A yoyo without color would probably be completely transparent, with no tinting whatsoever. Of course, that would be difficult to achieve since all plastics have impurities that would convey color of some kind, even if only observable under a microscope.
I think a good rule of thumb is: if you can see something, then it has color.
I honestly just wanted him to say his yoyo wasnt white, so that I could ask what color it is 
.
dictionaries define black as a color.
scientifically black is a surface that doesnt reflect light spectrum and therefore gives our eyes the impression of āblackā. while some will call out a technicality on that its not a color. its a result of the ācolorā of that surface. everyone agreed to call that color thats not a color āblackā.
therefore black is technically a color (specially on yoyos) even when people say technically its not a color. i.e, even if we cant āseeā black we know that the object ācolorā is black.
Can you take a black crayon and make a visible mark on a surface? What color is it? Can you āseeā it? Invisible is the only absence of color. Even if you are standing in a completely black roomā¦ your eyes still āseeā that blackness.
Dang this thread really got me thinking
Just donāt ask yff ben, I donāt even wanna know his answer, but I have a good guess at what heād sayā¦
No. But we also canāt see a majority of the spectrum so itās anecdotal since we canāt conceive of colors outside of the norm.
I wanna know what its like to see through the eyes of a mantis shrimp
When I look up at the sky at night; what color is the space between the stars?
Philosophically - if we categorize it as a color. Doesnāt that already make it so regardless of itās inherent properties?
Every box of crayons has a black crayon. The box says ā24 colorsā not 23 colors + black. 
We defined Pluto as a planet and then we changed our minds when we had more information. I think the same could occur with the ācolorā black.
To my mind that is definitive. QED 
The problem is that a crayon- like all pigments, paints, dyes, etc just simulate ācolorā to our eyes by reflecting particular wavelengths of light that we see as a ācolorā. What people are struggling with is the difference between how color is defined and the color we are seeing by selected reflection of particular wavelengths,
The black-color you are seeing from the crayon, black paint, ink or dye is simply a chemical concoction that when applied to a particular medium does not reflect many wavelengths of light. In viewing conditions (lighting) this is perceived as black - or lack of reflected light. In reality, however, nothing can reflect no light. Science has made quite a study of creating substances that are deeply-black (Google Vantablack). What they are trying to achieve is true black; or lack or refelcted wavelengths of light. That is the color of space in between stars: No light.
this is a great analogy in my mind, though admittedly not for the reason you presented it. to me itās an apt analogy because both are equally inconsequential. it really doesnāt matter what we call black any more than it matters what we call pluto. as humans i think we get too caught up in the semantics of what āboxā something fits in and we lose the functionality of the description in favor of linguistic technicalities
It does matter, however, if our intuition that black is the the same thing as all the other colors leads us to make the incorrect conclusion that black has a wavelength that can be measured, as one of the links presented earlier in the discussion claimed.
funny thing is that was my link that kicked it all off and the original comment i left was a total joke. the link was one of two i posted hastily and that was one sentence in one of the two, but you set teeth into that one sentence and have referenced it, i think, 4 times in this whole discussion. someone made an incorrect statement and it has been the entire basis for this discussion. a discussion which has brought us basically no where because we are where we started, at least imoā¦black is scientifically not a color (totally concede that) but is a color in every functional sense of the word. when someone says the phrase āthe color blackā, all sighted ppl know what they mean. itās functional. saying black has no wavelength has no bearing at all on pplās lives nor does it convey useful meaning like saying āthe color blackā. so far any discussion on wavelength has only served to muddy the waters, not clarify anything
I donāt think discussion of wavelength, as it relates to color, muddies the waters. It is fundamental to how we perceive color. Understanding how humans perceive color, however, is not important to the vast majority of people.
i agree if weāre talking in the context of scientific inquiry, 100%. in the context of a yoyo forum where the original comments were made because someone told someone else their love of black yoyos was invalid because black wasnāt a color anyway, i argue that the functional definition of color should be the default. otherwise Iām totally on board with defining black technically because that has purpose and relevance elsewhere. but again, originally i was just goofing off and never intended to spark a heated debate
Black velvet is pretty close.
I managed to get through a philosophy course back in the day. This is definitely one of those word definition problems.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
You first have to define the word egg.
1.Is it something that came from a chicken?
or
Choose one.
