FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
Register to reply Log in to reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#13 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
"Yes you are politicising it with your constant referrals to things in your opinion being 'politically correct'." I will repeat that I am not ‘politicising’ this issue in the sense that I believe you are accusing me of, but in any event, how can one not ‘politicise’ a subject, which, by its very nature is political? I use the phrase ‘politically correct’ in the context of adding to a running thread on a subject where the idea of such a phrase has already been intimated by sever others and actually vocalised by Marsh; “We can all die from an epidemic but as long as we're seen as politically correct it's all good.” I happen to strongly agree with Marsh and others here, that – in the absence of any other more logical reason – the real reason why the UK Government does not implement proper preventative measures in line with the Australians, is for fear of being judged as being ‘politically incorrect’. "It is not the 'only' logical stance as we are taking a stance too which is logical." Your idea of what is a logical stance and mine are evidently very different if you contend that allowing a free influx into the UK of people from the very part of the world where the EVD originated and is so rampant, with no other precaution than a ‘voluntary questionnaire’ is ‘logical’. Perhaps you could expound for me just why the stance you defend is logical? Please bear in mind that we are referring here to ‘preventative measures’ and not planned contingencies for dealing with an outbreak once it has already erupted in this country. "I don't need your ebola summary as I'm aware of the potential risks which are very low." I don’t need your constant misconceptions of what I write, nor your continual responses to those misconceptions which therefore do not address the points I have actually made, but which you seem to nonetheless demand should be accepted without question. I summarised the EBD as part of my post to help illustrate just why I hold the opinion I do, and not as any misguided superfluous attempt to educate you or any other reader. As to your statement that the potential risks of the EBD are ‘very low’, perhaps you could expound this also please, because I cannot understand why any intelligent person would categorise such a deadly and highly contagious disease such as this in such terms. "Perceived failings in the handling of BSE or human variant CJD has little or no baring here as there is no similarity in the issues at all, nor does the fact you're mixed race." Again you have totally misunderstood what I have written and completely failed to perceive just why I wrote it, because there definitely is a similarity in the issues. Both are highly fatal diseases which demand to be addressed seriously by the state, yet BSE/CJD was not, resulting in its needless spread and in unnecessary fatalities, and neither is the EBD being properly addressed, which could result in it reaching the UK with unnecessary fatalities as a consequence. This is why I used the BSE/CJD crisis as a comparator because there is a similarity in the issues. My point was that we have been down this road before and because lives were unnecessarily lost to CJD because of Government failure, then we ought to have learnt a lesson but clearly have not. Further; I included the fact that lethal BSE contaminated beef was introduced into the human food supply chain by some unscrupulous farmers to illustrate that no Government’s ‘Front Line of Defence’ against such a potentially catastrophic disease as Ebola, should be solely a ‘voluntary questionnaire’ which is wholly reliant upon human integrity, because – as with the BSE/CJD example – human integrity just cannot be relied upon. To answer your contention that my being of ‘mixed race’ has no bearing on the issue at hand – you are wrong. I point out the fact that I am of mixed race purely and specifically to illustrate that as such, I could be expected to have (and indeed do have) empathy with other ‘people of colour’ yet despite this I see no colour prejudice or racism in the UK adopting the same preventative measures as the Australians, and therefore cannot understand why some people – especially those who are 'non-coloured' – do find such unsavory characteristics in those measures. To me, as a British born and bred patriot – mixed race or not - such measures are logically vital for preventative purposes and have nothing at all to do with race or colour. It is purely about attempting to minimise the risk of the disease entering the UK and thereby maximising the prevention of potential fatalities. Finally – lest you misquote me in any response – I did not introduce the question of colour nor race but merely encompassed such points in my post, because these points had already been validly raised by the following FM's on this thread: 'racial undertones.' -Cherie. "It's got nothing to do with what colour people are." - Livia. "I don't think Australia are being racist" - RubyMoo. "If America was as racist as Australian" - Lost alex. "Nothing racist about it at all" - Niamh. “Fear of being called racist, I assume” – Vicky. “I don't think its racist to stop letting people in/or putting them in quarantine for a short while. “ – Ninastar. |
|||
![]() |
Register to reply Log in to reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|