Jacinda

[pete376403]

So, which is it?

Can we be racist or not?

A focus on a problem area is not racist. The people who are the problem identify themselves as a particular "race' (not that there is such a thing, only minor differences in DNA - see "The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea" is a book by anthropologist Robert Wald Sussman arguing that race is not, and never has been, a valid biological category in humans. It was published in 2014 by Harvard University Press.

[TheDemonLord]

A focus on a problem area is not racist.

Completely agree - and there are a myriad of ways we could do that without once bringing up Race.

The question is - are you allowed to do so, on the Basis of Race?

The people who are the problem identify themselves as a particular "race'

Oh Man, we could have some fun with Gangsta Rap Lyrics...

And this leads to the second problem: If people are self-identifying as a particular Race, are we allowed to refer to them (both positively AND negatively) as such?

not that there is such a thing, only minor differences in DNA - see "The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea" is a book by anthropologist Robert Wald Sussman arguing that race is not, and never has been, a valid biological category in humans. It was published in 2014 by Harvard University Press.

Eh, He's a Social Constructionist - which means he's wrong on just about everything... In fact, I'll just leave this here

And just because it's written in a book, doesn't mean it's true.

But back to Race - we know that certain areas have a number of Genetic differences, some of those we can see with our eyes, some we can't.

Whilst there's a fair point to say that the arbitrary way that Race was initially conceived may be unscientific - pointing out differences in genetic markers between say the Sub-Saharan Africans and the Egyptian Africans or to the Celts (aka Gingers) and Blond hair/Blue eyes in the UK, you can immediately see that there are fairly distinctive traits that are associated with people from specific geographic regions.

Now, obvious Caveat - just because people are different, doesn't mean they should be treated differently by the Law or the State for the most part.

The only exception being when some of those Genetic differences have Health consequences (such as higher risks of Cancer or hereditary/genetic diseases)

[Laava]

People like that guy in Greymouth who attacked a cameraman would rather die than do anything intelligent.

Can you please state his ethnicity so I can be properly angry?

[pritch]

Can you please state his ethnicity so I can be properly angry?

You decide.

https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/11/06/1...ne-protesters/

[pete376403]

Completely agree - and there are a myriad of ways we could do that without once bringing up Race.

The question is - are you allowed to do so, on the Basis of Race?

But back to Race - we know that certain areas have a number of Genetic differences, some of those we can see with our eyes, some we can't.

Now, obvious Caveat - just because people are different, doesn't mean they should be treated differently by the Law or the State for the most part.

The only exception being when some of those Genetic differences have Health consequences (such as higher risks of Cancer or hereditary/genetic diseases)

What? You are now saying that the Law / State DOES have the right to enforce medical treatment on some people? What happened to their unalienable right to freedom of choice, regardless of outcome?

[James Deuce]

Completely agree - and there are a myriad of ways we could do that without once bringing up Race.

The question is - are you allowed to do so, on the Basis of Race?



Oh Man, we could have some fun with Gangsta Rap Lyrics...

And this leads to the second problem: If people are self-identifying as a particular Race, are we allowed to refer to them (both positively AND negatively) as such?



Eh, He's a Social Constructionist - which means he's wrong on just about everything... In fact, I'll just leave this here

And just because it's written in a book, doesn't mean it's true.

But back to Race - we know that certain areas have a number of Genetic differences, some of those we can see with our eyes, some we can't.

Whilst there's a fair point to say that the arbitrary way that Race was initially conceived may be unscientific - pointing out differences in genetic markers between say the Sub-Saharan Africans and the Egyptian Africans or to the Celts (aka Gingers) and Blond hair/Blue eyes in the UK, you can immediately see that there are fairly distinctive traits that are associated with people from specific geographic regions.

Now, obvious Caveat - just because people are different, doesn't mean they should be treated differently by the Law or the State for the most part.

The only exception being when some of those Genetic differences have Health consequences (such as higher risks of Cancer or hereditary/genetic diseases)

That was a long winded way to say you support eugenics.

[husaberg]

l

Are you talking about Jacinta or the person on the sidelines.
Anyone heard anything from the rest of the Labour party recently.....I do hope they are ok......blink twice if you are in trouble.....

Thre
Blink..... Nationals leader is on life support and the deputy leader is on suicide watch.ffs

The first was from Talbot Mills Research, formerly known as UMR, which had ACT on 16 per cent, up three points from its September poll and just six points behind the National Party on 22 per cent. Further signs of a tipping point being reached could also be found in this poll’s preferred prime minister ratings: ACT leader David Seymour was on 16 per cent, seven points ahead of National’s leader Judith Collins.

