Pioneer1 Posted June 30 Report Posted June 30 Some have argued that since the concept of race and racial categories are social constructs, they somehow aren't real...and some even argue that they "don't exist". From a secular perspective, both Marriage and Religion are social constructs. Should we apply the same standard to them, and argue that they "don't really exist" either?
ProfD Posted June 30 Report Posted June 30 Racial classifications by skin color were codified back in the 1600s. Religion is a belief system. Marriage is literally a contract between two parties. The reality and/or validity of every man-made social construct has always been debated. A wonderful part of our existence as human beings is that individually we have free will to accept or reject social constructs. 2
frankster Posted June 30 Report Posted June 30 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Some have argued that since the concept of race and racial categories are social constructs, they somehow aren't real...and some even argue that they "don't exist". They are not real and do not exist in the sense that they are non/not physical in and of themselves. Social Constructs are agreed upon and used to foster a way of living as a society... They only exist within societies....without which they dissipate 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: From a secular perspective, both Marriage and Religion are social constructs. Marriage is an agreement between two parties before a third group(family pastor government and friends) Religion is a construct of world view (mindset)imposed.....and is seen to be different from place tp place and time to time 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Should we apply the same standard to them, and argue that they "don't really exist" either? Social Constructs have no independent reality outside society Social constructs are necessary for human interactions behavior and perception.... They insure communication and stability of society.... Some social Constructs benefits all or parts of societies....while others are delelterious to some or all of society - while still other are out dated.
Troy Posted June 30 Report Posted June 30 5 hours ago, frankster said: They are not real and do not exist in the sense that they are non/not physical in and of themselves. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this simple concept is completely lost on @Pioneer1. It does not matter how many different ways it is explained -- it make no difference. As a former educator, I'm curious to learn what it will take to help him understand this. However, I may need to just accept that some people are incorrigible when it comes to some subjects.
ProfD Posted June 30 Report Posted June 30 26 minutes ago, Troy said: For the life of me, I cannot understand why this simple concept is completely lost on @Pioneer1. It does not matter how many different ways it is explained -- it make no difference. The real question is how much more time are you all going to spend trying to get him to see the subject differently. There's a reason for using a clock during a debate. 1
umbrarchist Posted June 30 Report Posted June 30 If we said Breeds of humans instead of Race would that accomplish something?
Pioneer1 Posted July 1 Author Report Posted July 1 frankster They are not real and do not exist in the sense that they are non/not physical in and of themselves. But not being physical doesn't equate to something not being real. Social Constructs are agreed upon and used to foster a way of living as a society... Yes. That doesn't mean they aren't real. They only exist within societies....without which they dissipate Ok, and???? Marriage is an agreement between two parties before a third group(family pastor government and friends) ...a SOCIAL/LEGAL CONSTRUCT. Religion is a construct of world view (mindset)imposed.....and is seen to be different from place tp place and time to time ...constructed by SOCIETY (social construct). Troy For the life of me, I cannot understand why this simple concept is completely lost on @Pioneer1. It does not matter how many different ways it is explained -- it make no difference. It makes no difference because no matter how many different ways yall say it it makes no SENSE, lol. Claiming something "doesn't exist" because it's not physical is borderline retarded. Since "wonder" isn't physical, that means "wonder" doesn't exist???? As a former educator, I'm curious to learn what it will take to help him understand this. However, I may need to just accept that some people are incorrigible when it comes to some subjects. As a former educator, you should be more focused on frankster's jacked up grammar than my position on race...lol. ProfD The real question is how much more time are you all going to spend trying to get him to see the subject differently. See it DIFFERENTLY is an excellent way to put it; because they obviously can't prove me "wrong"....and it's frustrating them. -They claim race doesn't exist....I prove to them it does. -They claim it's merely a social construct....I say so is marriage and religion, so what??? -They say it's not scientific...I provide scientific and medical journals clearly expressing race and racial differences in medicine and scientific circles. They would love it if I said 3 + 4 = 5 ....something you can EASILY prove wrong. But when it comes to calling people "wrong" simply because they don't see things from YOUR PERSPECTIVE, that's much much harder...almost impossible to prove. In earnest, I could call THEIR position of there being only "one race" just a silly and asinine product of denial and wishful thinking....lol....but I won't because I respect the right of other victims of racism to believe as they wish if that helps them cope with racism. Neely Fuller Jr. called it VGQ (Victim's Guaranteed Qualification). Since they too are victims of racism and confusion and don't know how to end it and must cope with it the best way they can....if DENIAL is the only way they can cope with it, they have that right.
