The areas where the schools are crap don' t have rich people.

Exactly, that' s my point. What I' m saying is that the poor in the US, considering that it' s such a rich nation are really poor (regardless of ethnicity). I realize on average the standards for American Schools are not too bad. A large reason they are stuck in that situation is because the poor don' t have access to the good schools. Merit won' t help them, being poor in the US means you' re ***ed for life, and your kids are also likely ***ed.

As I said in some States they can' t even choose which crappy school to attend. The district chooses for them. So there' s no reason for improvement. Academic standards sink for the poor.

The academic standard in Canada isn' t much better, but we' re more balanced here. We have a larger middle class than the US (percentage wise). That pretty much goes for everything. We have less crime than the US because we have a lower ratio of poor people. That' s largely because we have better social programs, the poor have better chances here, the poulation is much less dense, that plays a role in too. There' s also less subjugation in general here.

While we' re on the subject of prison population. There' s the whole punishment vs. reform argument. But that doesn' t have anything to do with ethnicity...

There is a phenomenon called " the stereotype" .
The basics of this phenomenon is that when there is a stereotype of a certain group of people, let' s say black people, then that group will subconsciously try to become like the stereotype.
This means that if the media and the public impression of black people is that they commit more crime than other people, then black people will actually subconsciously commit more crime.
And that goes for all kinds of groups. There is a stereotype for all kinds of people like women, jews, teenagers, seniors, democrats, republicans, etc. and most often the people within those groups will subconsciously try to become like the stereotype.
Of course there are many exceptions, especially if a person is aware of the stereotype and deliberately tries to differ from it.
This phenomenon imposes a big problem because having people following a stereotype which includes bad behaviour is rather difficult to prevent. So for example, decreasing the amount of black people commiting crime isn' t just a task for the police officers and social welfare, but also a task for the media and the people.

I boycott the breast cancer movement since they only care about a specific group of people.

So, you' re telling me that people who have, or people who know somebody who has breast-cancer are in the wrong because they' re trying to raise awareness about something that' s directly effected them?

I' d personally be happy to see the " breast cancer" month dropped in favor of a general cancer awareness month, as I' ve seen firsthand how it f*cks up lives. One shouldn' t have any more awareness than the other, but for the time being, raising awareness about one form of cancer is better than doing nothing at all right?

But I am right with you and I will be wearing something pink, it is something close to home for my wife

Thanks

Not saying raising money for breast cancer is wrong but this particular PR stunt has become so big that it steals funding from research that needs the money much more.
If making a big fuss is a way of getting people to invest money in the right cause then that is the reason I' m making a big fuss in this particular thread!!!

INVEST MONEY IN PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH! THEY DON' T HAVE ANY MONEY AT ALL! FUSSYFUSSYFUSSFUSS!!!

Middle class in canada have half the income of middle class in the US.

Middle class in canada have half the income of middle class in the US.

That doesn' t matter, we' re talking about the lower class not the middle. I don' t know if it' s true or not. It might be true if we' re defining the middle class by looking at the average income of Canada and the US as opposed to the median. I' m not so much interested in the average income in the US and Canada. I' m more interested in the percentage of poor people in the US vs. Canada. Actually I' m not even that interested. But it would be interesting to see a direct comparison though, that kind of information is difficult to find. Even if you did find such numbers you' d still have to consider cost of living. I realize that the US has far more wealth than Canada as well as far more extremely wealthy people. That' s just not what I was getting at though. Bill Gates for example has more money than all black people in the US combined.

But how will wearing pink (by anybody) help defeat breast cancer? I am already aware of breast cancer. This has not seemed to help it die. Even if every single person in the world wore pink, how much closer to a cure would that put the world? Not one iota. The doctors will continue their cancer research no matter what kind of clothes we wear.

Bill Gates for example has more money than all black people in the US combined.

I dont know considering the majority of NFL, MLB, and NBA are black.

I dont know considering the majority of NFL, MLB, and NBA are black.

Actually your right, it was; Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 50% of African Americans. Still that' s saying a lot.

Actually your right, it was; Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 50% of African Americans. Still that' s saying a lot.

lulz

I' ll wear my pink shirts to honor Chad Warden and for no other reason!

Breast Cancer has had more research on it because a large number of the triggers for certain types are hormonal and therefore easier to generate treatments against. Most other cancer types have more complex triggers and therefore are harder to effectively treat.

But it is also high profile as a " women' s" disease so the media tend to go on about it a bit more (in the same way AIDS is portrayed by the media as " gay' s" disease which it isn' t)

But it is also high profile as a " women' s" disease so the media tend to go on about it a bit more (in the same way AIDS is portrayed by the media as " gay' s" disease which it isn' t)

It' s not the same at all. Saying that AIDS is a gay disease is bigotry, while breast cancer IS VASTLY more common with woman. *Slaps face in astonishment*, not surprisingly this is because most men don' t have breasts. Some fat fucks do have breasts and some on rare occasions have even developed breast cancer though. You' re technically right, for woman it is a high profile disease. That has nothing to do with a few morons blaming AIDS on gays. Most people even the homophobic at least understand they can catch AIDS too. While men do not feel they can get breast cancer. For the most part they' d be right.

wasn' t trying to compare the two diseases, they are vastly different in their epidemiology. Was only trying to say that certain pressure groups have managed through various means to stimulate the media into making these diseases (and their treatment) appear more important than others.

and breast cancer in men is becoming more prevalent because the environment is becoming steadily more polluted with oestrogenic compounds (which is also why male fertility in the developed world is dropping)

Male fertility dropping is always a good thing!