, the individual, the argument is this:

"Is an oppressed person 0% responsible for his life's circumstance?" No. That's flatly absurd. Every individual owns some percentage of responsibility for where he's at.

Holy shit. NO ONE is saying that or has said it. We can take a look at any individual's life and understand that any specific choice they make is a bad one or a good one. Of course. We can gauge to what extent that person's choices are limited or influenced by racism and oppression. We can step back and say, "Okay. We see you don't have the same opportunity that others do, but you could have started a business like this other guy in a similar situation." But what the fuck does that do? And how do we measure a percentage of blame for each individual and then aggregate it for a group. And even if that were possible, what is the point other than to point to the group and say, "See? It's __% your fault."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do not think the assertion that an individual owns some percentage of responsibility for his circumstances on par with arguing the sky is not blue. And I think I'm on fairly solid footing there.

You are shifting the argument away from the one being had into one that no one but you is having. So your footing is definitely not solid.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. I do not. I do not think any "group" owns a certain % of responsibility (blame is a different concept) for its circumstances.

This response is confusing. Are you saying groups are to blame for a certain percentage of their circumstances?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think every individual person owns a percentage of responsibility for his circumstances. And this applies to the positive as well as the negative. The most wildly successful person owes a certain percentage of his success to luck and, if he had certain advantages, those advantages.

This is a big part of why looking at people as groups first, individuals second, is dumb. But that's what Klein and Harris did, and a lot of fans of identity politics do. I'm not fighting the hypo.

Your inability to understand the point of what you have deemed to be "identity politics" is sickening. Black people don't engage in identity politics because it's fun. They do it because they are in a class of people that is treated worse than other people. They are asking to be treated in the same way as white people. "Fans of identity politics." What a stupid fucking way to look at it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The argument wasn't proven to be bullshit.

Yes. It absolutely was. You just can't see it.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I provided Ty with a study from Duke, based on data, doing the assessment he claimed could not be done. (I think it's flawed because, again, it's using groups where the only valid measure is individuals.) I could offer many more similar studies, I'm sure.

Sure. I'm sure it did what you said it did.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But Klein suggested we not even engage in that kind of study. That's foreclosing inquiry. That's not a "marketplace of ideas," as Ty put it, but the preclusion of certain ideas. Klein is not a judge, nor is Ty. They don't get to decide what gets dismissed with prejudice on a 12(b)(6) based on their sensibilities.

Again, didn't read it, but based on what everyone else has said here, that's not what Klein said at all. In any case, whatever.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Either we discuss the impact of the disadvantages an individual faces in the context of the treatment that person endured as a part of a group or we don't. Discussing what an individual does outside of that context is fucking pointless because it has nothing to do with whatever impact on that class of people the negative treatment has had.

You need to find a disadvantaged group that Sebby truly relates to for this to work. I'd suggest trying to think of an example using wealthy white conservatives trying to get by at Ivy League schools.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I guess I'll just keep doing so. It is not a logical inquiry. It is not an exercise one can perform. I don't give a shit about Klein. I have given you reason after reason after reason.

And I'm going to tell you, I don't agree with you, for the 50th time. You very well can assess how much an individual is responsible for his own disadvantages relative to forces beyond his control. You can look at his actions over the course of his life, figure out which of his behaviors caused self-harm, and which were directly attributable to outside forces. Is it easy? No. Is it technically possible? Yes.

Your argument has shifted so often that I don't know what the fuck you're saying. You say things like this:

"This takes right back to Murray and Harris and Klein. To talk effect is to examine inequality between races, which involves an analysis of causes. That analysis includes an examination of how much responsibility a disadvantaged group has for its circumstances versus how much was inflicted by outside forces beyond its control.

I agree with the approach, but this is the third rail conversations of all third rail conversations, apparently."

I don't like that group approach. I don't think it provides accurate data for reasons I've stated. But the hypo, the issue as it was framed by Klein and Harris, involved groups.

If you're going to engage in the analysis they did, the only approach is the one I offered above.

And you've said this often. You talk about logical inquiry into a group's responsibility for their circumstances. Then you turn around the next minute and talk about how this can't be done for groups. You are making no sense. The argument you have seized on and keep making (and denying you're making) is ridiculous. But you can't drop it no matter how stupid it is.

There's absolute consistency. If I'm compelled to debate this involving groups, as Harris and Klein did, then within those limits, you'd have to take a number of sets of people in that group, assess how many suffered disadvantage as a result of their own acts versus outside acts, compare these smaller sets to one another and reach average percentages which are then extrapolated to the whole group. I don't like it because I think it's terrifically inaccurate, but if we must chop people into groups, this is how it'd be done.

This is the dumbest fucking analogy to support an argument I've seen in quite some time.