ProfD Posted July 1 Report Posted July 1 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Neely Fuller Jr. called it VGQ (Victim's Guaranteed Qualification). Exactly. Because I know you're aware of NF Jr.'s teachings, I figured you just like to back and forth. ..argument. 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Since they too are victims of racism and confusion and don't know how to end it and must cope with it the best way they can....if DENIAL is the only way they can cope with it, they have that right. Social constructs exist for the same reason. As brotha @frankster mentioned, it creates societal order. People have come up with and/or adopted all types of sh8t (beliefs, habits, practices, etc.) to cope with their existence. 1
Troy Posted July 1 Report Posted July 1 7 hours ago, umbrarchist said: If we said Breeds of humans instead of Race would that accomplish something? No. There are no different breeds of humans either. 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: As a former educator, you should be more focused on frankster's jacked up gramma With all the typos I make I’m in no position to talk about anyone’s grammar lol! Well, I don’t recall Neeley Fuller teaching anyone to embrace the racist tools of the racist. The way I see it people who continue to embrace the tool of the racist is the worst victim. another thing that puzzles me is what does grouping people buy the color of their skin provide you. I mean, we know the racist you skin color as a way to easily identify people, to other them, and claim that they were inferior and justify enslaving them. @Pioneer1 what purpose does it serve now? People on the continent of India, come in many shades of brown, but they have hair like Europeans,. I guess you’d put them in the black bucket, which means you don’t have to have nappy hair to be black, right? There are people with nappy red hair who you’d call Black so I guess having red hair doesn’t exclude you from being black. Suppose a person had straight red hair could they be black? There are Black people with very fair skin. I already know you don’t like to call them Black. When so many others include the United States government called these people Black. @Pioneer1 you have a system You’ve developed for putting people into racial categories but what does that tell you about the people in those different racial buckets. If you don’t know anything more about the people after grouping then into different racial categories and what’s the point of doing it in the first place?
umbrarchist Posted July 1 Report Posted July 1 18 minutes ago, Troy said: No. There are no different breeds of humans either. This is turning into a stupid word game. You cannot claim that different groups of human beings do not look different. It is simply a matter of what you call them. If race and breed are unacceptable then what are you suggesting?
frankster Posted July 1 Report Posted July 1 14 hours ago, Troy said: For the life of me, I cannot understand why this simple concept is completely lost on @Pioneer1. It does not matter how many different ways it is explained -- it make no difference. His world view is threaten by the fact of race not being real physically..... especially because it is so obvious... 14 hours ago, Troy said: As a former educator, I'm curious to learn what it will take to help him understand this. However, I may need to just accept that some people are incorrigible when it comes to some subjects. It only takes some one he trust....especially if they massage his ego while explaining things like the sun does not rise nor is the earth flat. 14 hours ago, ProfD said: The real question is how much more time are you all going to spend trying to get him to see the subject differently. There's a reason for using a clock during a debate. I Greatly enjoy our debates....I truly do not want it to end - I only hope he comes up with new more creative rebuttals... 12 hours ago, umbrarchist said: If we said Breeds of humans instead of Race would that accomplish something? Breeds is good.... Breeds tend to deal with deliberate selection and not natural selection. An interesting side note is that the Global Elite is trying to use diet and injections to re/create two breeds of human beings 7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster They are not real and do not exist in the sense that they are non/not physical in and of themselves. But not being physical doesn't equate to something not being real. They are not physically real....they are social agreements 7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Social Constructs are agreed upon and used to foster a way of living as a society... Yes. That doesn't mean they aren't real. They are neither physically or objectively real Social constructs are ideas and preceptions 7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: They only exist within societies....without which they dissipate Ok, and???? Thats it. They are subject to the politics of the time and place 7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Marriage is an agreement between two parties before a third group(family pastor government and friends) ...a SOCIAL/LEGAL CONSTRUCT. Yes 7 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Religion is a construct of world view (mindset)imposed.....and is seen to be different from place tp place and time to time ...constructed by SOCIETY (social construct). Yes 4 hours ago, umbrarchist said: This is turning into a stupid word game. Word games can be fun 4 hours ago, umbrarchist said: You cannot claim that different groups of human beings do not look different. It is simply a matter of what you call them. They are called....ethnicities 4 hours ago, umbrarchist said: If race and breed are unacceptable then what are you suggesting? Race is definitely unacceptable....it is 100% socio-political. Bearing in mind that breed usually denotes external human deliberate intervention....i use it below only because it is biological. You could say they were different breeds of hominins(genus) of which homo sapiens(specie) were one and currently the only surviving one.....according to anthropologist. In short I am suggesting we stick with ethnicities.
