We are all Living beings,; STOP CLASSIFYING!!

I would like to identify the three primary arguments that my opponent makes. A) Classifications lead to segregation. B) Segregation leads to prejudice and discrimination. C) Discrimination is inherently negative and morally reprehensible. Ergo) We should not use Classifications so to avoid the morally reprehensible result of discrimination. The way I see it, this is primarily an ethical debate. So I shall argue from an ethical perspective. I would, however, like to respond to the three contentions that Con has put forward. A) Classification need not lead to segregation. Con has asserted this without any real reasoning. He has not shown that this is a necessary fact. He is relying on a form of "slippery slope" fallacy that argues that if we take one step in a progression, we must indeed take all the steps in the progression. In fact, there are many systems of classification that do not lead to segregation. B) Segregation leads to prejudice and discrimination. This again is an unproven attestation. In fact, Segregation is not always a statement of prejudice or discrimination. For example, when I walk into an Electronics store I see several different brands of computers. However, those brands are often set right next to each other on a shelf. There is no segregation between the two. In fact, often times setting them next to each other is a way of showing their similarity, not their differences. People divide things all the time without causing prejudice. you are segregated as the con in this argument, while I am segregated as the pro. However, people do not necessarily have to have a predisposition to a con or pro in the argument. Just because something may happen, or does happen, does not mean that it must happen. C) Discrimination and prejudice is inherently morally reprehensible. The simple fact is this, most forms of prejudice and discrimination are indeed morally reprehensible. However, not all are. When I go to a doctor, I'm going to be prejudice and discriminator against people who have lower education. They are segregated by those who possess medical degrees, and those who do not. We classify them as those who have medical degrees and those who do not. This is a perfect example of beneficial segregation and ethically positive discrimination and prejudice. Now, on to the ethical argument. All of this hinges on Kant's Categorical Imperative. Ethically speaking, this imperative states that unless something is universally possible and desirable for the person considering the action, it is unethical. For example, if you are deciding to lie. .. you must consider if that would be universally possible for everyone to lie, and would it be universally desirable. Since in this case, you would not wish for everyone to lie, it is unethical for you to do so. You argue that we should not classify or discriminate against any kind of animal. However, if you were to universally apply this. .. when you get the flu you should desire for your body to not kill the attacking virus. When you get pneumonia, you should not take antibiotics to kill the bacteria. If you get attacked by a wild dog, you should not be discriminatory or classificatory in your response to that dog. I think that logically and ethically we must concede hat some classifications of living beings are not only morally acceptable, but are also morally positive and required in order to survive as human beings. Thank you.