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 (75017)	9/18/2003 3:12:20 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

His position is warrented because as a matter of conscience he refuses to do something that he views as harmful to individuals and society. According to Chris's definition, where freedom of conscience comes in is that no one can force him to massage anyone his conscience won't permit. That makes sense to me.

To: one_less who wrote (75017)	9/18/2003 5:04:36 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Sorry, but you don't seem to get it. Oh, I do get it. But when I wound up going to jail in opposition to something I thought was wrong (segregation), I have little sympathy with somebody who wants to pay no price at all for refusing to do something they think is wrong. People all over the world are paying huge prices, including dying (do you know how many Bahai believers in the Middle East have died in the past five years?) because they refuse to compromise their consciences. And he wants a free pass? Yes, I get it. But do you?

To: one_less who wrote (75017)	9/18/2003 5:09:31 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

His position is warrented because as a matter of conscience he refuses to do something that he views as harmful to individuals and society. He has thoughtfully considered the impacts on the participants therapists/clients and determined that the compromised circumstance sensual nature of the service is not as safe as it is promoted to be. The emerging research supports his view. Huh? His position, if I recall your correctly from some time back, is that he doesn't want to give massages to homosexual men because he disapproves of homosexuality. Strongly disapproves. Believes, even, that it is evil and unnatural and deviant and antisocial and anything else you want to toss into the pot. But how does that make giving such massages unsafe? Does he think he's going to get anally raped by a semi-naked client lying on his massage table? Does he think he's going to get AIDS from touching the skin of a potentially infected client, and if so, I assume he's screening heterosexual clients for herpes and other diseases? How is massaging a homosexual man who you don't know to be homosexual and who gives no indication of being homosexual unsafe? And what view of his do you think emerging research supports? I'm pretty well, though not all the way, over to Neo's view on homosexuality -- but I can't even come close to understanding your masseuse's view.