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 (75187)	9/20/2003 9:00:52 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

He has adequately validated his viewpoint. Only to the choir, a choir of one I might add. toward a character that has behaved nobly in his efforts to offer benefits to his clients, who harbors no ill feelings to anyone, and has caused harm to none. You have a strange sense of nobility, methinks. Here we have a guy who wants to do things his way. I, for one, am content to leave him alone to do that, libertarian soul that I am. I like being left alone to do my thing, too, without interference from a world that sometimes spins in a different direction from mine. But no, that's not enough for him. He wants everyone to 1) change their spin to get in step with him and 2) to thank him for the privilege of being in the presence of such nobility, to boot. It never occurs to him that he has some accommodating to do, too, or at least an obligation to listen in good faith to the issues presented by those in the mainstream. Here's a guy who thinks nothing of having the government set up a multi-million, maybe multi-billion dollar bureaucracy just so that he can petition to evade the rules. Sounds selfish, self-indulgent, and spoiled to me. Nobility? Baloney! I often argue with Neo that the majority has an obligation to show magnanimity to the minority. He slaps me around every time I suggest that. It's up to the minority to fit in, he says. And so says most everyone. Well, I disagree. As a result, I've been trying mightily to listen actively and get into this guy's head, with some success, I might add, in order to find a win for him against great odds. And what do I get from you for my trouble? Disgust? Thanks a bunch.

To: one_less who wrote (75187)	9/21/2003 12:21:25 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I am disgusted with the disgust you, X, karen, and chris have expressed toward a character that has behaved nobly in his efforts to offer benefits to his clients, who harbors no ill feelings to anyone, and has caused harm to none. When you find X, Solon, karen, and me all agreed on anything, maybe it's time for you to think that there's something valid in what we're saying. This may be the only time you can put the four of us in the same sentence on the same side together. As to his not causing harm to anyone, you and I simply disagree on that. I think that the white business owner who makes a public statement the he won't allow any blacks in his store does actual harm. I think that the store owner who posts a sign saying "no ragheads allowed in my store" is doing actual harm.

To: one_less who wrote (75187)	9/22/2003 11:09:53 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I am really tired of reading your, chris's, and karen's turmoil over the blame game. Figure out who you want to hate and live with it. That is not my issue and I am not going to argue with you over it. If you are unable to allow yourselves to see the mojo perspective then just go back to your silly chortling and forget it." I cannot speak for the others but I am not unsure of the things I hate, nor am I unclear or evasive of such things. Your rant relates to absolutely nothing in my post to you. Not one sentence; not one word. It is a bizarre distraction. "not one single person on this thread gave even a smidgeon of acknowledgement to the possibility that the guideliles for this profession are seriously flawed." Not surprising in that nobody here was discussing whether they were flawed. Both Karen and I posted several statements of ethics from different bodies. If you considered then flawed you could so have stated. "All he has gotten for it is a lot of chortling finger pointers who are stressing over their issues." You presented your argument as a hypothetical. I remember it very clearly. I have not heard anyone chortle. What I have seen is an evasion on your part of every point which has been presented--an evasion in favour of accusatory rants such as the one I am responding to. For instance, I made the points that exclusion would appear to be based on the therapists distrust of either his own self-control, or distrust of the client. I don't mean, of course, that the client is considered untrustworthy by virtue that they might steal oil or soap or something, but untrustworthy in that they might initiate untoward sexual conduct. I said that I appreciated a therapist who discriminated on the first basis, and I suggested that training and character-building could address this issue. As regards the second possibility (that some clients might be untrustworthy), I acknowledged this, but gave my opinion that people should not be condemned in advance and on the basis of gender, colour, or such innate characteristics--but rather that untrustworthiness was a point of character that ought to be judged on that basis. You call this "chortling", which pretty much tells us that you are unprepared to consider the whys and wherefores which may make discrimination a wrongful, harmful, and unkind approach. "I am disgusted with the disgust you, X, karen, and chris have expressed toward a character that has behaved nobly in his efforts to offer benefits to his clients, who harbors no ill feelings to anyone, and has caused harm to none." It is not that I am disgusted with the idea. I am certainly disappointed--and I think it speaks to a fundamental prejudice rather than to something which ought to be praised. Such a person may or may not harbour ill feelings or contempt for the trustworthiness of certain genders or sexual orientations. The fact is, though, that discrimination and exclusion have the appearance of hostility and disrespect. And you have not provided a convincing argument why such an one ought to be permitted to censure in such a manner without in turn being subject to censure. Our society relies much on the "innocent until proven guilty" paradigm. You must not be surprised, therefore, when people object to the idea that they may be considered guilty of misconduct before the fact...and treated as social pariahs in certain treatment settings. Far more sexual misconduct occurs with psychiatry than in legitimate massage clinics. Although we condemn the untrained psychiatrist of poor character, we do not address that problem with a chasity belt mentality which comdemns either the psychiatrist or the client while they yet enjoy the default consideration of innocence. The main point I am trying to get across to you is that untrustworthiness is not a function of gender, but rather of character, and that unethical behaviour should not be presumed on the basis of gender and such. Unless you are positing some reason for exclusion OTHER THAN the fear of misconduct or unethical behaviour, I can see no defense to such harmful discrimination in the absence of guilt. In the absence of guilt there is the assumption that people deserve equal treatment. It is the violation of this fundamental principle which has disappointed myself, Karen, and CH. Retreating to snide and contemptuous attacks does nothing to adress these issues. If your goal is to educate me to some point, you will not do so by avoiding the issues being discussed.