>anti-realism because no precise boundary
you're probably also one of those people who think mountains depend on human classification because they slope up gradually from the surrounding landscape so they have vague edges
but that problem exists for literally every object
zoom in on your finger enough and there is no sharp line at which it ends and the air around it begins
objects have real boundaries, but the scale at which the boundary exists is the one appropriate to the object
>It's like trying to define what a "big" number is.
it's a number that is of great magnitude
if it didn't have a definition, there would be no such thing as a big number, but there is such a thing, ergo bigness has a definition in the case of number
your argument would also deny the existence of heaps, forests, beards, etc. because there is no definition of those things in terms of an exact (natural) number of constituent objects
>the difference between cousins and between totally different "races" is purely quantitative. But by introducing concepts like race, we draw a line to claim that there is a qualitative difference.
if in applying the concept we claim there is a qualitative difference, and there isn't, then we are wrong to apply the concept, since the claim we make in applying it is false
you claim there is no qualitative difference (it's "purely quantitative"), hence you claim the concept of race doesn't apply
hence you deny the existence of race
when will STEMfags stop trying to do philosophy?
they always just get stuck in retarded reductionism and relativism the moment they start
