CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Whenever you’re asked to identity your race you should check “other”
Whatever your race, just check “other”. White and black racists alike use racial stats to pit people against each other for votes and movie sales. It’s a stupid game and we should stop playing.
When I applied to work a school district that had the usual race/ethnicity boxes to check. I looked at the definitions.
The definition for African American it said "have ancestors from Africa." The human species most likely originated in Africa, so I checked that box.
The definition for Asian was "have ancestors from Asia." The Gothic and Germanic tribes that settled Europe migrated across Asia into Europe, so I checked that box, too.
The definition of White was "have ancestors from Europe". Of course, I also checked the box for White. (Interestingly Barak Obama, and the majority of American blacks would also need to check that box.)
So, according the definitions on that form, I am White, Asian, and African American. Having been born in the US, I am also a native American.
Well now, I have to agree. But there is marketing to consider. If this were an idea that ever took off, it would have to appeal to the widest demographic in the simplest terms possible. There isn’t a box for “all”. But there is always a box for “other”.
“Check all” could cause confusion and may not apply to those who can’t honestly check all. But we can all honestly check “other”.
“Check Other” is simple and appealing. It disrupts the statistical institutions just as well.
“Check Other” is simple and appealing. It disrupts the statistical institutions just as well.
It is difficult to resist any chance to disrupt the statistical analyses, particularly when they are tracking something as irrelevant as race.
The problem is also that "Other" is often assumed to be "White" because for years there was no box for "White".
I don't know why they think it is more relevant than beverage preference.
Check One:
Coffee
Tea
Milk
Water
Soda
Juice
Other
They would assume that there was a need to give hiring preferences to milk-drinkers because they are underrepresented in the workforce. Obviously the people who check "Other" would be assumed to prefer alcoholic beverages. This would totally mess with the people who prefer horchata or boba.
is difficult to resist any chance to disrupt the statistical analyses
Agreed. Let’s not.
The problem is also that "Other" is often assumed to be "White" because for years there was no box for "White".
I wasn’t aware of this. It had first occurred to me that everyone should just pick a group, Asian, black or whatever. But when considering the marketing, other still seems the best option.
They would assume that there was a need to give hiring preferences to milk-drinkers because they are underrepresented in the workforce.
Underrepresented for a reason. Milk-drinkers face real discrimination in some places such as Skyrim.
80% of Americans think political correctness is a problem. But we wouldn’t even need a large percent to mess up the stats. If 10% of people checked “other” statistical data would be known to be very inaccurate.
Neither would most conservatives. Identitarianism is apolitical because most people are conditioned to conflate their sense of self with social classes like race, gender, nationality, etc. which means most people have a deep stake in preserving identitarianism as a general phenomenon.
My view on the matter is less dire. Identity politics appear to be front and center in the American mind only if you’re watching TV. When you talk to people, it is one of the furthest things from their mind, other than their concern that it is foremost in someone else’s mind. Recent surveys support my optimism.
If my concern were only American identity politics then my cynicism would not run (quite) so deep, because I agree with your observation there. However, my concern is with identitarian ideologies and practices more broadly, of which American identity politics is only one instantiation. I'm opposed to social identity classes in general, which most people do practice and believe in (i.e. most people believe they have a race, sex, gender, nationality, economic class, etc. and that others do as well).
If you could stop your basement from flooding, would you forego the effort because floods cannot generally be stopped?
You’re a nihilist from top to bottom. So when you talk about your concern, I know you mean it only superficially. My target market would have to care about the condition of their basement when it is flooding. They won’t feel their concern superficially.
Keeping with my analogy. Being against social identities is like being against bodies of water, when all we need be concerned with is floods. Or rather, a flood at home. & If you could stop your basement from flooding, would you forego the effort because floods cannot generally be stopped?
Your analogy is built upon a false dichotomy. Being concerned with the body of water (i.e. social identities) doesn't mean that I cannot also be concerned about the flooding (i.e. personal quality of life). In fact, I'd argue that being concerned with either entails being concerned with the other. Nor are the solutions to these concerns necessarily mutually exclusive.