Troy Posted July 1 Report Posted July 1 4 hours ago, frankster said: Global Elite is trying to use diet and injections to re/create two breeds of human beings More conspiracy theories Frankster? 1
umbrarchist Posted July 1 Report Posted July 1 8 hours ago, frankster said: They are called....ethnicities Aren't the Irish and the English different ethnicities? Do they look different? How about Italians and Germans? How about Swedes and Australian Aborigines.
frankster Posted July 1 Report Posted July 1 2 hours ago, umbrarchist said: Aren't the Irish and the English different ethnicities? Yes 2 hours ago, umbrarchist said: Do they look different? Not to me 2 hours ago, umbrarchist said: How about Italians and Germans? I know what you mean...but I must point out that those are nationalities They look the same for the most part. 2 hours ago, umbrarchist said: How about Swedes and Australian Aborigines. Yep I can......but that is based on their popular depiction. In every ethnicity their are always outliers.... 6 hours ago, Troy said: More conspiracy theories Frankster? I know.....I just cannot help it Plus it creates room for more discussion
Troy Posted July 2 Report Posted July 2 4 hours ago, frankster said: I know.....I just cannot help it Plus it creates room for more discussion Again ethnicity, is a far better descriptor. As it actually tells you something about the person. The skin of the person only relates bad information to a racist. I would definitely consider the Irish and the English different ethnicities. The English treat the Irish horribly for centuries. Though Pioneer would just see them as "white." Italians are Germans are different ethnicities as well. Of course, Black American a bunch of different ethnicities. Again, the skin color is meaningless. Thanks @frankster your simple statement helped me in my thinking about race.
Pioneer1 Posted July 2 Author Report Posted July 2 Troy The way I see it people who continue to embrace the tool of the racist is the worst victim. You use the word "Black" on a routine basis and incorporate the term "race" for your website. Would you call yourself a victim? @Pioneer1 what purpose does it serve now? Identification People on the continent of India, come in many shades of brown, but they have hair like Europeans,. I guess you’d put them in the black bucket, which means you don’t have to have nappy hair to be black, right? No. Not as far as I'm concerned. Although the ancient Greeks classified dark skinned Indians (Dravidians) as Ethiopians. They said there were 2 Ethiopians. One down in Africa and the other in India. There are people with nappy red hair who you’d call Black so I guess having red hair doesn’t exclude you from being black. Malcolm X had red hair, and I wouldn't DARE question his Blackness...lol. Suppose a person had straight red hair could they be black? It depends on their other features. There are Black people with very fair skin. I already know you don’t like to call them Black. When so many others include the United States government called these people Black. And guess what? We're BOTH right. It depends on who's doing the classifying. If you don’t know anything more about the people after grouping then into different racial categories and what’s the point of doing it in the first place? Again, identification. Again ethnicity, is a far better descriptor. As it actually tells you something about the person. It doesn't tell you how they LOOK. Latino is an ethnicity. What does a Latino LOOK like? Jewish is an ethnicity. What does a Jew LOOK like? Black American a bunch of different ethnicities. Actually if you're talking about the United States, Black Americans are of primarily ONE ethnicity. frankster I Greatly enjoy our debates....I truly do not want it to end - I only hope he comes up with new more creative rebuttals... Same here. However I focus more on FACTS and ACCURACY than trying to be creative or entertaining in our discussions. Being accurate is usually my primary goal in any debate. They are not physically real....they are social agreements But they are REAL. You keep tagging extra words to it to prove a point that doesn't need to be proven and is irrelevant. I said they were REAL. No need to be "physically" real or "morally" real or "psychologically" real. As long as they are REAL. They are neither physically or objectively real Social constructs are ideas and preceptions Ideas and perceptions exist. Race is definitely unacceptable. Maybe to YOU..... But not to the government, science, and the leaders of society -they DEFINITELY accept the reality of race and racial categorization. Umbrarchist Aren't the Irish and the English different ethnicities? Do they look different? How about Italians and Germans? How about Swedes and Australian Aborigines. I've tried time and time again to explain to him that ethnicities are more about CULTURE than PHENOTYPE. That's why race is often used. Race is more about PHYSICAL/PHENOTYPICAL differences that transcend culture and national boundaries.
