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: Solon who wrote (75266)	9/22/2003 1:49:19 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"Is "Mojo" some sort of slang for a disgusting person? Is it necessary to our discussion?" No it is a name karen offered. I thought it sounded unique and fitting. I didn't look it up to see if it has some other simbolic reference. "Is it necessary to our discussion?" Well it seems helpful to give him a label other than "the pretend masseur" since his personality and circumstance has been pretty much defined. But you don't have to use it if you don't feel comfortable with it. "There is no need for a third person manner of speaking if you are speaking of yourself. I am not speaking of my self. The mojo character has very little in common with me.

To: Solon who wrote (75266)	9/22/2003 2:04:46 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"You have not shown why a therapist should prejudge the intent or the ethics of someone on the basis of gender. To deny your services, for instance, to a homosexual is tantamount to accusing them in advance of being more likely to be unethical or to engage in misconduct than a woman or a heterosexual." The mojo perspective seems to have eluded you and yours. He has no ill feeling toward persons (even though it is often alleged) having a different sexual orientation than his or toward women having the same sexual orientation. He does not accuse individuals of wrong thinking, conduct, or of anything in particular until events themselves are presented. He does identify a problem with the circumstances described that is high risk and is only a problem under the (avoidable) circustances he described. He has made certain that anyone wanting massage services is able to receive those services. His target problem is the circumstance not the individuals who may be of a gender or orientation. Since participation in the circumstance is not necessary, he views it as an unneccasary risk to insist people participate in such circumstances. Comments have been alleged but unsubstantiated that he causes harm to others by taking this position. "But this does not provide a leap to a legitimate rationalizing and the prejudgment of the character of potential clients." Quite the contrary he openly admits that there is no way of knowing who among potential clients would be seriously at risk of harm once engaged in massage services. He, however, knows that many persons are being harmed by the lack of regard for the risks. The risk is high that many more will be harmed in a situation which may not be maneagable by defining ethics codes and managing agencies. It is not necessary to involve people in this kind of serious harm and risk of harm, and I have yet to see you or yours provide a description of the benefits of forcing people to be involved in this manner. He is not prejudging individuals, he is prejudging (accurately) the risks endemic to the circumstance.