>Then explain why medical science continues
>to stand by research indicating
>certain diseases (sickle cell anemia,
>skin cancer, etc) affect certain
>RACES disportionately? YOu're an idiot
>if you actually believe that
>modern biologists don't believe in
>racial classification. You ask them
>what race they are, they'll
>tell you.

African American is not a race spirit its an ethnic heritage. Sickle cell anemia is mor prevalent in African Americans according to the medical industry.

as far as asking scientists- we'll get to that later.

>>>When the term "animal" is
>>>used in general language, it's
>>>used to refer to mammals
>>>and reptiles that are non-human...when
>>>is the last time you
>>>heard of an "animal rights"
>>>organization fighting for the rights
>>>of humans?
>>
>>according to the same dictionary "animal"
>>means
>>
>>"A HUMAN BEING considered with respect
>>to his or her physical,
>>as opposed to spiritual, nature."
>
>That is NOT the sole definition
>of "animal" in that dictionary.
>By only snipping out the
>definition that (weakly) supports your
>position, you show how intellectually
>dishonest you can be.

YUCK- YOU"RE DOING THE SAME SHIT!

oh it means the part were it says not humans- not the part where it says humans.

>Further, a human being with respect
>to his PHYSICAL NATURE...not human
>beings as a whole, because
>MOST PEOPLE distinguish human beings
>from the rest of the
>animal kingdom, due to our
>higher cognitive level.


>animal - 2. AN ANIMAL ORGANISM
>OTHER THAN A HUMAN BEING,
>ESP. A MAMMAL.
>(Webster's New College Dictionary)

wait didnt you just say to do this would show how "intellectually dishonest you can be. "

>I am at work, so I
>can't access the other dictionary
>I used before (it's at
>home), but that ought to
>explain my position clearly enough.
>In its general usage "animals"
>as a classification does not
>usu. connote human beings.

yuck

>The other two definitions describe what
>traits are acribed to an
>animal ("caoacity for locomotion, fixed
>bodily structure and restricted growth",
>etc.) but the definition makes
>clear that human beings are
>to be excluded from this
>general category...and that is how
>"Animal" is used in colloquial
>English.

yuck

>Idiot...

yuck