I believe that processes for social identification are directly responsible for a diminished quality to my life (and the lives of others), and resisting those processes in my personal life is a way of reclaiming some quality of life for myself and those I care about. This resistance provides palliative care for the (probably) incurable human social condition of identity classification.
You’re a nihilist from top to bottom. So when you talk about your concern, I know you mean it only superficially. My target market would have to care about the condition of their basement when it is flooding. They won’t feel their concern superficially.
I'm not sure why you suppose my nihilism makes my concern here superficial. It's not.
God Jace, sometimes I worry about you a little.
I take this to be sincere, so I appreciate the intention even though I find it somewhat silly. ;)
Keeping with my analogy. Being against social identities is like being against bodies of water, when all we need be concerned with is floods. Or rather, a flood at home.
Abstention would be my preference where possible, but selecting 'other' can be a good alternative. At a minimum, it's more accurate than selecting any racial class presented as an option.
However, I question how effective this would be at undermining the statistics as they're presented and consumed. The category of 'other' can be omitted or buried in reporting, and people can be led to think of the data in various ways - 'other' can be seen to increase because an increased number of people identify as 'mixed' or of another minority racial class, which can be further construed to reach any number of erroneous conclusions (e.g. interracial relationships have increased so racism is no longer a problem, X minority now has more people so representation is less of a concern and they don't require as much social support so we can defund programs now, etc.).
Moreover, without knowing for certain that the 'other' category has been skewed by people who share OPs motive we could not dismiss the 'other' category on that grounds as it may well actually represent an increase in other demographic self-reporting and ignoring that could have tangible social harms. Confusing the data may well have a trade-off since this sort of data is leveraged for social justice work, as well as against it. I'm not sure that tradeoff isn't worth it, but it bears consideration I think.
As it stands, the data is generally already unreliable either by methodology (e.g. inadequate sample size) or misrepresentation (e.g. skewed representation, omission, exaggeration, etc.)... not to mention the unsoundness of racial classes at large. But people already treat such data as reliable, so I'm not convinced this again that this would substantially undermine things.
If this were ever to work, it would follow a well funded (or viral) campaign so that there isn’t much question that the increase in “other” demographics is resulting from a kind of civil disobedience.
As for trade-offs, I consider race based social justice work on any scale larger than local to be detrimental insofar as it perpetuates commonly accepted racism, which is what this idea is meant to attack. Local efforts do not need statistical support, as the affected group is right in front of them. National efforts will proceed regardless of statistics because they are racist. Stats are a sufficient aid to them, but not necessary.
That would only establish correlation which is insufficient grounds from which to invalidate the data set. Regardless, I don't think the data's reliability would factor too heavily into how it's generally received anyways. Most people aren't critical consumers - they readily dismiss reliable information and favor unreliable received truths that align with their pre-existing beliefs. There are already numerous reasons to doubt data collection like this, but people still put undue confidence in it; I don't see what difference one more reason will make.
Nevertheless, I suppose it might undermine confidence in the results for some people. But even if we suppose that's a significant number of people, I still don't see what that gets us. I don't see how this would undermine peoples' faith in social identity classes, which seems to be the objective (perhaps I'm misunderstanding that though). But it would impact federal funding, which actually does impact local activities which receive federal funding based on demographic reporting (not to mention broader programming and organizations). That seems like a cost to me with no tangible gain.
I do generally agree with you, though. I'm just dubious about how effective a campaign like this would be. People have conflated themselves and their self value with the social class identities that delimit them and their behaviors, so they have a stake in preserving the social infrastructure around identity. I'm generally too jaded to believe that enough people want to or can get out from behind that to make any substantive difference. So I don't mark 'other' out of a broader sense of justice or resistance; it's just more accurate and self-respecting on my view.
Temporal occurrence would be evidence of causation.
I don't think the data's reliability would factor too heavily into how it's generally received anyways
If there were a known effort to disrupt data, and evidence that disruption is occurring, it would be noted.
There are already numerous reasons to doubt data collection like this
True, but people don’t know that. There’s nothing like a hashtag viral phenomenon to let the average Twitter consumer know.
I suppose it might undermine confidence in the results for some people
That’s some more than none.