Three successive polls have shown that, if National was a plane with Judith Collins as pilot, it would be of the kamikaze variety, with smoke coming out of its tail as it sharply plummeted towards the ground, and right-wing voters increasingly preferring Seymour as their pilot. In this month’s Curia poll, of voters who voted for National in 2020, only 17.7 per cent preferred Collins as their PM, while a staggering 25.1 per cent want Seymour.

[TheDemonLord]

What? You are now saying that the Law / State DOES have the right to enforce medical treatment on some people? What happened to their unalienable right to freedom of choice, regardless of outcome?

No, not at all.

Individual still has the right to choose, however if you have 2 groups, one of which has a genetic risk to certain diseases, in that instance - it is right and proper that they receive different levels treatment from the State on the basis of their race, that is predicated on that higher risk factor.

Or to use a different example - Women of a certain age need to get more regular tests due to their higher risk of things like Cervical Cancer - same principle:

Higher risk = higher priority.

At no point can the state enforce any treatment on anyone - but it can offer a higher level of care based on a higher level of risk.

[TheDemonLord]

That was a long winded way to say you support eugenics.

No, I clearly don't.

Saying that there are genetic differences between distinct groups of people as an observable fact and reality is not the same as saying that we should treat them differently because of it - with the single caveat to that being Medical issues where Genetics plays a factor.

[Swoop]

Fucking idiot heckler. Maori are now the most unvaccinated group in the country. How long before they start bleating that Covid is a white conspiracy to eliminate the tangata whenua?

The best approach is to remove ALL restrictions in NZ.

If the unvaccinated plague-rats get infected and die, no problems there since they clearly say their immune systems will deal with the virus.
It really would become proper Gene-O-Clean for all of New Zealand's unintelligentsia.

[neels]

The best approach is to remove ALL restrictions in NZ.

If the unvaccinated plague-rats get infected and die, no problems there since they clearly say their immune systems will deal with the virus.
It really would become proper Gene-O-Clean for all of New Zealand's unintelligentsia.

I suspect a lot of people would be happy with that approach.

It seems the main concern is that the plague rats would still turn up at the hospital wanting treatment, and the health system doesn't have the capacity to deal with a widespread outbreak and the associated high hospitalisation rates and ICU care.

Of course there could be a vaccine passport requirement for covid treatment, if you have a non-covid medical issue we'll look after you, if you have covid you chose your path and are on your own....

[Scuba_Steve]

I suspect a lot of people would be happy with that approach.

It seems the main concern is that the plague rats would still turn up at the hospital wanting treatment, and the health system doesn't have the capacity to deal with a widespread outbreak and the associated high hospitalisation rates and ICU care.

Of course there could be a vaccine passport requirement for covid treatment, if you have a non-covid medical issue we'll look after you, if you have covid you chose your path and are on your own....

But then I say those with the passport should be rejected.
Bit greedy getting protection then wanting to take up a bed too, a bed better used for for someone with a collapsed lung or heart problems

The bigger problem here tho is our health system should be able to cope with the few that need it
Instead of blaming vaxxers/anti-vaxxers we should be blaming MP's/Govt. It's their fault the health system can't handle a small increase in patients, it should never be running at almost 100% load

[TheDemonLord]

I suspect a lot of people would be happy with that approach.

It seems the main concern is that the plague rats would still turn up at the hospital wanting treatment, and the health system doesn't have the capacity to deal with a widespread outbreak and the associated high hospitalisation rates and ICU care.

Of course there could be a vaccine passport requirement for covid treatment, if you have a non-covid medical issue we'll look after you, if you have covid you chose your path and are on your own....

Cannot agree, That's one of the virtues of the Public Health system, we don't treat people in reference to their decisions that caused them to end up there.

What you'd end up with is a private healthcare system, whereby you'd pay a premium for doing risky activities.

[nerrrd]

But then I say those with the passport should be rejected.
Bit greedy getting protection then wanting to take up a bed too, a bed better used for for someone with a collapsed lung or heart problems

The bigger problem here tho is our health system should be able to cope with the few that need it
Instead of blaming vaxxers/anti-vaxxers we should be blaming MP's/Govt. It's their fault the health system can't handle a small increase in patients, it should never be running at almost 100% load

If you've ever voted National, Labour, Act or any other post 1984 political party in NZ based on the premise that "less tax is better" and "business always knows best" then we're all at fault.

It's a bit rich blaming MPs for not funding a better medical system when the vast majority of voters don't want to pay for it.

[Scuba_Steve]

If you've ever voted National, Labour, Act or any other post 1984 political party in NZ based on the premise that "less tax is better" and "business always knows best" then we're all at fault.

It's a bit rich blaming MPs for not funding a better medical system when the vast majority of voters don't want to pay for it.

I disagree, I think most tax payers are happy paying for it, what we don't want to pay for is the private healthcare the MP's get, the "pay for life" kickback they get for not working, the overpriced emergency housing, 10 people to do 1 persons job, big business bludgings... healthcare I think most are fine with