All you have is mindless name calling. Kant exactly applied ancestral systematics. But he was "racist". So he was wrong. Everything "racists" do is wrong. You're delusional.
Racism apparently meaning observations of human differences. You can't notice differences if you close your eyes and go off into a fantasy world I suppose.
Look, refuses to substantiate your case. All we have from you is naked assertions founded on your own ideology. I defined my terms and provided an exact quote which proves my point.
Is that what I said? It is ideology based upon the superiority of one race over others, it may be based on pseudoscientific observations about the supposed "races" that humans are taxonomically organized into per this backwards worldview. It is at the end of the day, more science based upon appearance and done in order to justify historical oppression and present inequality.
Racist apologist calls me delusional, I'll take that as a compliment. You keep appealing to Kant's quote as of there is nothing wrong with it and as if his hierarchy of races is actually a scientific organization of humans into some kind of ancestral system. I asked you if you agree that Africans are only good for being slaves, as Kant explicitly says, but I got no answer back from you. Just more dismissals of my arguments as merely calling Kant a racist as if this assertion lacks any substance. How about a more straightforward question for you, my guess is you won't answer. Is there one race, particularly Caucasians which stand as superior biologically to all others? Yes or no.
You use definitions like you think you get to do the defining. Same thing with gay. Gay actually means happy. Racism has nothing to do with superiority. Blacks in Nigeria that capture black slaves must be racist then using your definition.
What chutzpah! You keep referring to that quote so you can call Kant "racist". Yes. But you won't look at relevant quotes about that.
If you plan to keep calling others racists, you need to inform them again there is only one race and you are their superior, not the other way around. This so you can be the racist.
I didn't make up anything, my definition is perfectly in line with the primary dictionary definition. Gay means happy, and it also means being of a homosexual orientation. I don't think you understand how language works.
It is a racist quote, you haven't provided any counter argument beyond naked denial. I see you continue to refuse to answer simple questions.
My point being, Kant a philosopher makes a hierarchy which asserts that whites are essentially supreme and superior. This is the VERY definition of racism. You just think its true, which guess what that makes you? Think you will answer my simple yes or no question? Not a chance.
All of your questions and posts are irrelevant. The race concept is an extension of biological systematics. Your counter argument is "mean man racist".
You mocking people, now that's a joke. You think your simple minded semantic argument is significant? We have people openly embracing the label as racist in this thread, and yet you claim its impossible. Perhaps you should learn the absolute basics before you join a conversation.
Lol, you're floundering. Dodging simple questions, falsely asserting that my arguments about racism are irrelevant, when this is the very subject of the thread. Kant asserts a belief system founded on racial supremacy of whites, that is a racist view by definition. His views were not an extension of biology, Kant knew next to nothing about actual human diversity and ability, and it seems neither do you. Kant instead bases his pseudoscientific views of race on the dominant dogma of the time, which was the overwhelming superiority of white Europeans who stood above all the peoples of the world. Some of whom in his view are not suited for being free individuals, but can only be slaves. His views are not at all supported by science, and neither is the modern iteration of racism that looks at this reality of unequal distribution and thinks genetics is the best explanation. Ignoring history and geography completely. Your argument is MIA, and your falllacy claims are invalid straw man constructions of my argument. Who'd have guessed that racist nonsense doesn't have a leg to stand on. Better luck next time.
He won't say, but its clearly a racist remark and his defense of it as a valid biological systemization is telling. He agrees with all those racist observations.
Ad nauseam. Whether or not Kant was "racist" is irrelevant to whether ancestry based classification applies to humans. Hypocrisy and irrelevance, repeated ad nauseam.
Zero arguments, just naked assertions of fallacies. Race as a taxonomical distinction is dead in biological studies, it is a sociological construct that should be studied on the basis or historical and not biological developments. So you're wrong there, but Kant's racism is not irrelevant as you sought to assert that this biological project of ancestral systematics originated as an apolitical movement that had nothing to do with the imperialism and slave system based upon racial caste. This quote sufficiently proves that it is 1) political on the basis of his assertion that certain races are only able to perform certain roles in society and be afforded certain freedoms. And 2) it also demonstrates that Kant saw white men as superior to all others, which is the very definition of racism. If you think racism is totally fine and valid, like the OP, then you should flatly state such and not be a coward about your own personal views. This semantic nonsense you're trying to pull will not fly though, and you are getting demolished right now.
Appeals to "authority" now. You're wrong too. Biologists support race. US sociology (and popular magazines and TV) don't.
I don't view myself as superior to you, and it I did, it certainly wouldn't be on racial grounds since I am fairly certain that we are both white.