No it's not. It's simple. X, Y, and Z are members of an oppressed group. X makes certain decisions, Y makes others, Z makes others. All decisions are discrete. Their lives take different trajectories afterward. Each bears a certain degree of responsibility for his trajectory. The fact that they're oppressed does not erase that.

Either we discuss the impact of the disadvantages an individual faces in the context of the treatment that person endured as a part of a group or we don't. Discussing what an individual does outside of that context is fucking pointless because it has nothing to do with whatever impact on that class of people the negative treatment has had.

The above does that.

Again, you are arguing a point that no one is making anywhere.

It took me several go-rounds before Ty would concede that an oppressed person is not completely absolved of all responsibility for decisions.

The whole point of the conversation is that if one group suffers a difference in circumstances than another after disparate treatment, whatever evidence you think you're analyzing about why part of it is their fault is really evidence of how they are treated differently. I don't know why you keep bringing up individuals in the context of this conversation to make your point. It makes absolutely no sense.

That wasn't the point of this conversation. The point of this conversation, going way back, was whether Harris should be engaging in an assessment of self-responsibility regarding oppressed individuals.

It's not a logical argument. That's the whole fucking point. You can't shift the conversation into something that no one was discussing and call it logical. It is illogical to try to figure out a percentage of blame that you can assign to a group that has suffered oppression for their current circumstances. Period. End of story.

It is entirely logical to accord a percentage of personal responsibility to every single person, everywhere, in every circumstance. You yourself admitted earlier that every person bears a certain level of responsibility for his circumstance. This includes all people, advantaged people and disadvantaged people.

We can take a look at any individual's life and understand that any specific choice they make is a bad one or a good one. Of course. We can gauge to what extent that person's choices are limited or influenced by racism and oppression. We can step back and say, "Okay. We see you don't have the same opportunity that others do, but you could have started a business like this other guy in a similar situation." But what the fuck does that do? And how do we measure a percentage of blame for each individual and then aggregate it for a group. And even if that were possible, what is the point other than to point to the group and say, "See? It's __% your fault."

So we should just ban such inquiry? We should police against it by having people like Klein cast opprobrium on Harris? Free speech is absolute. Period. End of story. That's my ultimate point here.

Your inability to understand the point of what you have deemed to be "identity politics" is sickening. Black people don't engage in identity politics because it's fun. They do it because they are in a class of people that is treated worse than other people. They are asking to be treated in the same way as white people. "Fans of identity politics." What a stupid fucking way to look at it.

I don't think black people engage in identity politics at all. I think things like BLM are direct, rational reactions to clear racism. I think white people like Klein, and on the other side, the bigoted Trumpkins, are the peddlers of identity politics. Harris says numerous times, in his podcast and elsewhere, "Isn't the goal to see people as individuals, not groups?" At one point, he says, "If we get to Mars and people are still fixating on skin color, haven't we failed miserably?" (Those are paraphrases, T[imm]y.)

Again, didn't read it, but based on what everyone else has said here, that's not what Klein said at all. In any case, whatever.

Klein's points can be distilled to, "What good is it to analyze self-responsibility of an oppressed person. It can only be used for negative ends. You shouldn't do that."

He does not get to make that call. No one gets to make that call. All questions may and should be asked, always.

TM[/QUOTE]

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Klein's points can be distilled to, "What good is it to analyze self-responsibility of an oppressed person. It can only be used for negative ends. You shouldn't do that."

He does not get to make that call. No one gets to make that call. All questions may and should be asked, always.

I never heard of Harris before this debate and my thoughts on Ezra Klein are mostly limited to musing how such a dude ended up with the delightful Annie Lowrey (who writes circles around him). She is, indeed, Better than Ezra.

But I agree with you, Sebby! No, really. Why shouldn’t we discuss all of the scientific data that leading European scientists collected regarding groups of people during the 1940s? I mean, sure, we might disagree with their views or the reasons why (and how) they collected that data, but who are we to say “you shouldn’t do that”? Argue their points by refuting their data, I say.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

But I agree with you, Sebby! No, really. Why shouldn’t we discuss all of the scientific data that leading European scientists collected regarding groups of people during the 1940s? I mean, sure, we might disagree with their views or the reasons why (and how) they collected that data, but who are we to say “you shouldn’t do that”? Argue their points by refuting their data, I say.

to be fair to Sebby, I don't think he is saying such studies are particularly instructive or valuable, I think he is saying the one guy should be able to say they are instructive or valuable and the other guy shouldn't be trying to shut him up.

what is saddest here is that this board once held the promise of an Abba or gwnc fuck story and now we are reduced to this. We can't even hope for adder strikes out stories anymore{sad face}

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

to be fair to Sebby, I don't think he is saying such studies are particularly instructive or valuable, I think he is saying the one guy should be able to say they are instructive or valuable and the other guy shouldn't be trying to shut him up.

what is saddest here is that this board once held the promise of an Abba or gwnc fuck story and now we are reduced to this. We can't even hope for adder strikes out stories anymore{sad face}

We never should have put you in charge of recruiting new blood.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

to be fair to Sebby, I don't think he is saying such studies are particularly instructive or valuable, I think he is saying the one guy should be able to say they are instructive or valuable and the other guy shouldn't be trying to shut him up.

