Columnist Chris Moerdyk has called for the incarceration of a “little university student” who dared ask the question about which race was deemed the most attractive. He went as far as to call the publication of her study fraud. Mr. Moerdyk, I put it to you that you have made a serious allegation and must be willing to take action against the young lady in criminal proceedings, since you made an open criminal allegation against her.
It so happened that the cross section of students asked, reported that white people were the most attractive. Well, whether this was a representative demographic of people or a collection of hard drinking, hairy chested bikers with the odd nudist and a swinger here and there, is not really of importance. The reason Mr. Moerdyk asks for her incarceration is not the outcome of the survey, but the combination of the outcome and the question she asked.
Had this student posed any other question, not using the word or implying “race”, we would never have heard of her survey and had the outcome been that blacks were most attractive; the survey would have been lauded. This is the impact of political correctness, neuron-linguistic, media- and other forms of programming.
With racial tension running high, perhaps the survey was not well timed; but a lot of people are sick of Political Correctness (lying to appease) and wants a true voice to ring out from amongst the caged and programmed thoughts of the sheep.
Mr. Moerdyk takes much pain to describe the skewed outcomes of statistical analysis in relation to subjectivity when it comes to answering questions. With his reasoning, he has invalidated the results of every survey ever undertaken. No person on Earth would ever give a purely objective answer to a question. An answer would be skewed by conformity to social groups, religion, popular TV and movies and many more influences. One can not invalidate a specific survey using the logic he has provided and leave other outcomes as valid.
I put it to you that by Mr. Moerdyk’s logic, a survey with a controversial and unpopular outcome might even be more truthful than one that simply tows the company line.
All this being the background to a very serious matter (Mr. Moerdyk accusing a person of a criminal action) we have to proportion guilt as we find it:
Mr. Moerdyk, if the answer to a question is published and it does not suite a popular world view; it is not fraud, but a reflection of the opinion of a cross-section of humanity. The cross section might not be representative of humanity as a whole; but free speech gives them the right to their opinion… However, falsely accusing a person of a crime is… well, a crime!
Let us take this absurdity a step further. We have all heard that “we are all one race, the human race” and that we are all the same beneath the skin. By virtue of the article “White men can’t Judge – Commisioner”, I state that the media admits that race does in fact exist. Mr. Moerdyk, by virtue of your appearance and your family name, I charge you with being white.
A traitor is defined as “a person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle”. The author charges Mr. Moerdyk of being white and by the principle of self preservation and the contents of your article, a stronger case of treason can be made against Mr. Moerdyk, than the case of fraud he so venomously spouts, the poor UCT student is guilty of.
Mr. Moerdyk, words have power and it seems that there is a perception that a popular opinion shields one from their legal consequences. This is not true.