|
>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
|