Earth question - Shaver socket

[morqthana]

Yes, since it's essentially a 'bureaucratic' decision on their part, that is obviously true.

One might hope that they would understand that it's the DNA in all the somatic cells of an organism (dog or otherwise) that determine it's 'characteristics' and hence, I would have thought, whether it was 'true to the breed'.

Their scientific thinking has been subjected to homeopathy. Dilute the science so much that it becomes undetectable.

If one thinks otherwise, it could get silly. If the presence of traces of 'alien DNA' in the body or blood of an animal (dog, human or otherwise) meant that it couldn't be regarded as 'pure bred' (even though its parentage suggested that it was) that would 'catch' anyone/any animal who had had a blood transfusion or transplant or even who had, or had had, a viral infection

Good Blood, Bad Policy: The Red Cross and Jim Crow

A 1940s Red Cross rule, which racially segregated blood, propped up notions of racial difference and Black inferiority.

race.undark.org

 

[JohnW2]

<a 1940/1941 newspaper article>

I don't know how much was known about such things in/around 1940, but I suspect not much, since I think that was the very year in which the Rhesus blood group system was first described.

That being the case, I would think it very understandable that some people/organisations might have had (justified) concerns about the possibility that there could be appreciable differences between blood in individuals of different ethnicity (perhaps differences of which they were not then aware) - potentially to the extent that cross-ethnic-group blood transfusion might have been harmful, possibly even dangerous.

 

[morqthana]

I don't know how much was known about such things in/around 1940, but I suspect not much, since I think that was the very year in which the Rhesus blood group system was first described.

That's just it. Not much.

And according to what they knew, there was no difference whatsoever between blood in individuals of different ethnicity.

That being the case, I would think it very understandable that some people/organisations might have had (justified) concerns about the possibility that there could be appreciable differences between blood in individuals of different ethnicity (perhaps differences of which they were not then aware) - potentially to the extent that cross-ethnic-group blood transfusion might have been harmful, possibly even dangerous.

Understandable, maybe, but justified absolutely not.

 

[JohnW2]

That's just it. Not much.

Quite so.

And according to what they knew, there was no difference whatsoever between blood in individuals of different ethnicity.

True, but that means very little, and certainly does not reassure, when what one does know is very little. We certainly do know (and probably did to at least some extent back then) that there are some important biological differences between people of different ethnic groups.

Understandable, maybe, but justified absolutely not.

I haven't got time to get involved in what could well end up as a 'heated exchange'. Suffice it to say that, although I like to think that I have always been about as strongly opposed as I could be to any form of irrational 'racism' or discrimination (on the basis of ethnicity, skin colour or anything else), I do not consider 'exercising caution' in a situation such as we are discussing to necessarily be irrational or 'unjustified' - even you admit that such an approach may be 'understandable'.

 

[SUNRAY]

And according to what they knew, there was no difference whatsoever between blood in individuals of different ethnicity.
Understandable, maybe,

I have no idea of timelines involved but just one of the things we knew at one time was the existence of sicklecell anemia which was thought to be a black blood disorder, so:

justified absolutely not.

at that time

 

[JohnW2]

Understandable, maybe, but justified absolutely not.

at that time

I don't really think that was 'not justified' even then. "At that time", we probably knew so little about blood in different ethnic groups, that it would (in my opinion) have been very reasonable to 'exercise caution' in relation to a theoretically possible risk which we could not then exclude because of our relative ignorance,

I could quote countless analogous situations in which, in the face of ignorance about possible hazards, we sensibly took a 'cautious' approach. For example ... at the time of the first few Apollo missions to the moon, "according to what we then knew ", there was absolutely no reason to believe that there were any pathogens on the moon that could represent a hazard to human beings (or even terrestrial plant life). However, since that possibility could not be discounted, the returning astronauts were subjected to a period of very strict quarantine (and intensive investigation) upon their return to earth.

 

[SUNRAY]

I don't really think that was 'not justified' even then. "At that time", we probably knew so little about blood in different ethnic groups, that it would (in my opinion) have been very reasonable to 'exercise caution' in relation to a theoretically possible risk which we could not then exclude because of our relative ignorance,

I could quote countless analogous situations in which, in the face of ignorance about possible hazards, we sensibly took a 'cautious' approach. For example ... at the time of the first few Apollo missions to the moon, "according to what we then knew ", there was absolutely no reason to believe that there were any pathogens on the moon that could represent a hazard to human beings (or even terrestrial plant life). However, since that possibility could not be discounted, the returning astronauts were subjected to a period of very strict quarantine (and intensive investigation) upon their return to earth.

Did you realise I struck out 'not'

 

[JohnW2]

Did you realise I struck out 'not'

As you presumably realise, no, I didn't notice that - my apologies.

We therefore appear to be in total agreement.