RE: Assume racists are correct...
March 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2013 at 3:27 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(March 4, 2013 at 10:37 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Let's say that racists are right, that the race(s) they hate is in some empirical way inferior to their own race (e.g. in capacity to think, to learn, to create, etc), how should that race(s) be treated? Should their rights be the same as the "superior" race?
If portions of the "superior" race were shown to be in some way empirical way inferior to the rest of their race, how should that portion of the "superior" race be treated?
If portions of the "superior" race were shown to be in some way empirical way inferior to the average member of the "inferior" race, how should that portion of the "superior" race be treated?
If portions of the overall "inferior" race were shown to be in some empirical way superior to the average member of the "superior" race, how would you treat that portion?
If the best members of the overall "inferior" race were shown to be in some empirical way superior to the best member of the overall "superior" race, how does that effect your estimate of which race is more relevently "superior"?
Can you just be satisfied that "race" is a stupid catagorization for use in the measurement of any empirical "superiority" or "inferiority"?
For any arbitray member of some race who would be inclined to think his own race to be superior to another, I don't think I would have far to seek to find a member of the alledgedly inferior race who is superior to him personally.
