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: one_less who wrote (75011)	9/18/2003 2:48:47 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Conscience is that faculty that enjoins and activates all of these, occasionally resulting in 'taking a stand'. I agree with that. And I agree with your conscience argument. But where you and I separate is whether the exercise of one's conscience should be cost free. Your argument seems to me to be that he should be free to follow his conscience, even though that will have a negative impact on other people, and not pay a social price for that. My position earlier, before I dropped out of the discussion for a bit, was that he's free to follow his conscience -- the conscience that says he doesn't want to give massages to women or people of certain sexual persuasions -- but he may have to pay a price for that, and the price may be not being permitted to engage freely in massage as a profession. He has options. He can give up massage as a profession. He can teach massage and carefully select the subjects he chooses to demonstrate on. He can make massage videos. He can work exclusively for a private club which excludes all those persons he doesn't want to serve. He can give massages just to friends as a kindness, not charging or making it a business. Those are some of his options. What he might NOT have is the right to follow both his conscience and his preferences without having to sacrifice any part of either. I'm not surprised that you would think this way -- our society is moving more and more to the principle that we should get to exercise our consciences or our desires without cost. A classic example in a different context was a letter in the local web based news site that complained about people driving through town with their stereos blasting, and a response letter from a girl who provided only her first name which said that she was a teen who enjoyed doing that, that she had every right to play her music as loudly as she wanted to, and if people didn't like it, tough. Different venue, same principle.

To: one_less who wrote (75011)	9/18/2003 2:53:22 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

OK, so he has the belief that the practice of massaging potential (by virtue of gender and sexual orientation)sexual partners* is harmful*. Is that correct? I'm assuming that "potential sexual partners" is the criterion. Although maybe not because then he would be massaging lesbians without risk. So just what is the criterion? **And with regard to harmful, harmful to whom or what? Let's try to pin this belief down specifically. Based on this belief, then the stand he is taking is to broadly speak up and educate the world that it's harmful and get the common practice changed? Or is his stand confined to refusing inappropriate (per his belief) clients in his own practice? The risk is both social opprobrium and legal, correct? His conscience bothered him because the conventions of society seem to be to just keep quite...It is based on his concern for being forthright in his behavior and ethics of operation...that is a matter of conscience Or is the matter of conscience the principle that honesty requires us to speak our beliefs rather than remain quiet? If so, is that only when one is aware of a danger? Or based on some other criterion?