What is it with you and poo? "do do"?
I don't think fasgnadh would have any problem with you calling him an ethnicist: from OED: racist (= racialist)
racialist - A. n. A partisan of racialism; an advocate of a racial theory. B. adj. Of, pertaining to, or characterized by racialism.
ethnicist (rare, = ethnologist) - (recent addition) a. Also, a student of ethnicity (sense 2). b. A supporter or champion of a particular ethnic group or of certain ethnic groups. c. spec. A student of or enthusiast for foreign or exotic culture, food, dress, etc.
ethnologist - One who is engaged or versed in the study of ethnology.
Quite clear-cut, I would say.
That is absurd. He does not claim that ethnicity affects the worth or ability of a person (unlike racists).
Being a "racist" means supporting race theory (definition A from racialist), which says that race exists. Therefore, believing in race makes you a racist.
In the meantime, ethnicity is not a theory, it is a categorisation by certain specific properties (like religion, culture, nation of origin-ancestry). It is as significant as categorising a person by neighbourhood, or by citizenship - both clearly identifiable qualities. "Race" is not a clearly-identifiable quality - it is an arbitrary clbuttification.
Ethnicity is based quite clearly on well-defined qualities, such as religion, culture, nation of origin-ancestry, or language. All of these are categories of similarity to citizenship - you cannot identify citizenship by science, nor by belief - it is a descriptor, just like ethnicity.
Your attempt to redirect the question at fasgnadh makes no sense, given that he does not accept the concept of racial distinction (and either do I).
To clbuttify someone (ethnically) as Japanese means to identify that either they are native Japanese, or they have Japanese ancestors - both sensible definitions. This is not "stupid", it is descriptive, just as describing someone as having red hair or wearing lipstick is not "stupid". However, while describing someone as "white" can be interpreted as describing their skin colour, it becomes racism when being "white" means more than having palish or "white" skin. Similarly, many racists clbuttify people with bronzed skin as "arabic" (an ethnicity - falls into a generalisation of "nation"), even when they are greek, italian, or just tanned "white", and they attach more to it than skin colour.
Are you a cretin? He has specifically said why he will not answer the question - it is a nonsense question. Ethnicity is not a scientific concept, but a human concept, just like marriage, citizenship, and name. None of these can be identified by science, but all are descriptors (they describe a person). Race, as the word is used by racists, on the other hand, makes out to be a scientific concept, (as opposed to a human concept), despite the fact that it cannot be identified by science, and it is not a descriptor (it is supposed to be genetic).
You are like a broken record - I have covered this multiple times above (and in another post).
Why are racists almost always broken records? I have covered this enough - you can no longer claim that ethnicity is not defined.
