Qre:us, superiority isn't a matter of definition.
For example, consider military superiority. I could verbally define the Mig-29 as having air superiority over the F-22. But that doesn't make it so.
How anything is NOT a matter of definition, escapes me. Unless you're talking of the subjective realm, in which case, your original wording of "objective" is wrong.
Don't get lost in the words buddy! Words do not have magical powers.
What quack are you talking here?
There's a difference between a culture that can fish and build snow houses, versus one that can do that *and* design and use aircraft, build cathedrals and skyscrapers, make conquests, and create entire literary genres. For someone who likes to talk about definitions and power, you're ignorant of the basic definition of power-- the capability of doing or accomplishing something.
The fact that in such a harsh environment, they've survived for generations without needing such "advances in technology" is pretty awe-inspiring to me. Maybe not to you.
^ that would be subjectivity by the way.
These groups of people have also been approched by Western scientists to gain knowledge of different aspects of science in the Arctic.
I want you to explain to me how your use of the words "objectively superior" and "culture" are valid.
You have failed to do so.
You're pussyfooting around the topic. Answer my points.
You have also failed to explain how you see "culture" as some isolated thing - when you explain that, or try to explain that, it'll make you realize how most of these "accomplishments" came about in human civilization.......through the knowledge transfer and building of knowledge between "cultures" (and their histories)/mixing "cultures" (and their histories), and all other variations in between.
Which, as I said, is kinda hard for those isolated Inuits.
It's like having access to 1 book versus 100 books, of equivalent standing in terms of knowledge. Of course, the latter would produce more fruitful accompliments. Cultures that were all able to influence, be influenced by one another, are like those with 100 books. Aggregated knowledge. Able to build on knowledge - because a rich knowledge base was already available to them.
A fair comparison of superiority would be between 1 book versus 1 book. And, then one coming out with far greater accomplishments. I.e., one
isolated culture versus one
isolated culture.
Prove that USA, which sent man to the moon, was, and is, an isolated culture, without any peek at others' books of knowledge, then you can claim this "objective superiority".
But justification has nothing to do with who wins and loses on the stage of history. The problem with moral relativists, is that their thought is never relative to anything out there in the world, just relative to their warm and fluffy feelings.
You're so ignorant it hurts to read your comments. It's relative to the world they occupy, it's functional to
their environment. Otherwise, they could not have sustained for as long as they did. Not solely on their own "fluffy feelings".
I like the way you patronizingly assume I must never have read him or else I couldn't fail to be in agreement with him.
