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: St_Bill who wrote (33174)	10/16/2001 2:15:46 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If Clinton had gotten her to clean his laundry, undress in front of him or serve him custom meals by using her infatuation with him, I think THAT would be wrong, too. The fact that he used his position and her feelings (in an inconsiderate and selfish manner) to gratify himself is what is wrong. The type of gratification elicited has little to do with the nature of the relationship or his character.

To: St_Bill who wrote (33174)	10/16/2001 2:29:48 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

We are defining "sexuality" in two differing ways. I say sexuality is what you do. You say "sexuality is who you are. Why do you say that? Clinton's character was revealed by what he did in using one human, and betraying another. "since Clinton was heterosexual it's therefore no wonder he lacked character as he so aptly demonstrated by his lack of control?" Ah, I believe I said he lacked character because of what he did. If lying cheating and using other humans for sexual self gratification are not wrong then neither was he, and he is an example of sterling character. Likewise only if you beg the moral correctness of homosexual practice, can you ignore the implications toward the character of one who engages in them. Why do you assume that homosexual behavior is morally neutral?