Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (20141)	8/1/2001 11:08:09 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The parties are supposed to operate with good will, mutual respect and consent and also not do damage to innocent bystanders." Yes. And illicit sex has an underlying premise that puts that at risk from the git go. "I don't see why it's any different than any other transaction between people." Come on now, you've got to be kidding.

To: Lane3 who wrote (20141)	8/1/2001 11:48:15 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

House Backs Ban on Human Cloning for Any Objective By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG nytimes.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (20141)	8/1/2001 12:41:40 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't see why it's any different than any other transaction between people. Well, let's see. You're clearly in favor of free, open, and unlimited prostitution. Buying and selling is a basic transaction between people, so sex should be the same thing. You think high-pressure sales tactics are appropriate, since they're a part of other transactions between people. You think a man or woman should be freely able to insert an advertisement in the papers offering to buy or sell sex, just as they insert ads to buy or sell cars. And you think it should be doable on the street in public if people want to, just as they can dicker for a car on a street corner or buy a hotdog from a street vendor. Are you sure you don't want to modify that statement just a bit??