Troy Posted July 2 Report Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: You use the word "Black" on a routine basis and incorporate the term "race" for your website. Would you call yourself a victim? I wouldn't call myself a "victim" but I and my ancestors have been victimized in this country by racists. I use the word Black not as a physical descriptor but as a way to describe a broad group of people (some of whom you would call white) who have been victimized by defacto and dejure white racism. Sadly, is has been a global phenomenon for several centuries and it effects Africans on the continent and throughout the diaspora. "Black" is the American term for this group of people. 7 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Actually if you're talking about the United States, Black Americans are of primarily ONE ethnicity. You need to get out more if you think Black people in American are largely one Ethnicity. I'll give you a minute to think about that more deeply. If you have not changed your mind (unlikely) then you can come at me again if you like.
frankster Posted July 3 Report Posted July 3 23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster I Greatly enjoy our debates....I truly do not want it to end - I only hope he comes up with new more creative rebuttals... Same here. However I focus more on FACTS and ACCURACY than trying to be creative or entertaining in our discussions. Being accurate is usually my primary goal in any debate. I bring facts based in science. 23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: They are not physically real....they are social agreements But they are REAL. You keep tagging extra words to it to prove a point that doesn't need to be proven and is irrelevant. I said they were REAL. No need to be "physically" real or "morally" real or "psychologically" real. As long as they are REAL. If it is not physically real and true then it is not relevant.. 23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: They are neither physically or objectively real Social constructs are ideas and preceptions Ideas and perceptions exist. exist in the mind 23 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Race is definitely unacceptable. Maybe to YOU..... But not to the government, science, and the leaders of society -they DEFINITELY accept the reality of race and racial categorization. No science does not accept race.
Chevdove Posted July 4 Report Posted July 4 On 6/30/2025 at 7:51 AM, ProfD said: Racial classifications by skin color were codified back in the 1600s. Religion is a belief system. Marriage is literally a contract between two parties. The reality and/or validity of every man-made social construct has always been debated. A wonderful part of our existence as human beings is that individually we have free will to accept or reject social constructs. Prior to the anatomical Y-DNA haplogroups, there was no 'marriage' contract. marriage is an institution ordained by the Creator of malefactors that stem from Adam. Prior to Adam, the primitive hominids are a mystery in some regards in how they socialized. I think that at some point they were nothing like modern humans though, in their social constructs. They engaged in all kinds of strange 'relationships'...
Pioneer1 Posted July 5 Author Report Posted July 5 Troy I use the word Black not as a physical descriptor but as a way to describe a broad group of people (some of whom you would call white) who have been victimized by defacto and dejure white racism. Sadly, is has been a global phenomenon for several centuries and it effects Africans on the continent and throughout the diaspora. "Black" is the American term for this group of people. What about your use of the term "race"??? You need to get out more if you think Black people in American are largely one Ethnicity. I'll give you a minute to think about that more deeply. If you have not changed your mind (unlikely) then you can come at me again if you like. When I say "Black Americans" I'm talking strictly FBA/ADOS AfroAmericans. Not Caribbeans or Africans or most of their progeny as a group. There is some overlap and intermarriage but I'm talking mostly about AfroAmericans. Now AMONG us there are a few differences in cultural habits like dialect, certain foods, etc...but we're pretty much all part of the same ethnic group. Just like LATINOS....in the United States....are one large ethnic group but vary slightly from region to region and from national origin to national orgin. frankster If it is not physically real and true then it is not relevant.. What's "relevant" or "irrelevant" is highly subjective. Whether something exists or not....not so much. exist in the mind Ok????? No science does not accept race. Yes it absolutely DOES and I've proven this over and over again no matter how many times you choose to deny it.
