You're right. It's the white-skinned who need sun protection most, and ironically these very people who will deliberately lie in the sun baking. I cringe whenever I go to a resort and see rows of them decked out, because it's like issuing an invitation card to skin cancer. But it's their life.durain wrote:difference race react to difference condition. for example, ang mo (no, we are not discussing if using ang mo is OK) skin will burn faster than a dark skin person in the sun. i mean, you see any african putting on suntan lotion (factor 50 with UV protection) before they go hunting out in the sun?
Perhaps, and even vary the alcohol limit for people with different tolerance levels. Some shouldn't be allowed even a drop, while others can drive safely after more than one glass.banana wrote:Some people are predisposed to certain substances. They're utterly boring and unproductive when sober, creative geniuses when on {insert drug of choice}. Like Peter Lloyd maybe? Should we revise our drug laws?
Exactly. Customised treatment. But in the absence of this machine, to err on the side of common sense and give the generally correct dose rather than the politically correct one.banana wrote:Actually, a vending machine could probably do a better job. Put your finger into a little hole, let it draw some blood and spit out exactly what you need in the exact dosage.
I'm imagining a buffet style compensation plan which offers options. Or perhaps a set lunch menu is a more appropriate analogy. Simplistically put, you can have $5000 and 14 days leave, or $4800 and 21 days leave. Take your pick. I'll bet the Chinese employee chooses $5000 and the Caucasian 21 days leave. If actual data proves this,wouldn't it make sense to offer different packages to different races in the event that it's not practical to offer each individual a choice?banana wrote:Policies and incentives, on the other hand, is a different beast altogether. Who decided that a Chinese needs more money to survive? Or a Caucasian for the matter. Yet instead of rewarding someone for being able to stretch a dollar, we penalise them by saying they can do with less and thus get less.
The government, ours at least, is already playing God. Who decides that a baby is worth between $4,000 and $10,000? Oh look, our government just did, because that's the amount a couple gets per child, taking into account tax reliefs, cash bonuses, and depending on the parents' tax rate.banana wrote:No, I am of the opinion that social engineering on such a grand scale is nothing more than an egotistical exercise at playing god. A Government, an employer, an administrative body are just that - administrators. Making decisions and enforcing them across the board should be restricted to what is necessary and within an agreed jurisdiction.
Both premise are just silly. Population squeeze? Have you noticed how much personal space one has these days? Even if you were to consider only the local population, it's a problem created by them in the first place.Wind In My Hair wrote: Is this policy necessary? Yes if you accept that we are in a populatin squeeze. Is the an agreed jurisdiction? Yes because no one is challenging their right to do this so we agree by default.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