I don't see how this would undermine peoples' faith in social identity classes, which seems to be the objective
It wouldn’t undermine their faith in classes. It would undermine their faith in what they are told about classes.
But it would impact federal funding, which actually does impact local activities which receive federal funding based on demographic reporting (not to mention broader programming and organizations). That seems like a cost to me with no tangible gain.
There are plenty of local causes who do much with local money. Federal money is the carrot the politicians beat us with. When that carrot beats a racial drum, no one actually wins. The gain of getting rid of racial demographic stats is admittedly long term, as are the benefits.
So I don't mark 'other' out of a broader sense of justice or resistance; it's just more accurate and self-respecting on my view.
If I actually saw this movement begin, I wouldn’t care if you marked “other” because you’re a racist, so long as “other” is marked. The means are just, as are the ends. (We don’t have to go into the vicissitudes of Justice, that’s another debate).
Temporal occurrence would be evidence of causation.
No, it wouldn't. If x occurs and then y occurs this establishes that the events have a temporal relationship to one another, but not the nature of that relationship. If I bring my umbrella with me and then it rains that does not mean that my bringing my umbrella caused it to rain, but by the logical structure of your argument this would be a valid conclusion to make.
If there were a known effort to disrupt data, and evidence that disruption is occurring, it would be noted. & True, but people don’t know that. There’s nothing like a hashtag viral phenomenon to let the average Twitter consumer know.
You're more optimistic about people's inclination to reason than I am. I don't think we're going to make headway here without getting pretty deep into some hard evidence, which I'm not sure I'm interested in right now (working on a paper and it's getting most of my time right now).
That’s some more than none.
Which still doesn't amount to anything if it's not enough people to cause substantive change. Minute changes don't seem worth the resource investment required to mount a successful campaign to me, for that reason.
It wouldn’t undermine their faith in classes. It would undermine their faith in what they are told about classes.
I don't think it would do that either. How are they meant to get from a lack of faith in a data pool corrupted by subversion to a lack of faith in what they've been told about classes in general? It seems more likely they'd just be angry at the people who subverted the data than question what they've been told about classes.
There are plenty of local causes who do much with local money. Federal money is the carrot the politicians beat us with. When that carrot beats a racial drum, no one actually wins. The gain of getting rid of racial demographic stats is admittedly long term, as are the benefits.
Given my personal involvement in class-contingent federally funded programming, I can't agree with your take that no one actually wins. I'm generally anti-federalist myself so I'm not unsympathetic to your take, but I don't think you can discount particular benefits just by noting the generalized costs of federalization.
If I actually saw this movement begin, I wouldn’t care if you marked “other” because you’re a racist, so long as “other” is marked. The means are just, as are the ends. (We don’t have to go into the vicissitudes of Justice, that’s another debate).
Temporal evidence absolutely would be necessary, though as you point out not sufficient, to establish causation. If a massive movement to check other were followed by a significant increase in the “other” statistical designation, people would have to look closer. On closer observation, they may find the increase in “other” correlates with a roughly equal decline in various race designation. Regardless, if there were a movement to check “other” followed by an increase in people checking “other”, it would have to be considered a possible or likely explanation.
You're more optimistic about people's inclination to reason than I am.
Likely. I may be more optimistic than you in general.
Which still doesn't amount to anything if it's not enough people to cause substantive change. Minute changes don't seem worth the resource investment required to mount a successful campaign to me, for that reason.
I don’t think a huge percentage is required to cause disruption. Admittedly, I won’t be funding a campaign. The success of such an endeavor would rely on social viral phenomenon.
How are they meant to get from a lack of faith in a data pool corrupted by subversion to a lack of faith in what they've been told about classes in general?
Given the idea catches on, any data tossed around to support some racial narrative will begin to be met with skepticism. That skepticism undermines the narrative itself.
It seems more likely they'd just be angry at the people who subverted the data than question what they've been told about classes.
No doubt. However many people are angry about it, there will appear to be even more when watching evening news.
Temporal evidence absolutely would be necessary [...] it would have to be considered a possible or likely explanation.
I agree that it would have to be considered a possible or likely explanation (to a reasonable person). I think that's a bit different than your original claim which seemed to claim more certainty than that, but this is a landing point I'd agree with.
