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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (15801)	6/27/2002 5:11:22 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

That's a big stretch. An atheist child can simply not say two words and not feel left out at all. People have done that for years and years. It is not an ALL or NOTHING choice and framing it as such is disingenuous. The only child who cannot in good conscience participate may be a Jehovah's Witness and an argument can be made that they are so outside the mainstream on any number of issues that one more will have negligible, if any, impact.

To: Lane3 who wrote (15801)	6/27/2002 5:18:28 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

Far from a similar comparison. Women who have made a commitment to cover feel violated when forced to expose themselves to civil authority. It is worse when they have to show their exposed form to the satisfaction of the authorities everywhere they go. The analogies offered here are condescendingly inappropriate. Unless people are willing to imagine what it would be like if a similarly humiliating, and degrading requirement were imposed on them, there is really no point in discussing this from different perspectives. The bottom line at this point of the issue is "if them furriners dint look wee'erd an tok funny, we'd all git along."