I don't see why using race as a way to categorize people, like breeds of animals, is useful. We have the ability to examine a person's genetics with much greater attention to detail.

4/12/2011 12:21:37 PM

What do you imagine the relevance of your statement to be?

4/12/2011 12:22:47 PM

^^because breeds of animals are different. Race is choosing one trait and pretending that people with that trait are different in other ways.

4/12/2011 12:43:41 PM

I agree with that.

4/12/2011 12:48:21 PM

Quote :

"Great, let's apply that definition. What race is an African child, born to native African parents, but raised by a white American family?"

By the social construct definition, literally none of that matters except how the child is treated and perceived by the community. In the case of America, the child would be treated likely as Black because of his skin color, and be treated like any other black person regardless of his ancestry or how he was raised. That's how social constructs work...they are constructed by a social group. A lynching party or a discriminating employer/banker/landlord/policeman/jury isn't going to care if he's a slave descendant or adopted, as far as how that person is treated by society those things aren't irrelevant.




[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

4/12/2011 1:42:15 PM

I see des1234567-8-niner is doing that thing again where he deconstructs very basic definitions so as to skirt the larger issue. Even though everyone else in the world has acknowledged that some issues are a matter of relative perception, this guy dismisses anything that can not be verified in absolutes. He fancies himself a philosopher, but his contribution always amounts to him asking everyone what the definition of "is" is.

What's the difference between a man vs a woman? Left vs Right? Up vs Down?

How can you sleep when you're high on crack? Hmmm? Chinese riddle for ya.

4/12/2011 9:55:21 PM

+1

4/12/2011 11:57:48 PM

Quote :

"I see des1234567-8-niner is doing that thing again where he deconstructs very basic definitions so as to skirt the larger issue. Even though everyone else in the world has acknowledged that some issues are a matter of relative perception, this guy dismisses anything that can not be verified in absolutes. He fancies himself a philosopher, but his contribution always amounts to him asking everyone what the definition of "is" is."

Yeah, I call into question "conventional wisdom" when I think it ends up causing more harm than good. It's not a simple matter of semantics, either, I'm objecting to the way that many people see the world (and in this case, other people) and suggesting a better, more constructive view. Meanwhile, warriors for the status quo (you, many others in this thread) insist that we not think too hard about the language we choose to use and how it might shape culture.

What larger issue am I skirting, though? My posts, thus far, have been entirely relevant to the OP.

[Edited on April 13, 2011 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ]

4/13/2011 11:37:18 AM

And don't get me wrong. I think that because race has no real scientific basis that it should not be used in the way that it is.

4/13/2011 12:40:41 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I call into question "conventional wisdom" when I think it ends up causing more harm than good. It's not a simple matter of semantics, either, I'm objecting to the way that many people see the world (and in this case, other people) and suggesting a better, more constructive view. Meanwhile, warriors for the status quo (you, many others in this thread) insist that we not think too hard about the language we choose to use and how it might shape culture. What larger issue am I skirting, though? My posts, thus far, have been entirely relevant to the OP."

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you're not trolling. If you aren't I'm really staggered at how deeply you misunderstand the conversation in this thread.

You do realize that even though witches did not exist, people burned "witches", right? Do you also realize that "people should not burn 'witches'" is not the same as arguing that witches are real natural objects? It's also not the same as arguing that we should continue to keep 'witch' around and arbitrarily designate people that.

You are charging windmills here, buddy

4/13/2011 1:50:22 PM

^In order for you to accept that he is charging windmills, we must first ask ourselves, what is a windmill?

4/13/2011 8:58:13 PM

i think before that we need to define 'wind', dontcha think?

4/13/2011 9:00:51 PM

This thread is now about what race you think the person above you is.

4/13/2011 9:11:51 PM

^ Polish

4/14/2011 2:45:23 AM

The fact that race is a social construct hardly makes it less important under current circumstances, but it's one angle to undermine the whole system of white supremacy.

4/14/2011 10:24:47 AM

"Witches" are a fallacy with no basis in science.

*refuses to address witch-burning*

4/14/2011 4:21:40 PM

Since witches can't be scientifically confirmed to exist, it's fallacious to suggest that these 'witches' are being burned in any higher frequency than non-'witches'. For you to even notice such a trend, I think, makes you the real witchest.

4/21/2011 9:19:28 AM

There you go, pullin the witch card again. Don't you know witches don't exist? I just see Salem-ites getting burned at the stake, I don't see why you have to divide them up into groups of hyphenated-Salemites.

4/21/2011 9:27:11 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EyeNi6qsfs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzGM1nv_oow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCDcl9s9Vh4

Quote :

"In 1997- The American Anthropological Association recommended that the U.S. government abandon the term "RACE" on official forms because it holds, "...no scientific justification in human biology."

6/12/2011 1:40:03 PM

No love for Bill Nye, the Science Guy?...

6/16/2011 2:39:56 PM