>first off, out the gate, i >apologize for the personal insults....even >though your use of "yuck" >indicates less than a mature >discourse, it was improper for >me to use personal insults.
YUCK!
>>this is what your dictionary has >>to say about "people" >> >>"Animals or other beings distinct from >>human beings: "Rabbits and squirrels >>are the furry, little people >>of the woods." > > >wow. you've finally lost it. this >makes absolutely no sense. if >it it says animals are >distinct from human beings, why >would you call rabbits "furry >people"?
Um- thats the text from the definition - smart guy- you're having trouble with that dictionary eh- how bout i give you a link.
>what on earth? anyway...it's >not "my" dictionary, it's the >american heritage dictionary. i didn't >write it...and you obviously didn't >read it.
you cited it and its easy to demonstrate that that dictionary is not only inconsistent but vague and on those grounds you dont offer much credence by telling us what the dictionary "implies" and asking that we disregard what the shit says.
the fact is the definition you cited said specifically that race applied the ideas of "sub-spoecies" to "animals" being that it also defined animals as "human beings" elsewhere whether or not the "general" understanding is this way or that (and you need to quit bullshittin and admit that it- much like you- goes both ways) doesnt make a difference cuz its a notch on both sides of the argument.
Unfortunately you made the additional claim that the idea of subspecies was not among the common ideas of race and then you pulled out a dictionary and demonstrated quite clearly that it was.
you can keep arguing if ya want - dog but you're just running your name into the ground cuz you're trying to defend the premise that people arent animals- thats just silly shit
its like my man said- your shit is straight comedy.
>>"race - 1. a group of >>people distinguished by genetically transmitted >>physical characteristics." >> >>oh so they must mean rabbits >>are racially diverse > >you can't snip out parts of >the definition. they had several >definitions. none of them were >contradictory regarding the non-human animal >v. human being distinction.
yuck- you did it- why do you keep this nonsense up?
>>Sorry spirit- when dealing with dictionaries >>you'll be hard pressed to >>find consitency much less demonstrate >>some accurate assessment as to >>what they are implying. > >Sure, you know the English language >better than the dictionary. Anyway, >my part in this argument >is over now...
cool then we can carry on with the intelligent part of the discussion thanks for playing sport.