I don’t think a huge percentage is required to cause disruption. Admittedly, I won’t be funding a campaign. The success of such an endeavor would rely on social viral phenomenon.
Campaigns still take effort, even if they're using viral social media tactics. I could see some folks thinking the effects would be worth it, though. I'd love to see it play out at someone else's expense. ;)
Given the idea catches on, any data tossed around to support some racial narrative will begin to be met with skepticism. That skepticism undermines the narrative itself.
Why would skepticism about the data undermine the narrative itself? Racial narratives are deeply grounded in a lot of attitudes and beliefs that developed and can maintain themselves quite independently of such data, so the connection isn't obvious to me.
No doubt. However many people are angry about it, there will appear to be even more when watching evening news.
I'm not sure I follow your meaning. Are you saying that there will be more people watching the evening news and thinking about the data (and race generally) than people would be be angry at the subversion? If so, I'm not sure I agree but like before can't really back that up outside my cynicism.
As it stands, the data is generally already unreliable either by methodology (e.g. inadequate sample size) or misrepresentation (e.g. skewed representation, omission, exaggeration, etc.)... not to mention the unsoundness of racial classes at large.
This is all true, but the real root of the "unreliability" in use for achieving various societal goals is that race is completely irrelevant.
Even when defined minutely, race is near-useless in a culturally mixed society as a predictor of any individual's choices, behaviors, voting record, employment history, product preferences or income. (Please note the distinction between culture and race.)
I know this statement flies in the face of the standard silliness that has been spewed for 50 years, but the truth of what I am saying becomes obvious when you use a behavior or a trait to try to guess race.
I agree that when one takes a generalized concept - like race (or culture) - and attempts to predict individual action that this is fundamentally in error. However, race is clearly relevant insofar as it's adherents act differently than they otherwise would if they did not believe in race.
I agree that when one takes a generalized concept - like race (or culture) - and attempts to predict individual action that this is fundamentally in error. However, race is clearly relevant insofar as it's adherents act differently than they otherwise would if they did not believe in race.
I think you unwittingly made my point. You misidentified culture as race.
True, race is a "generalized concept" of categorization based on phenotypes (outward characteristics) that are about appearance, not roots of behavior and ability. Because it is a concept, it is an aspect/result of culture. The concept is learned.
People only have a concept of race because they are enculturated to do so, and they only think race matters if they are enculturated to do so. Adherents to racial identity only act differently than they otherwise would if they did not believe in race IF they are enculturated to behave that way.
These "race-related" behaviors are not related to genetics, not even to phenotypes. They are related to culture.
As a result of living in a media saturated, multicultural society, we all are exposed to multiple cultures, absorb aspects of those cultures to various degrees and in various ways.
To be fair, in the case of black/Black and white/White, we have a linguistic complication that exacerbates this conflation of race and culture. When White and Black are capitalized, they denote culture, and when not capitalized, they denote race. This is a useless distinction in spoken English, and only marginally useful in written English because so few people know about the capitalization-based distinction.
To further complicate things, as a general rule, people categorize themselves and others as black if they have ANY degree of black-associated phenotypes, and ANY identified black ancestors. As a result of this, Barack Obama (who has a black dad and white mom) is categorized as the first black US president, but, for unclear reasons, he is not considered the 44th white US president. This further illustrates that racial categorization is not even a function of known genetic lineage.
I never identified culture as race. I indicated that culture, like race, is a generalized concept which also cannot be used to predict individualized behavior.
At this point I'm not clear what you believe my position is, but your comments seem rather detached from anything I've actually said.
I thought I was being clear. I apologize. I will try to do better this time.
You wrote previously,"However, race is clearly relevant insofar as it's adherents act differently than they otherwise would if they did not believe in race."
The two underlined portions of the statement are at odds. The first portion is saying that race is relevant, but the second portion is saying that culture is the relevant portion (because belief is part of culture, not race.)
At this point I'm not clear what you believe my position is, but your comments seem rather detached from anything I've actually said.
Near as I can tell your position is that folks are individuals. I was discussing the problems that crop up whenever we discuss race, whether we discuss it as if it is a real thing, or just an abstract construct because the construct is so poorly defined.
