The Tulsa Race Riot

[Shell B]

Agreed with the first half... but the last bit is a nonsequiter (it does not follow that because X race is good at Y that all other races are worthy of disdain).

Of course it is. I disagree with it too. That is what makes racism ridiculous.

I might. Depends on how serious the perceived superiority/inferiority is (and how can a judgement of value be anything but perceived?). I tend to take what I can get and make the most use of it as I can (within reason)... but if a thing absolutely fails I will cut the losses. I've been known to cut entire quadrants before due to distance from other superpowers in the galaxy. (The people on those planets being indefensible and therefore mostly worthless).

Then different types of humans might as well be considered different species as well. Black skin pigmentation is better in tropical areas, white skin pigmentation is better in arctic areas. It cannot be escaped that there are measurable differences between the different human 'sub-species' (for that is what our 'races' are), and thus each can be valued according to what it brings to the table.

Perhaps they could be defined as subspecies, but definitely not different species. There are no significant biological differences between races, apart from the superficial. However, a race goes further than that. A race is defined by subspecies, if you will, by culture, ethnicity, etc.

I consider 'races' to be a biological 'kind'/'type', ie: the crawling races and the flying races. It doesn't apply outside of biology (ie: computer races and races of tables?), but it is a term for distinction.

Humans are the only creatures defined by race. We may not agree with the limits of the distinction, but they are there. So, for purposes of this argument (term used loosely), I will use them.

Not all humans are people, and Pearl (a dog) is a person unlike any other I've met. Human babies and especially pre-birth humans are certainly not people, and human children are scarcely so.

Sae, when it comes to words and how we use them, I am a quite literal person. You can easily assume when I use a word like human that I am speaking of it strictly by definition.

This is a rare case? I think not. An employer can still be impressed if you break the mold excellently. If someone hires me to do some sort of dangerous/physically difficult work, it certainly is not due to my physical build. I've have to impress them with my reckless and ruthless method of getting the job done using leverage a great deal of energy

I worked in a largely male industry for most of my working life. I know that we must impress to break molds. However, I also know that people automatically act on their biases. It takes effort not to do so. However, this is really beside the point.

If brute force does not work: use more brute force.

And yet, a difference is necessarily an assumption that it is there and an assertion is necessarily the belief that it is there. There are differences between the different races of people... hence the different races of people.

No, to assume that it is there is basically to think you know it is there without every checking. Differences can be asserted and proved. (Forgive the bit of plagiarism of James Otis there, please). To assume a difference without clarifying that the difference exists and then asserting that there is a difference, as it pertains to race, is racism.

I misunderstood you then, me sorry!

No sorry needed, dear.