The first argument is the worst argument for racism I've ever heard, I don't even know what to call the fallacy...it isn't even an argument and the context makes it even stupider, with him explaining he would even support the British, his major enemies, in a battle with blacks. Which is strategic idiocy
>>524518240And this quote alone makes it clear that Ridley Scott was right about him being the Supreme Gentleman
>>524518240His racism was a sign of intelligence and perception, idiot
>>524518377If he is so intelligent why does his argument rest in such a blatant fallacy?
How is it a fallacyIt is very natural to be in favor of your own kind
>>524518460Where's the fallacy? He was saying it's a matter of self-interest for him, which is internally consistent.
>>524518240>supporting your own kind is a fallacy... because... uh.... IT JUST IS OKAYgo back
>>524518900>appeal to nature is a rhetorical technique for presenting and proposing the argument that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'."[1] In debate and discussion, an appeal-to-nature argument can be considered to be a bad argument, because the implicit primary premise "What is natural is good" has no factual meaning beyond rhetoric in some or most contexts.>>524518967How would supporting the British just because they're white be in his interest?
>>524519021Your own kind can be taken to mean any number of things. Reducing it to skin color obviates most of them