Thanks for the clarification; I'm a bit clearer on your meaning now.
The two underlined portions of the statement are at odds. The first portion is saying that race is relevant, but the second portion is saying that culture is the relevant portion (because belief is part of culture, not race.)
I disagree that belief is a part of culture, because I think beliefs are necessarily individuated and actual whereas culture is necessarily aggregated and abstract.
When I said that adherents to racial thinking act differently than they otherwise would if they did not believe in race, I meant that an individual's beliefs in and about race (uniquely) inform how they act. I don't regard this as a cultural phenomenon, but as an expression of individuals' racial beliefs as they relate to their overall unique cognitive infrastructure.
Near as I can tell your position is that folks are individuals. I was discussing the problems that crop up whenever we discuss race, whether we discuss it as if it is a real thing, or just an abstract construct because the construct is so poorly defined.
That's accurate; my position does regard folks as individuals (and discredits race and culture as real things).
I agree that there are challenges to discussing something like race because the construct is poorly defined (whether it references something real or not, as you say). Are you familiar with Sally Haslanger's work on social identity? Or Natalie Stoljar? I think their ideas are a good starting point for being able to tackle the problems you've drawn attention to (glad to elaborate on their views and my thoughts on them if you're interested!).
I think beliefs are necessarily individuated and actual whereas culture is necessarily aggregated and abstract
I am unsure about how much I disagree with you about that.
Sure, culture is absolutely aggregated. Absolutely the term culture is an abstract generalization for many varied combinations of shared knowledge beliefs, assumptions, and learned/imitated behaviors.
This includes things like language. Yes, there are variations in how people who speak and write, but it is still the same language. You and I share this abstraction together, yet the fact that we can share this aspect of culture in such complex and consistent way indicates that it is remarkably UNabstract.
This includes things like language. [...] that we can share this aspect of culture in such complex and consistent way indicates that it is remarkably UNabstract.
I disagree. The concept of 'language' is still completely abstract. We can communicate because we have sufficiently similar linguistic habits, but that does not mean we share the same language.
The concept of 'language' is still completely abstract. We can communicate because we have sufficiently similar linguistic habits, but that does not mean we share the same language.
Are you saying they are not real similarities, but merely abstract similarities?
Are you saying we do not share actual habits, just abstract habbits?
The similarities are actual but do not constitute an actual, singular language because we also have linguistic dissimilarities. There are only individual languages unique to each person, which is not what I take you to mean by 'language' in your use (i.e. I take you to mean something like English or German).
If any subtle linguistic difference constitutes a separate language, than what you you call a body of linguistically similar utterances with shared formal rules utilized by mutually successful communicators?
When presented with a contextually obvious definition of language I'll of course call it language. However, identifying something through its tautology doesn't demonstrate its existence. If I define 'unicorn' and ask you what you'd call the thing which that definition describes and you say 'unicorn' I won't have established that unicorns actually exist.
There is a substantial difference between "the similarities are actual" and "a body of linguistically similar utterances with shared formal rules utilized by mutually successful communicators". That's not a definition I've used in this exchange and it doesn't capture what I'm describing; in particular, "formal rules" is well off the mark.
In this thread I'm primarily contesting the idea of extant languages (e.g. English, German, etc.), which Marcus presented as an instantiation of non-abstract culture. Such languages do have formal rules, against which a person can speak incorrectly which suggests the rules exist outside of the individual (hence, "extant language"). This is different from merely shared language (i.e. at least two people can convey meaning between one another), where the capacity to convey meaning is centered over "correct" speech; I contest this, too, though it wasn't my original concern here.
Acknowledging the existence of some unspecified quantity of similarities shared between two people (myself and Marcus in the above exchange) alongside their evident ability to understand one another does not entail acknowledging an extant language. For example: I once learned an elaborate card game from someone with whom I shared very limited linguistic commonality. So, we had actual linguistic similarities and could convey meaning but it doesn't seem like we were using an extant (cultural) language like English or German.
