Wednesday, May 06, 2009

"And by your logic we wouldn’t need a black man or a woman on the Supreme Court because reason dictates that once we understand [by reason alone!!] what racism and sexism are we have no need for a black or female 'perspective.'"

"Sigh. Reason 'dictates' no such thing. Valid reasoning from pretty well-accepted psychological premises would surely 'dictate' the exact contrary."

"And those premises are based on the premise that pure reason is impossible."
I repost something about just this stupidity a few days ago and, voila, some fucking idiot with a Ph.D. -Forensic DNA Analyst- proves my fucking point. The reasons for diversity are substantive not merely political and practical.


  1. belle le triste6:55 AM

    people are dense but you are cryptic!

    i don't much mind cryptic, mind you* -- in my experience the writers-and-thinker who manage to be any clearer about This Issue get half-understood at best; the bits that get grabbed onto rarely the point... it's a kind of a massive deafness-blindness actually heightened by (what passes for) intelligence, that whole gladiatorial arena-of-the-mind thing

    *half of me says "this is why i love seth", but half says "still, crptic is not-great politics"

  2. I don't see why I'm cryptic; but then I wouldn't, would I?
    I wrote another more almost unhinged comment on Quiggin's post-comment by: BORED OUT OF MY GODDAMN MIND!- but he removed it.

    The only people who argue with the faithful over their faith are defenders of rational action theory.
    They're ideologically committed to believing their debating partners are rational. My mistake is to share that ideology when I'm debating rationalists.
    There's always a logic to human pattern-making, but it's rarely the logic the maker assumes it to be.
    I don't read anything primarily for original intent, whether it's the Constitution of the United States or the self-indulgent ramblings of John Holbo.


Comment moderation is enabled.