>>214331303
>if two stupid people have 10 kids most of the kids will be stupid. if two tall people have 10 kids most of the kids will be tall. i don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
If you want to call tall people a race and stupid people a race, go for it. I don't think you understand what you're even arguing. Race being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a concept, but it's not a science and it's not objective. What's hard to grasp about that. The fact you know "black" and "white" can be arbitrary statements is you agreeing with me but being too dense to acknowledge it because you have an inherent aversion to this topic.
>>214331356
It's not about whether I'd agree. I probably might. It's the fact that it's not a consensus that we all have and the "race" of someone can change depending on what area in the world you transport them to.
>what kind of person has a vested interest in pushing mankind as raceless travelers?
Why do you want us to have divided races anyway? Especially when it's not something that can be objectively tested. And no, I don't want us to be a race raceless society, quit your crying. We can have race as a concept and also acknowledge it's a social construct. Stop being dumb.