>
> —[Greg Cochran](https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/internal-contradictions/)
-We socially-liberal individualist/feminist people—I _hope_ I'm still allowed to use the first person here, although the reader will ultimately judge that for herself—have this beautiful moral ideal, where we want all humans to be free to maximize their potential, unencumbered by oppressive cultural traditions specifying roles and destinies in advance. We want everyone to be judged on her or his _own_ merits rather than treated as a representative of their race or sex.
+We socially-liberal individualist/feminist people—I _hope_ I'm still allowed to use the first person here, although the reader will ultimately judge that for herself—have this beautiful moral ideal, where we want all humans to be free to maximize their potential, unencumbered by oppressive cultural institutions specifying roles and destinies in advance. We want everyone to be judged on her or his _own_ merits rather than treated as a representative of their race or sex. If a trait is virtuous in a man, it _has_ to be equally virtuous in a woman.
-And _because_ we care about the beautiful moral ideal, we tend to assume that psychological group differences don't exist or are superficial or are socially-constructed,
+And _because_ we care about the beautiful moral ideal, we tend to assume that psychological group differences don't exist or are superficial or are socially-constructed and will naturally dissipate after the revolution.
invidious distinction
(... the scintillating but ultimately untrue thought.)
-
-
-And this is _so crazy_ on _multiple levels_.
+But this is _so crazy_ on _multiple levels_. Philosophers since the days of D. Hume have recognized the distinction between _is_ and _ought_:
analogy to spelling
projects / Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git / blobdiff