frankster Posted July 5 Report Posted July 5 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster If it is not physically real and true then it is not relevant.. What's "relevant" or "irrelevant" is highly subjective. Whether something exists or not....not so much. That is why i keep saying physically 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: exist in the mind Ok????? Yes.....highly subjective. 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: No science does not accept race. Yes it absolutely DOES and I've proven this over and over again no matter how many times you choose to deny it. To prove that science agrees that races are real and based in genetics... You must find a study that specifically seeks to answer that question....as to whether or not race can be proven genetically? You have cited a study on breast cancer wherein race is used a category....it must be a study primarily on race The scientific studies done primarily on race results says is that it is not genetic.....There is no gene for Race - Race gene
Pioneer1 Posted July 5 Author Report Posted July 5 frankster That is why i keep saying physically No, you keep saying "physically" to INTENTIONALLY formulate a strawman defense. No one is arguing whether something has to be physical to "physically exist". But that which is NON-PHYSICAL also exists....and you know it...but don't want to admit it. To prove that science agrees that races are real and based in genetics... NO. To prove that science agrees that races are real PERIOD. Something you and Troy continue to deny. The scientific studies done primarily on race results says is that it is not genetic.....There is no gene for Race - Race gene There's no gene for religion either. Do Buddhists and Taoists exist? Or are the all the same or are they separate?
aka Contrarian Posted July 5 Report Posted July 5 To me, this discussion on the concept of race is no longer a debate. It's a repetitive exercise in one-upsmanship;a tobacco- spittin' contest. Not to mention a semantic bind. Let's look at the term "social construct" as it applies to race. Let's consider that this term began being tossed around by people who wanted to sound hip and intellectual. It originated with those who had an ulterior motive. Calling race a "social construct" was a tactic adopted to discredit those seeking to perpetuate white supremacy by categorizing minority groups so they could stereotype and discredit them. Once science got thrown into the mix, it blurred the issue and created controversy, pitting what is visual against was is technical. Etomylogy further complicated things by way of providing different words that defined the same thing. Also influencing matters is how popular usage of the word "race" ignores biological fact. Whatever. Point is, I don't think the population at large is losing any sleep over this subject despite the glaring contradictions it exposes. What transcends this ongoing topic is if the ,"one race" debate has any relevancy to what is currently happening in this crazy-assed world. Social constructs are like guidelines. They're rules that exist in case you want to play the game.
umbrarchist Posted July 5 Report Posted July 5 1 hour ago, aka Contrarian said: Social constructs are like guidelines. They're rules that exist in case you want to play the game. We can never have enough pseudo-intellectual bullshit. .
Pioneer1 Posted July 6 Author Report Posted July 6 I don't take offense or get frustrated at Troy and frankster drilling on the fact that racial categories are social constructs. I'm actually inclined to agree with them because racial categories as well as their terms and qualifications often change from society to society and generation to generation. My frustration is at them using that term WHILE continuing to claim that race "doesn't exist"; or "doesn't exist in science". Calling something a "social construct" doesn't null or void it; which is what I feel they are attempting to do. It's a form of gaslighting in my opinion trying to tell us that something we KNOW exists and that much of our society (including this very website!) is actually built around....doesn't.
ProfD Posted July 6 Report Posted July 6 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: My frustration is at them using that term WHILE continuing to claim that race "doesn't exist"; or "doesn't exist in science". Calling something a "social construct" doesn't null or void it; which is what I feel they are attempting to do. It's a form of gaslighting in my opinion trying to tell us that something we KNOW exists and that much of our society (including this very website!) is actually built around....doesn't. It's the equivalent of sticking fingers in one's ears to avoid hearing what they don't want to hear and/or closing their eyes to not see. Again, people have all types of coping mechanisms to deal with this existence. That's why I do not begrudge people who indulge in religion and other beliefs, practices and habits; smoke, drink, gamble, engage in freak-offs, etc. As long as people are not bringing hurt, harm or danger to others...let them do their thing and believe whatever makes life more enjoyable. 1
Pioneer1 Posted July 6 Author Report Posted July 6 2 hours ago, ProfD said: It's the equivalent of sticking fingers in one's ears to avoid hearing what they don't want to hear and/or closing their eyes to not see. Again, people have all types of coping mechanisms to deal with this existence. That's why I do not begrudge people who indulge in religion and other beliefs, practices and habits; smoke, drink, gamble, engage in freak-offs, etc. As long as people are not bringing hurt, harm or danger to others...let them do their thing and believe whatever makes life more enjoyable. Same here bro.... I used to criticize people who smoke cigarettes or used hard drugs like Crack, but I stopped doing it because although I still recognize these habits as non-constructive in general....most of the time they are COPING MECHANISMS that people use to make difficult times in their lives easier. You never know what they were dealing with that turned them ON to whatever habit they're indulging in. And once they were no longer in that situation...they became addicted. Ofcourse it's a form of escapism. But if whatever they're addicted to keeps them from blowing their brains out or jumping off a bridge.....let them engage in it as long as it doesn't harm others UNTIL they can solve whatever problem they're trying to escape from.
