...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
@anglo: Is this you?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: [QB] [QUOTE]I do not spend "hours online each day talking about them". WTF are you talking about? I can't stop laughing.[/QUOTE]The evidence is linked. You post about race all the time. It's been more than a year. Democracyforums [the user] who is uneducated on race nontheless asked a good question: why do you prioritise denying race, say over denying apples and orange varieties exist. Now, your answer was revealing: you claimed the belief in race in man has "consequences". When I brought that up here you failed to elaborate. Can you explain what these are? [QUOTE]No, you haven't. You make a few posts that I refute then stop responding, only to repeat the cycle in a new thread.[/QUOTE]Your arguments have been debunked. "Ian Hacking provides a list of almost forty categories that have recently been claimed to be ―socially constructed. The prime examples are race, gender, masculinity, nature, facts, reality, and the past. But the list has been growing and now includes authorship, AIDS, brotherhood, choice, danger, dementia, illness, Indian forests, inequality, the Landsat satellite system, the medicalized immigrant, the nation-state, quarks, school success, serial homicide, technological systems, white-collar crime, women refugees, and Zulu nationalism. This whole enterprise is based on an unstated theory of human concept formation: that conceptual categories bear no systematic relation to things in the world but are socially constructed (and can therefore be reconstructed). Is it a correct theory? In some cases it has a grain of truth some categories really are social constructions: they exist only because people tacitly agree to act as if they exist. Examples include money, tenure, citizenship, decorations for bravery, and the presidency of the United States. [b]But that does not mean that all conceptual categories are socially constructed[/b]. Concept formation has been studied for decades by cognitive psychologists, and [b]they conclude that most concepts pick out categories of objects in the world which had some kind of reality before we ever stopped to think about them[/b]." (Pinker, 2002) Also note how you don't assert individuals and reality itself is a social construct. You can't even get philosophy right. :rolleyes: The genuine philosophers who use your argument apply it universally as summarised by Pinker and also Hacking: "reality" itself being also a social contruct, along with genes, quarcks, cells and individuals. Yet your philosophy accepts all these latter as supposedly objective. Time to give it up Badumtish. Basically you've stolen a philosophy but then corrupted it to say x, y, z it doesn't apply to such as individuals because your own personal biased outlook relies on liberalism/"individualism". If you want to be taken seriously, you need to apply your logic across the entire board. I can just use the same logic, and then not apply it to ducks, or cars... that's all you are doing, but for individuals. [QUOTE]Where did I say that?[/QUOTE]In the conversation with democracyforums. Race according to you has "consequences". But why doesn't fruit categorization? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3