Whether in that case we shared a language between us is perhaps less obvious, but I'm still inclined to say we didn't. While we had some actual similarities and these were sufficient to convey some meaning between us, those similarities represent only a portion of our respective linguistic ontologies. While this case is more extreme I think it holds even when there is a high proportion of similarity to dissimilarity, because whatever dissimilarity exists constitutes a difference in grasping and conveying meaning which is not shared in kind.
Put another way language is a cognitive phenomenon, an existential phenomenon that is resident in and unique to each being which possesses a linguistic capacity. I have my language and you have yours, and when we use these in relation to one another there may be communication (i.e. a transferal of meaning) between us. However, it is confused to consider this communication to be language itself.
Extant languages are abstract concepts that cannot reference a material reality for that reason. To say that people speak English or German is inaccurate because there is no such actual thing as English or German which they could speak. Extant languages are abstract, conceptional aggregations of individual languages derived from arbitrarily designated standards of sufficient similarity. The reality of language is more diverse and intrinsic than extant language grasps or allows.
I can’t agree. Your argument seems to rest on the idea the imprecision equals untruth. You may similarly argue that a round ball is not actually round because is is not actually a sphere. But of course the ball is round. Just as my speech is English. To say that my speech isn’t English because it’s not precisely what or how you speak, is to be confused about what is meant by the word “language”
When presented with clear terms, it seems you agree with me. You claimed that what we call language is not actually language because there are dissimilarities. I presented a clear definition which includes dissimilarities, and you agreed that the definition described language.
There was also a question in that earlier post; If what we call language isn’t actual language, what would qualify?
I can't agree. [...] confused about what is meant by the word "language".
Many things can be and are meant by the word 'language'; your insistence on a singular meaning is unsound.
My argument is that extant and shared languages center commonality in such a way that the significance of dissimilarity is dismissed rather than accounted for. This is different than arguing imprecision makes extant and shared languages untrue. Moreover, the concept of commonality integral to extant and shared language is an artificial construction that requires the generalized and arbitrary aggregation of independent and particular cases of speech. The existence of dissimilarity is thereby improperly understood as a digression from the commonalities of extant and shared language, rather than as the expression of individualized language which does have material existence.
To say that one speaks 'English' is a misrepresentation of what one speaks, because one speaks their individual language rather than a constructed and non-existent language. Even though we generally understand such individual language in terms of the construction of extant language, this is because conceptual simplification is easier and generally sufficient for our ends (which are not ontological accuracy) and not because they represent ontological facts.
When presented with clear terms, it seems you agree with me. [...] you agreed that the definition described language.
I recognized that you meant your definition to correspond with the word 'language'. Despite your claim to the contrary, this in no way demonstrates my agreement with your position because that recognition does not entail the further recognition that such a definition also references a material reality. Nor does recognizing your intent to conceive of language in a particular way mean that I agree with that conception of language.
Although your definition implicitly suggests that dissimilarity is possible the central emphasis is on similarity and the existence of formal rules. This approach is dismissive of exceptions rather than explanatory or permissive, and works to establish an a priori presumption against the relevance of exceptions before they're relevance has been determined; this begs the question.
The definition builds in a further presumption that formal rules exist which precludes from consideration whether such rules actually exist, as opposed to being abstract generalizations from arbitrarily aggregated particular cases that do not actually exist; this again begs the question.
Nor are the terms of your definition clear. It is relevant and unclear what constitutes: a body, sufficient similarity, formal rules, mutuality, and success.
There was also a question in that earlier post; If what we call language isn’t actual language, what would qualify?
That was not the original question. You asked if we could not call your definition language then what would we call it. I answered that it could be called language, but that this would not mean it corresponded to a material reality.
I also have answered the other question, though, as I've already presented and elaborated on the meaning of three different ways of understanding language: extant, shared, and individual. I regard all three as conceptually coherent, but explained why I think only the latter corresponds with a material reality.
Many things can be and are meant by the word 'language'
Not infinitely many.
In your earlier post, you said ”We can communicate because we have sufficiently similar linguistic habits, but that does not mean we share the same language.”
If communication via sufficiently similar linguistic habits is not language, then what is?
I never claimed that. My point was that 'language' can and does have more than one significance, so your tautological argument which advances as though one definition were absolute is unsound.
