Fuel we don't needFollow

The poor downtrodden white guys have some fuel for their inner fires.

I thought this was a bit of Rex Murphy humour at first, honest.


"Whereas cystic fibrosis has been recently revealed to only affect white people and primarily men, be it resolved that: (the Carleton University Student Association) discontinue its support of this campaign."

What colour is YOUR disease?

What's extremely annoying is that Brittany (lolz) Smythe isn't apologising for being am ignorant bigot, she's apologizing for getting her CF facts wrong, dumb *****.

Many articles available already pointing this out but, breast cancer anyone? sickle cell anemia? I want to hear the douchebag's answer to those ones.

I kept reading that as the "Charlatan University Student Association."

Fixed

They aren't anatomically different; it's not like if you're born white your organs are in different places then black people or you have 3 arms instead of 2.

Yes. But it was (and still is?) overwhelmingly contracted by gay males. I'm not sure when exactly relatively cheap screening systems were developed but if this was the early 90s, it's quite possible that this was just a quick and cheap pre-screen. The cost to screen may have simply not been worth accepting gay men's blood at that time.

One of my relatives (1st cousin's step brother) died as a result of being injected by an infected needle while serving in the military (by the military doctors during one of those mass inoculation sessions). I don't recall the exact date when it happened, but IIRC, it was late 80s or very early 90s. This was a big deal back then and the REd Cross was presumably just being as safe as possible. If they went overboard, IMO it's vastly better to have a few bruised feelings than the alternative.



Sure. But you might toss out too many people that way. If you were trying to maximize safety while minimizing cost at that particular point in time, you might single out sexually active gay men as the one group you'd just toss out right off the bat. Others you'd screen, with some assumption that they're going to have a much lower average rate of infection. Without knowing the numbers and the costs, it's kind of unfair to just assume the Red Cross was acting on some sort of ignorant bigotry.

Unlike the Student group, who clearly were taking political correctness to the extreme...



Perhaps. But there's one huge difference. The Student group has actual power to set policy in terms of what sort of groups and activities are allowed on campus. I don't think it's unfair to hold the ideas and positions of those who have the power to impose those things on others to a higher standard than those who are simply expressing an opinion.


If I say I hate <insert some group here>, that's an expression of free speech. If I impose a rule on others that reflects my hatred of that group, that's a potential violation of the rights of others. You see the difference, right?

Edited, Dec 5th 2008 5:57pm by gbaji

So, let's say the mean IQ of black people in the USA is 91.9 and mean IQ of white people is 101.4, it'd be OK for private schoosl to take in only white children to maximise academic results?

I see. I'd like to finish this post off by comparing Smash and Gbaji to Goebbels and Goering - sure, they both hate the other, but they're both memebers of the NDSAP at heart.

But surely, if a higher percentage of black people are unemployed and without assets, it'd be ethical to bar the entire racial group from borrowing money? Of course, the difference in cost in finding someone's financial status and, back in the 1980s, finding out if they had HIV is so large that one might say this comparison is absurd. One might say that, but he'd be wrong, and this is why: the difficulty of a task has no bearing on how ethical it is. In a triage situation one can spot the morally righteous, for he will stand steadfast, unable to choose who to treat first, until there is obut one left alive.

Incidentally, Smash, before we continue could you supply me with a report of your cranial features by a qualified phrenologist? I need to know if I can trust you or not.

To take the pure maiden Ethics into our soiled world and deflower her would be a cardinal sin. If we cannot escape the cage of sin and flesh that incarcerates us then how can we ever realise divinity? Surely there must be more to this fleeting life than breathing?

Perhaps I am expecting too much of you. Your puny intellect is probably far too small to comprehend what I seek.

You get a "D" in literary comprehension. I suggest you put it to good use by inserting it into your name between "a" and "o". ShaDowstrike. OK, the D being capital doesn't really fit, but according to Smash here we have to make do with what we have.

This is a bit like the crude phrase book sketch in Monty Python.

Not to be an ***** but the entire field of Forensic anthropology is predicated on you being wrong about that. The various races and even males and females are for a fact anatomically different. You are correct that the differences are certainly not major, but they do exist. Again, not trying to call anyone out or be an ***, I just can't understand why folks have a problem with accepting that different people are, well.. different.


The only reason a forensic anthropologist can look at nothing more than a skull and give a reasonably accurate assessment of age, race and sex of the deceased is because there are differences.


I guess I just get upset about this stuff because I believe we'd all get along better if we accepted and appreciated our differences instead of trying to BS that we're all the same.

Perhaps I am expecting too much of you. Your puny intellect is probably far too small to comprehend what I seek.

I can assure you this isn't the problem. It may be that I moved past the ludicrous romantic notion of cobbled together pop psychology you're spewing forth when I was about nine, but it's certainly not some lack of "understanding" on my part of your "depth". Sorry, Lightnin :(