He has shown zero evidence of anyone trying to shut anyone up. He's as full of shit as ever.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And I'm going to tell you, I don't agree with you, for the 50th time. You very well can assess how much an individual is responsible for his own disadvantages relative to forces beyond his control. You can look at his actions over the course of his life, figure out which of his behaviors caused self-harm, and which were directly attributable to outside forces. Is it easy? No. Is it technically possible? Yes.

I don't like that group approach. I don't think it provides accurate data for reasons I've stated. But the hypo, the issue as it was framed by Klein and Harris, involved groups.

If you're going to engage in the analysis they did, the only approach is the one I offered above.

There's absolute consistency. If I'm compelled to debate this involving groups, as Harris and Klein did, then within those limits, you'd have to take a number of sets of people in that group, assess how many suffered disadvantage as a result of their own acts versus outside acts, compare these smaller sets to one another and reach average percentages which are then extrapolated to the whole group. I don't like it because I think it's terrifically inaccurate, but if we must chop people into groups, this is how it'd be done.

No it's not. It's simple. X, Y, and Z are members of an oppressed group. X makes certain decisions, Y makes others, Z makes others. All decisions are discrete. Their lives take different trajectories afterward. Each bears a certain degree of responsibility for his trajectory. The fact that they're oppressed does not erase that.

The above does that.

It took me several go-rounds before Ty would concede that an oppressed person is not completely absolved of all responsibility for decisions.

That wasn't the point of this conversation. The point of this conversation, going way back, was whether Harris should be engaging in an assessment of self-responsibility regarding oppressed individuals.

It is entirely logical to accord a percentage of personal responsibility to every single person, everywhere, in every circumstance. You yourself admitted earlier that every person bears a certain level of responsibility for his circumstance. This includes all people, advantaged people and disadvantaged people.

So we should just ban such inquiry? We should police against it by having people like Klein cast opprobrium on Harris? Free speech is absolute. Period. End of story. That's my ultimate point here.

I don't think black people engage in identity politics at all. I think things like BLM are direct, rational reactions to clear racism. I think white people like Klein, and on the other side, the bigoted Trumpkins, are the peddlers of identity politics. Harris says numerous times, in his podcast and elsewhere, "Isn't the goal to see people as individuals, not groups?" At one point, he says, "If we get to Mars and people are still fixating on skin color, haven't we failed miserably?" (Those are paraphrases, T[imm]y.)

Klein's points can be distilled to, "What good is it to analyze self-responsibility of an oppressed person. It can only be used for negative ends. You shouldn't do that."

He does not get to make that call. No one gets to make that call. All questions may and should be asked, always.

This is all drivelous nonsense. But at least I now have a new word. I plan on using "drivelous" as often as I can. In fact, I shall label Trump's single term the Drivelous Era.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Klein's points can be distilled to, "What good is it to analyze self-responsibility of an oppressed person. It can only be used for negative ends. You shouldn't do that."

Don't be so fucking obtuse. Genetics is not about self-responsibility. It's patently clear that you are engaging with your own straw men. Murray says blacks are genetically inferior to whites, so it's pointless to try to use the government to remedy the lasting effects of discrimination.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think the group's disadvantages are the group's fault. As I've said, I think the group concept does not work. But if one is going to have these debates by defining people by group, as Klein and Harris did, how else can I respond?

would it help to summarize what Harris and/or Klein said or suggested be done? they suggested some study of a disadvantaged group, and what, successes within that group despite the disadvantages, and how that can then be applied to rate "blame for individuals?" No one seems to understand the point you are trying to make, but maybe there was a concrete example that started you down this road?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

would it help to summarize what Harris and/or Klein said or suggested be done? they suggested some study of a disadvantaged group, and what, successes within that group despite the disadvantages, and how that can then be applied to rate "blame for individuals?" No one seems to understand the point you are trying to make, but maybe there was a concrete example that started you down this road?

I think Sebby listened to a podcast of the debate between Harris and Klein and was irritated by Klein, and is now arguing against a Klein bogeyman of his own irritated imagination.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Klein suggested it should not be made at all,

No he didn't. Here's the transcript.

If you're going to argue with a straw man, find one that didn't put up a transcript.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Here's the transcript.

I tried. Can't do it.

TM