If communication via sufficiently similar linguistic habits is not language, then what is?
I have already answered this question at length, as well as redirected you to that answer. I'm disinclined to continue repeating myself when it only seems to garner the same disingenuous response.
To be clear then, in your view language is the unique set of utterances an individual makes to communicate with others (who have their own unique language). Furthermore, it is your view that language is not to be defined as it is commonly understood.
Utterances are only part of language, and I would not limit any conception of language to utterances. I also would not use the concept of a 'set' to understand language as it exists because that suggests a more fixed nature rather than a dynamic one.
At no point have I said that language cannot or should not be defined as it is commonly understood. Rather, my observation remains that such definitions fail to correspond with a material reality. The only language which actually exists is personal language, but this does not preclude the existence of alternative concepts of language such as external and shared language.
But what about census forms every question possible regarding racial and ethnic data is asked on them and one is legally required to fill one certainly where I live , is this the case also in the U S is it a legal requirement to fill one?
Interesting, government officials may see it differently one runs the risk over here of a hefty fine of €44;000 euro for not filling out the form correctly as in the way it’s worded
We English? But you’re American you prick with ears
If I were American then I would be writing in American English instead of British English you impossibly stupid imbecile.
At the end of the day, I'm not the one who admitted over private message that he sexually abused his own niece, am I? That's you. Terrorism I can handle, but I draw the line at paedophilia, you sick Irish nonce.
You said you can handle Terrorism, I interpreted it as jokes about or satire regarding terrorism and transferred that interpretation onto what you meant with drawing the line on paedophilia. It turns out you didn't mean jokes or satire, you explicitly just admitted you meant physically doing so you 'can handle' physically doing terrorism as it's (to you) nowhere near paedophilia in ramifications and net harm. This is actually fitting given how you side with Hamas so passionately against Israel.
And that is the problem. You think you have the right to distort information to fit your own bias, whereas the reality is that you don't. This is just something stupid people do when they are losing an argument with someone who is more intelligent than they are.
And that is the problem. You think you have the right to distort information to fit your own bias, whereas the reality is that you don't. This is just something stupid people do when they are losing an argument with someone who is more intelligent than they are
Oooh...Aaaah...
And how many times have we watched you deflect to emotion and not respond to someone's logic?
Would you like to come to debateart and verse me in an official debate and see who ends up the winner?
You are an extremely stupid little narcissist who doesn't understand how to read English, so why would I give you another chance to beat me in a debate?
Because you've never 'beaten me' unless on an alternate account on debateisland and/or debate.org. You cant win or lose debates on this site, there's no judging mechanism or official voting panel of any kind beyond alt-abusing up-and-down voters who don't have to justify their votes.
You wouldn't be giving me another chance, you've never beaten me in a debate with any third-party verification before.
What a prick you are , you support terrorists when it’s Hamas doing it but not when it’s the IRA doing it you two faced hypocrite , as usual you profess one thing but contradict yourself every time just like the prick you are
The Co-Founder of Hamas died after accidentally shooting himself in the face , sounds about as retarded as you 🙀 this is natural selection at work or he pissed off the wrong people in his terrorist group.🤣🤣
Poor old Aladdin mixed up his lamp with his gun , wonder where the fleas from his beard went when he shot his his face off 😂😂😂😂😂😂
What does it mean then? If you put it in the same sentence where after it you say 'I draw the line at paedophilia' then you correct me saying explicitly it isn't the joking about or speaking of the topic you meant since you correct me by comparing it to actually abusing children it then follows that in the original 'handling of Terrorism' you meant actual Terrorism and not the joking about it or speaking lightheartedly about it.
Hey that's actually a good idea. Identity politics wants to stop racism, but is racist itself. I should not have to choose a political party based on something I can't decide on. Identity politics is cancer, both on the right and the left.
Do not be afraid to answer the question just because of worries it may not be 100�curate.
100�curacy is unattainable for a being enslaved to its subjectivity in the first place and since the questionnaire you are answering is made by a social construct formed by such beings, you can't avoid flaws in it, you need to forgive them and work with the system anyway.
The refusal to answer the question isn’t out of fear for providing less than accurate information. It is with the intent to provide less than accurate information.
