I said Zero changed the subject on my criticism of (c). He claims the subject was actually whether something(!) was wrong with the APA policy. Correct, and there is something wrong with it.At least we're finally in agreement about what the topic is. I hope that in what follows, Nunley will let us in on what he thinks is wrong with the policy. I also hope that his point is something more consequential than how it uses the word 'integral' to describe the relationship between classes of people it aims to protect and the patterns of behavior characteristic of those classes that have been used to identify them (not by name but by description) in discriminatory hiring practices.
Zero changed the subject to whether everything(!) was wrong with the policy including its attack on bans on interracial marriage, etc.I am baffled. The way Nunley claims that I changed the subject to whether "everything" is wrong with the policy, and then the way he puts a parenthetical exclamation mark after the word 'everything, strongly suggests that I said something about whether or not "everything" is wrong with the APA's policy, and that Nunley was surprised by this. But that's not what happened. I never said anything like that. I don't know what the hell he's talking about.
Nunley brought up interracial marriage, not me. He claimed that the APA's attack on bans on interracial marriage was problematic somehow, not me. I didn't put those words in his mouth. I just pointed out that if the policy contains an attack on bans on interracial marriage, that would be a point in its favor. I don't know what his problem is.
That’s cheating. And your talk about whether your new topic is “germane” is an attempt to slight over that explicit cheat; you ought to stick to whether what I clearly said was in fact false.My topic all along has been whether there is something wrong with the APA's anti-discrimination policy. Nunley's original post contained a claim that interracial marriage was not "integral" to racial identity, and that this was a problem for the policy. I pointed out that his claim was false. I don't see how I was cheating.
And if you wish to speak of “germane” points or topics, make sure not to implicate me for taking a contradictory view.I clearly did not accuse Nunley of being opposed to interracial marriage at any time. There's a certain delicious irony here: Nunley is saying that I have accused him of saying something that he did not say; in so doing, he accuses me of saying something I did not say. I think he should take a couple of deep breaths, and then learn to read.
Second, the attempt to find sex with white people “integral” to black racial identity by psychologizing those who forbid it is ridiculous.I don't think I "psychologized" anyone; I said what I thought the racist motive behind anti-miscegenation policies was and pointed out that such policies are genuinely discriminatory. I also didn't say anything about interracial sex acts. I said that policies that forbid interracial marriage are discriminatory, because they are based on the false premise that non-white people are morally unfit to enter into such relationships with white people. Such policies fail to respect non-white people. Am I wrong? I am not wrong, and in just a second, Nunley is going to say so.
Even if those persons oppose equity for blacks (and I’ll allow that that is their likely motive)...Duh.
...and even if permitting sex with whites is essential to that equity it does not follow that such sex is “integral” to being black. It follow only that being allowed (not actually having) such sex is integral to properly respecting (not being) blacks.So, I am right.
Thirdly, with respect to whether you change the subject Zero, yes you do and do repeatedly. My arguments are simple Modus Tollens arguments. (1) The APA policy is committed to the view that X is integrally connected to Y. (2) It is not the case that X is integrally connected to Y. Therefore, the policy is incorrect in its claims about what is integrally connected to what.Suppose I said several times that I granted the semantic point about the word 'integral.' Suppose I then devoted way, way too many words to explaining why this point was irrelevant. Suppose I thoroughly demonstrated that each of Nunley's objections to the applicability of the word 'integral' fails to demonstrate an actual defect in the policy: the policy does not prohibit behaviors it should permit; it does not permit behaviors it should prohibit; it does not do so for the wrong reasons. Then suppose Nunley came back a month later and ignored all those words and insisted that the semantic point about the word 'integral' was the only thing that mattered, because of modus tollens. Wouldn't you make fun of him? That's what I would do.
In the first sentence of the comment I am demolishing (which you can find reprinted at the top of this post), Nunley claims that "there is something wrong with [the APA's anti-discrimination policy]." But that is not the conclusion of his nifty modus tollens arguments. The actual conclusion of his actual argument is this bit about the word 'integral.' And I think we can all admit that Nunley has a point there. The problem with this point is that it is literally as insignificant as anything could possibly be.
AT NO POINT have you challenged a premise in any of my three arguments against a-c.I can't wait to find out what the next sentence is going to say.
Well, OK, I have to grant that the points in which you desperately, desperately tried to make sex with white integral to being black were a challenge to my second premise against APA policy point c.I see. So, IN CAPITAL LETTERS, at no point do I challenge any premise. Except, okay, where I do challenge the central premise. And where I challenge the idea that the argument is relevant to any important topic whatsoever. But when I did that, I did it desperately, desperately. So it probably doesn't count.
Also, my point was not about the integrality of sex with white people to black identity. My point was that having the freedom to do so is integral to it.
But that was a disaster. Not as disastrous as missing the arguments altogether though.Oh. He must have forgotten about how he admitted that I did not miss the arguments. Slipped his mind. I mean, it was a whole sentence ago. I often forget what I write from one sentence to the next. What did I just say? Where am I.
Again, until you are prepared to challenge a premise in arguments of this sort, you have no legitimate reply to my arguments at all, only a lengthy commentary concerning arguments I never made.Another delicious irony. In all this, Nunley has completely failed to address my criticisms, or even to demonstrate that he has understood them. In order to connect his modus tollens to the APA's policy, a further, suppressed premise is necessary: "if the policy is incorrect in its claims about what is integrally connected to what, then there is something wrong with the policy." I have demonstrated that this premise is false.
The problem with Nunley's criticism is that it is superficial and shallow. It is not deep or penetrating or revealing of an important flaw in the policy. Nunley continues to claim victory in a verbal dispute without realizing that it doesn't touch any deeper issue.