Well, so much for your contention that an appeal to authority is valid when the authority is the entity which defines a term. Now he have conflicting authorities and meaning is muddled.Second of all, there are different editors at different dictionaries. They are conveying the definition that they wish to convey.
And below you claim that you're in academia. Give me a break. This addled thinking is good for comedic effect but really doesn't belong in a serious discussion. Now the people you're debating are supposed to know what your favored dictionary is.I used the same dictionary I always cite in my arguments. If you wish to know the exact meaning I am using for a word that might be ambiguous, look at that dictionary.
You asked and I delivered. Do you not recall our PM exchange. I followed the practice I use with everyone, so I'm not revealing any privileged information of our discussion. For arguments that I've already made in an earlier thread, I provide a link to that discussion and all of the supporting evidence I cite. I won't jump through hoops where the person I'm corresponding with wants me to repeat, for their benefit, all the work that I've already done. I would tell anyone, and I usually do, to get off their lazy butt and read the link(s) I sent them and then I inform them if they had any further questions that arose from that material that I'd be happy to engage them on those questions. I give you my permission to release that e-mail if you think it helps your case in this matter.You'd be busted out of any place for plagiarism for your lack of citations in posts (one's I've asked very kindly for sources for).
If you're going to make accusations then you should at least TRY to base them on evidence:So when you make an argument that genetics alone is the cause of racial variance in IQ by way of evolution
RiverDad (Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'): This is actually the least controversial point I've made in this entire discussion. Those numbers are seen all throughout the literature. No one is disputing them. The dispute, as it is, centers on whether the numbers arise from genes, environment or a combination of both factors. The extremist creationists argue for environment, the moderates argue for genes and environment. No one argues for genes alone.
The entire superiority-inferiority framework presupposes that it is possible to rank racial groups from superior to inferior. On what basis does this ranking occur? Therein lies the fallacy of this framework. We are all the sum of many parts. Are taller people superior to shorter people? How about the tall child molester, is he superior to the short nurse? How about smarter people, are they superior to less intelligent people? How about the smart serial killer, is he superior to the average intelligence person who is a cop working to put him in prison.you must consider that race to be inherently inferior to the other, because if all things but one are equal, and that one thing is superior in one group over the other, then the whole thing is inferior due to the differences in that single trait.
Your recognize this and that's why you're engaging in convoluted reasoning to twist meaning into the tight definitional box that you're trying to construct. You conveniently abandon your own preferred definition, see Merriam Webster:
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
They don't go through these logical restrictions that you're invoking in order to narrowly define superiority, they refer to a rank ordering of races. Thus, those who believe in a rank ordering of races are racists. They meet the conditions specified in the dictionary definition. This is really pathetic to watch. In this debate you're arguing that the Merriam Webster dictionary is the authoritative source, that we should all know that this is so, that words have precise meanings, and that you know I'm a racist, not because I meet the definition of one, but because you convince yourself that if you twist dictionary definitions into a Möbius strip then all will turn out fine on the other side of the Looking Glass.
In many sports leagues around the world, promotion and relegation is a process that takes place at the end of each season. Through it, teams are transferred between divisions based on their performance that season. The best-ranked teams in each division are promoted to the next-highest division, and at the same time, the worst-ranked teams in the higher division are relegated to the lower division. This process continues down through several levels, with teams being exchanged between levels 1 and 2, levels 2 and 3, levels 3 and 4, and so on. Sometimes, qualifying rounds are used to promote and relegate. . . . .
The system is the defining characteristic of the "European" form of professional sports league organization. Promotion and relegation have the effect of maintaining a hierarchy of leagues and divisions, according to the relative strength of their teams.
I'm not really sure what this diversion is adding to the conversation but hey, sports leagues are good things to discuss too.
Or we could use another analogy. Let's say that you defrauded me out of $10,000, and I take you to court and receive a judgment of $10,000 against you. Am I just as bad as you, because we both took $10,000 from each other? No. The $10,000 I received was to redress a wrong that was done to me.
So not really a diversion at all, right?