4 ms·
From her second paragraph that frames the whole article. > And these things weren’t said as the conclusions of careful, extended argument. They were casual ass
by fellowniusmonk 5y ago
From her second paragraph that frames the whole article.
> And these things weren’t said as the conclusions of careful, extended argument. They were casual assertions. They were the kind of thing you skip over without pause because it’s the uncontroversial part of your talk.
Did I miss her refuting her own initial assertion later in the article? Are you teasing out or interpreting between the line the position you assert that she espouse because you got it from somewhere later in the article?
- xf1cf 5y agoI interpreted the quoted line as a supporting argument for the lack of "care" rational philosophers allegedly have for disabled people. As in, the people speaking made these casual assertions (do not take the disabled person) and this was, according to the article "the least controversial part of your talk". In my comment above I made mention that not only that rational philosophy is capable, at least in passing, of addressing her concern without much thought given to the problem (when posed correctly, and not politically). This is hubris-cum-excellence on her part. I believe my point still stands. While she lambasts the field of rational philosophy she fails to defend her own assertions while throwing accusations at everything. This is why I called it a tirade. It's very unbecoming of a scholar (a point I made at the end of my post) and I was not surprised in the slightest after browsing her scholarly material.