Racial dating preferences are a form of racism.

I'll try to single out what seems to be Con's main points. They highlighted in bold."As for those who have racial dating preferences, they are not assuming any superiority to any race. People like to date those they are sexually attracted to, and sexual attraction is a matter of subjective taste."The best rejoinder to this argument takes the form of modus tollens, a logically valid form: "If x, then y. Not y. Therefore not x." [1]Let x be "Person is not a racist." Let y be "Person does not assume racial superiority."ThenIf x, then y."If a person is not a racist, then a person does not assume racial superiority."If y is false, then x is necessarily false. I will attempt to show that y is false, and by so doing, I will negate x and refute Con's argument. I will argue that having racial preferences, which actually assume racially superiority, entail racism, via modus tollens.Let me start with an analogy. Assume that there are two identical unlabelled bottles of water. The water and bottles look exactly alike. However, one bottle is fllled with Aquafina water, and the other is filled with Dasani water. Of course, it doesn't matter. Both brands are just municipal tap water. [2][3] So they have the same taste. Would a reasonable person prefer one water to the other? No. Water is equal to water. Dasani water is identical to Aquafina water. The waters are equal.If a person said, "I prefer Dasani," does this person believe that the waters are equal? No. "The waters are equal" and "That water tastes better" are contradictory statements. He cannot claim to perceive the waters as equal and yet prefer one as more desirable. His preference demonstrates that one water tastes better. Thus, he actually does not believe in the equality of water. A person who did believe in water equality would say, "I don't care about the brand. Just give me one."Likewise, individuals with racial preferences contradict themselves. "All races are equal" and "Some races are more desirable" are contradictory statements. If races are equal, then a person would have no racial preference. He would be attracted to some people without correlation to race. By having racial preferences, a person admits that he does not perceive races equally. In order to prefer one race to another, one race must seem more desirable. Hence, racial preferences entail inequality: Some races are more desirable than others; therefore, they are not actually considered equal.So, by the preceding logic, racial preferences do assume racial superiority. Thus, y is negated: "Person does assume racial superiority." By modus tollens, x is consequentially negated: "Person is a racist."I shall now address some of Con's supporting points."Straight people don't usually date those of the same sex, and gay people don't usually date those of a different sex. They have a sexual preference."I will bite the bullet. Yes, sexual preferences are a form of sexism. If sexes were equal, people would have no preference. That fact that straight men prefer women entails that they do not consider women equal to men.Nevertheless, I will add this. Sexual orientation is not analogous to sexual preference, though they are similar. Sexual orientation has evolutionary origins. People need to have straight sex in order to keep the species alive. [5] So it's understandable and acceptable that most people are heterosexual. Other forms of sexuality like homosexuality and asexuality are evolutionary aberrations. [3][4]Furthermore, unlike sex, which exists in nature, race is biologically obsolete, as Con accurately pointed out. The concept is unsupported by biological evidence.So, while sexual preferences are justified since they prevent human extinction, racial preferences are not. Race does not exist in nature, so racial preferences have little to do with evolutionary pressure."Everyone is less likely to date someone he/she is less attracted to and race plays a role in how attractive one person is to another."This and Con's supporting statements are mostly positivist. This is not a normative discussion, but I'll quickly say that the observation which Con has made, ideally, should not be the case."By have a dating preference for one or a few races, people are merely exercising their sexual preference. ... Racial dating preferences are not racist, they're just subjective preferences."I argued in my first response that these subjective preferences contradict the statement "All races are equal." I would like Con to answer this question in his next post: "If a person believes two things are equal, how can he perceive one as being more desirable?"---Citations---1. http://mathworld.wolfram.com...2. https://www.aquafina.com...3. http://www.economist.com...4. http://books.google.com...5. http://www.livescience.com...