frankster Posted July 6 Report Posted July 6 22 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster That is why i keep saying physically No, you keep saying "physically" to INTENTIONALLY formulate a strawman defense. No one is arguing whether something has to be physical to "physically exist". But that which is NON-PHYSICAL also exists....and you know it...but don't want to admit it. It is done so as not to have the issue be conflated... Yes that which is non-physical also does exist....in this case it is called a social construct - in the minds of the individual who make up and accept that social construct 22 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: To prove that science agrees that races are real and based in genetics... NO. To prove that science agrees that races are real PERIOD. Something you and Troy continue to deny. Real as in a social construct... 22 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The scientific studies done primarily on race results says is that it is not genetic.....There is no gene for Race - Race gene There's no gene for religion either. True Though the religiously incline....are diligently searching for one - some even claimed to have found = yet call it by another name 22 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Do Buddhists and Taoists exist? Yes buddhist and taoist do exist. 22 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Or are the all the same or are they separate? Buddhism and Taoism are Social Constructs....a buddhist or taoist are individuals who accept and practice buddhism and taoism Race and racism are social constructs...a racist is one who accept and practice racism The following suffix means "ism" denotes ideology - idea "ist'" denotes practitioner - person
Pioneer1 Posted July 7 Author Report Posted July 7 frankster It is done so as not to have the issue be conflated... But no one HAS conflated the issue, so where is this coming from? Yes that which is non-physical also does exist....in this case it is called a social construct - in the minds of the individual who make up and accept that social construct Though the religiously incline....are diligently searching for one - some even claimed to have found = yet call it by another name Confirmation bias, I guess. Buddhism and Taoism are Social Constructs....a buddhist or taoist are individuals who accept and practice buddhism and taoism Race and racism are social constructs...a racist is one who accept and practice racism I won't argue with any of this. The following suffix means "ism" denotes ideology - idea "ist'" denotes practitioner - person I like this. I think I'll use it in the future...lol.
frankster Posted July 8 Report Posted July 8 On 7/6/2025 at 9:17 PM, Pioneer1 said: frankster It is done so as not to have the issue be conflated... But no one HAS conflated the issue, so where is this coming from? Yes you often do... On 7/6/2025 at 9:17 PM, Pioneer1 said: Yes that which is non-physical also does exist....in this case it is called a social construct - in the minds of the individual who make up and accept that social construct Though the religiously incline....are diligently searching for one - some even claimed to have found = yet call it by another name Confirmation bias, I guess. Well I do not know for sure the evidence is still coming in.....I do not thing it exist though I thing it is a conflation of Spirituality and Religiosity. On 7/6/2025 at 9:17 PM, Pioneer1 said: Buddhism and Taoism are Social Constructs....a buddhist or taoist are individuals who accept and practice buddhism and taoism Race and racism are social constructs...a racist is one who accept and practice racism I won't argue with any of this. Cool On 7/6/2025 at 9:17 PM, Pioneer1 said: The following suffix means "ism" denotes ideology - idea "ist'" denotes practitioner - person I like this. I think I'll use it in the future...lol. cool
Pioneer1 Posted July 8 Author Report Posted July 8 frankster Yes you often do... I have NOT conflated physical existence with existence period. I've routinely said that just because something exists in CONCEPT/IDEA that doesn't mean it has to exist physically. I've used emotions as example. I think you got it twisted, homes.
frankster Posted July 9 Report Posted July 9 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Yes you often do... I have NOT conflated physical existence with existence period. I've routinely said that just because something exists in CONCEPT/IDEA that doesn't mean it has to exist physically. I've used emotions as example. I think you got it twisted, homes. Good I tried to be clear....
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now