Xev said:
BigBlueHead:
Have you completed grade school yet?
Xev, get off your high horse.
If you were not consumed with being snooty you might have noticed that I made a few important points. I shall repeat them in a less creative manner, to help you compensate for your supposed maturity.
You see,
And2000x said:
The anti-race assumption goes by the same logic of fetus: that exceptions to a rule break the theory.
Actually exceptions do break the theory. If your theory cannot explain all instances of the real phenomenon then you need to rethink it, not defend it rabidly like a fanatic.
He also said:
There is no way to refute these classifications because that what race is: a classification.
In this he is correct. A classification is a NAME; it has no truth, and so it cannot be refuted. And2000x is claiming, however, that the name that he gives to a group of people has some kind of scientific meaning that implies a genetic brotherhood to that group. That is, he is saying that his viewpoint shapes the real world; when there are exceptions to his theory he claims that they don't matter.
He ALSO said:
Nature endows ever being with various traits and adaptations, so it would be naive to reject it.
Which is a rather brutal kind of appeal to authority, because the authority in question is only a personification of a series of independent circumstances. This might as well be an appeal to the divine.
All in all, I think I have a right to fly off the handle a bit when dealing with And2000x. So far in this forum he has taught us that:
1) It is all right to hate people who are different than you, as long as they are poor or disadvantaged
2) All of the people in Africa deserve to die because they have a genetic tendency to be the victims of violence
3) The Unabomber was a hero and his act of blowing people up was a good act and step towards progress
4) None of us should talk about being nice to other people until we have read the Unabomber manifesto and learned about "the Dangers of Oversocialization".
He has been spewing garbage since day 1 on this thread, which I suppose is his right - that's what Sciforums is for (some of the time at least). I believe that he is arguing for the physical existence of race (which he is, by the way) because he wants a justification for the bad attitudes he already has about people who are different from him.
I refuse to let him say unchallenged that he has a scientifically proven right to hate other people because of what they look like. He can say it if he wants, but I think he is wrong and I think his argument is poor. I do not think I will convince him that he is wrong, but it may be that other people will learn something from this discussion.
And what have you done? You broke into the middle of an argument to imply by your comments that I am immature or uneducated, when apparently -
Who gives a flying fuck whether it exists "physically" or not? "Blue" doesn't exist physically, does this mean that there are no blue objects?
- you don't know what this argument is about. To clarify, we are arguing about whether RACE EXISTS PHYSICALLY. (Furthermore, trucking out an old metaphysical saw about whether colours are real or not is not helping anyone. However, in this case we are talking about whether race has a genetic basis, which is definitely physical.)
So before you accuse me of acting like a grade school kid, go back and figure out where you went wrong. And next time, read the post before you criticize.