Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (60265)	7/29/2001 3:51:56 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

X, what the heck's this "people of color" nonsense? I want to see ASTM Colour Test results. None of this airy-fairy, adjectival 'people of colour' stuff. I want to see ASTM 4 or More before I'll entertain a claim that somebody has got diversity and therefore a need for affirmative action because they are inadequate and therefore in need of taxpayers' money and special legal status. People's melanin content should be rated on a standardized test method after 6 weeks of NO exposure of the skin test patch to light. Their rating could be on the ASTM Colour Test. Anyway, who picked melanin content as being a significant racial feature? Why fixate on melanin? I prefer height or body mass index as a more appropriate racial identifier. Another good one is blood type. Intelligence is a very good one too and very useful in practical applications, as is blood group [such as getting a blood transfusion]. Melanin content is really only useful for predicting melanoma and sunburn resistance. High melanin content people will get colder if naked in the Arctic [but these days, that's not evolutionarily important]. Being relatively deficient in melanin, I don't see why people who are lucky enough to have good autosun-protection should get additional advantages. Those racial groups with inadequate height, body mass index, blood group or intelligence should be the ones who get preferred access to government jobs, not those who are rich in melanin. Your comments muddle race, culture and society together. So, if I point out that Jews are ignorant superstitious barbarians, I suppose you'd think that a racist comment. They are barbarians because they hack off the tips of their babies' foreskins. They are superstitious because they mutter about supernatural beings. They are ignorant because they think superstition and circumcision are good ideas [and being human is almost a definition of ignorant even if they stop those practises]. But isn't that a culturist comment, or societist rather than a racist one? Sure, it's a generalization but it's their Jewishness rather than their DNA which prompts them to their barbarism and they themselves admit that's the reason they do it. So the generalization is valid. They argue about it and the idea is losing ground. I'm intolerant of barbaric activities, so I guess that makes me a bigot. I guess that makes you a bigot too because I doubt you tolerate cannibalism, exorcism , mumbo-jumbo, gassing Jews, cooking animals alive, raping women and lots more besides, all of which have been cultural practises in various groups at various times. Or does 'bigot' just mean 'intolerant of cultures which are almost the same as one's own but with some slightly different norms'? It's easy not to be a bigot when the culture is almost identical. Try being unbigoted when the culture is very different. Are you bigoted about infibulation for example? Do you think abortion should be legal? How about female infanticide? No? Oh, you bigot!! So, you are a racist bigot. So, what's the point in calling somebody that if we all are? I think calling somebody racist is simply a meaningless, but approved, politically-correct insult. Mqurice