|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Races | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: Does 'culture' exist? Yes or no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: Hey, you might want to hold on a minute. Just what is 'height' after all? Where does short become tall and tall become short? Is 'height' a scientific concept? Let me guess. Its a 'social construct' right. Wait, now that I think about it, 'height' does not even exist!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: Tell me at what precise point one 'culture' becomes another. What objective 'cultural' trait do all members of a given culture share that excludes all others? While you are at it, tell me where 'hot' becomes 'cold' and the 'past' becomes' the 'future'. I am not convinced that 'time' or 'temperature' exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: 'Inches' and 'centimeters' do not exist naturally. There are human constructs, not objective natural divisions between categories. Inches and centimeters blend into one another.
quote: All these things are socially constructed measures and measurements.
quote: Where does 'yellow' become 'green' or 'red' become 'brown'? Does the visible spectrum exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: I would like you to tell me what objective 'cultural' traits that all Westerners share and all non-Westerners do not share. I am not convinced the 'West' exists. Does 'culture' even exist after all?
quote: There is no precise point where 'hot' becomes 'cold'. 'Hot' and 'cold' do not exist.
quote: I am not convinced. Temperature is a category that exists along a continuum. Different degrees of temperature blend into one another. Of course, by your bankrupt epistemology (and epistemology is what we are discussing here), categories that fall across continuums must have no objective validity. Where does the Indian Ocean become the Atlantic Ocean? Where does 'blue' become 'green'?
quote: There is no precise point where the past becomes the present and the present becomes the future. All measurements of time are simply human constructs that create artificial divisions along continuous categories.
quote: We are not discussing the existence of race here. We are discussing epistemology and the nature of categories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: No concept whatever exists naturally; outside of a human context.
quote: 'Seconds' are artificial divisions on time, as are centimeters.
quote: A 'centimeter' is a human construct to begin with. Where does 'yellow' become 'green' or 'red' become 'brown'? Does the visible spectrum exist?
quote: Once more, seconds are artificial divisions of time.
quote: Those 'measurements' were themselves constructed by humans.
quote: Restated: On the other hand, nobody can even agree on how many cultures there are. It must follow, therefore, that culture does not exist.
quote: What is the objective basis for conceptually dividing anything into a category?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
I am not feeling so well, come to think about it. I may be getting sick. Wait. At what precise point does sickness become health?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: For the gallery: Gaius Caligula: Does 'culture' exist? Yes or no? crashfrog: Of course it does. Culture is garbage - it's the effluvium of communities eating, sleeping, screwing, and crapping in proximity. Anytime you put two humans in the same room you'll get culture. Making culture is what humans do. Okay, at what precise point does one 'culture' become another?
quote: I am not changing the subject at all. YOU have attacked the concept of race on epistemological grounds. I obliged you and reduced the discussion to this level.
quote: Do 'hot' and 'cold' exist? For the last time, yes or no?
quote: ROFL what temperature would that be in Farenheit? Wait. Let me guess. Measurements of temperature in both Farenheit and Celsius both exist naturally.
quote: Measurements of temperature rely on categories constructed by humans.
quote: You have attacked the concept of race on epistemological grounds. Now you are backtracking. What is the problem?
quote: Do you accept social constructionism? It would seem so. Do you even know what social constructionism is? [This message has been edited by Gaius Caligula, 03-05-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: ROFL so let me get this straight. There are as many cultures as people who are in cultures think there is, and as you have argued, culture even exists, but race does not exist because know one knows how many races there are?
quote: Does 'Western culture' exist?
quote: You attacked race as a concept on epistemological grounds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: Your bankrupt epistemology, upon which you have attacked the validity of race as a concept, is not irrelevent to this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: For the gallery, I will refresh your memory: crashfrog: Now, if you meant "cultural perceptions of race exist, so they should be studied," I agree Now, for the last time, what distinguishes one culture from another?
quote: LMAO so let me get this straight. ‘Subjective terms’ (i.e. hot/cold) do not exist while ‘objective’ terms do? Okay, what distinguishes ‘subjective’ terms from ‘objective’ ones?
quote: Who is right? Europeans who measure temperature in Celsius or Americans who measure temperature in Farenheit? Keep in mind here that measurements of temperature are categories constructed by humans.
quote: Measurements do not presuppose consciousness? Highways are not NATURALLY divided up into kilometers or miles.
quote: 32 degrees Farenheit or 0 degrees Celsius?
quote: I never said you mentioned epistemology. You did, however, attack the concept of race of epistemological grounds (as have many others in this thread).
quote: ROFL epistemology is the science devoted to the discovery of the proper methods of acquiring and validating knowledge. Any argument that asserts that ‘race does not exist’ presupposes a theory of knowledge. To say that ‘epistemology is essentially meaningless to me’ is to say that any standard by which knowledge is validated is meaningless. Congrats, you just demolished the foundation of your own argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: LOL
quote: Certainly. There are also people who believe they have been abducted by space aliens. Who are YOU to tell such individuals they are mistaken? After all, 'epistemology is essentially meaningless to me' right" (ROFL!). [This message has been edited by Gaius Caligula, 03-06-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
quote: What is ‘real meaning’? Wait, why would such a question even interest you? After all, ‘epistemology is essentially meaningless for me’.
quote: LMAO social constructionists are anti-essentialists who REJECT objective meaning PERIOD. Just what is social constructionism? "There is no single description which would be adequate for all the different kinds of writer whom I shall refer to as social constructionist. This is because, although different writers may share some characteristics with others, there is not anything that they all have in common. What links them all together is a kind of 'family resemblance' (this is what Rosch (1973) meant by 'prototypes' or 'fuzzy sets'). Members of the same family differ in the family characteristics that they share. Mother and daughter may have the typical 'Smith nose', while father and son may have inherited from grandma Smith, who also has the Smith nose, their prominent ears. Cousin George may share the prominent ears, and also, like his aunt Harriet, have the Smith thick, curly hair. There is no one characteristic borne by all members of the Smith family, but there are enough recurrent features shared amongst different family members to identify the people as basically belonging to the same family group. This is the model I shall adopt for social constructionism. There is no one feature which could be said to identify a social constructionist position." Vivien Burr, An Introduction to Social Constructionism (London: Routledge, 1995), p.2 There is no one single feature that identifies a social constructionist from someone he is not. By their own argument, social constructionism must not exist! Notice here how it is claimed that social constructionists belong to a 'fuzzy set' type of category. Keep in mind that this is the EXACT same argument made by racialists when describing the concept of race, the very same argument the social constructionists reject when they say race does not exist! What is even more amusing here is comparing social constructionists to a biological extended family in order to justify social constructionism as a valid category.
quote: That is what we are discussing here — ‘meaning’ and ‘knowledge’. Any argument that asserts race exists or does not exist presupposes a theory of knowledge itself.
quote: crashfrog is a little slow so I will refresh his memory: crashfrog: It's [race] a socially constructed category with no biological meaning. Crashfrog here asserts that race is a ‘socially constructed’ category with no biological meaning. Crashfrog then goes on to state he/she does not even know what social constructionism is (LOL!). GG, pwnd
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gaius Caligula Inactive Member |
Alrighty. I am new here. Cut me some slack.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024