No, it actually isn't. I already said I wasn't perfect, so the, uh, lady (still not satisfied?) represents an agreeable person who would like to talk about this with you. That way you can't use my disagreeable personality as an excuse to dismiss my viewpoint. For the sake of discussion I acknowledge you have seen through my thinly veiled attempt at playing the victim. You've outplayed me. Let's move on to more interesting topics, because the last page is descending dangerously close to name calling. From now on, I'll stick to the meat of the discussion.
Moving on ...
I'd like to see you pick an arguing point and stick to it.
One thing at a time. There is a clear order to this process, one follows logically from the prior. Let us first settle on whether philosophy makes falsifiable viewpoints.
(The next step would be then to pontificate about whether progress means a contraction or expansion of viewpoints. On that we may never agree.)
Jewish people, who are by far and away the nobel prize carriers in science, are white. How is white supremacy wrong?
Let me qualify this outrageous statement: had Germany in the 1930's marshaled its military properly, you may be growing up thinking that Aryans are a master race and there would be mountains of philosophical work with pseudoscience (skull measurements and all that junk) to back it up - in fact, all of those things existed and convinced a number of people - and still do. You say 'of course white supremacy is wrong', but there is an alternate reality where humanity totally believes it is true.
You must learn to divorce your idea of something that is 'obviously wrong' from present social context. If you were an unfortunate chap growing up in 1930's Germany, you would have done your damnedest to convince me of Aryan philosophy. In fact, if you were born in the middle east right now, it is quite possible you may have been cajoled into blowing yourself up or chopping someone's head off. The mere possibility that these things could have occurred should go a long way against your argument that '[x] supremacy' (white, islamic, asian, japanese, aryan supremacy .. all equivalent viewpoints in their motive) is universally false regardless of context. As long as ISIS is killing people, '[x] supremacy' can never be provably false.
This stands in contrast to the laws of ballistic motion. A bullet leaving a rifle behaves in a completely predictable way, regardless of the belief of the man pulling the trigger ...
Let us go one step further. We can try to disprove white supremacy. The most obvious answer is genes - we have shown humans are 99% similar (or thereabouts). Furthermore, we are doing psychological research into the idea of nature versus nurture. We are asking the question about culture, where Ashkenazi jews impart their famous work ethic and somehow end up producing nobel prize winners with startling frequency.
So in a way, we are able to slowly chip away at this claim, and get to the point that it is not really white people who are supreme (that's just a function of the sun or something ..?) but rather the peculiar chaotic path of history and other immeasurably complex factors that resulted in the West achieving some sort of dominance over the rest of the world. So maybe white surpremacy is not about skin colour, but about a geographical region of people. Wait ...
... is white supremacy falsifiable? It seems like it is one of many lenses through which you peer at history.
If you're looking for an answer about philosophical views on concepts like the purpose to life, no, because it's a belief. Beliefs aren't useless, however, as beliefs drive a person towards a goal and act as a compass for a person's views on the world, life, and their place in it.
Correct. Philosophy provides us points of view. They are personal and we are all free to accept or reject them based upon our internal compass. But a falsifiable philosophy eventually becomes true regardless of point of view - you fall whether you like it or not.
I apologize in advance for any rudeness.
