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 (75277)	9/22/2003 2:34:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

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. There is simply no basis for this position. Many, many opposite gender therapy sessions are undertaken daily with no harm to either party. If there are indeed therapists who are harming clients, that obviously needs to be dealt with in the proper way. But he, actually, is in the BEST position to protect female clients because he is so aware of the potential danger. By turning these clients down, he is forcing them to seek treatment from therapists who may be less protective of them. Thus, he is INCREASING the potential of harm to them. His proper approach, if the protection of female clients is really his goal, is to take ONLY female clients because he is so acutely aware of the dangers that he will make sure that as soon as a problematic situation begins to arise he will terminate the therapy immediately. Women are totally safe in his hands. Indeed, he may be one of the few, if your views of the extent of the problem are accurate, male therapists that a woman could go to with complete assurance of safety. Thus, his true obligation, if the protection of women is really his major concern, is, as I say, to open a practice dealing exclusively with the most potentially vulnerable females and make clear how totally safe they are in his hands.

To: one_less who wrote (75277)	9/22/2003 2:46:40 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"He has no ill feeling toward persons" Irrelevant, and certainly not assumed. "He does identify a problem with the circumstances described that is high risk" It is extremely insulting to identify people as high risk for misconduct merely because of their gender or sexual orientation. You don't say the possibility of misconduct is high risk for heterosexual males--but only for homosexuals and women. To suggest that these are more at risk to be unethical and immoral is prejudicial and insulting. To toss such matters off in such a glib way is moreover very off-putting. "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." Now you are being patronizing. If you were meaning this equally between all groups (i.e. NOBODY should get massages, medical treatment, or whatever, because EVERYBODY is at heart a likely crook and might breach the trust) then, well and fine. But you are only talking about two particular groups as being at risk of misconduct--namely, homosexuals and women. This is smug, elitist, and discriminatory--and nothing for you to speak proudly of. The human race has spilled too much damn blood in trying to eliminate this sort of crap for you to expect people to shrug it off with an, "oh well...boys will be boys". "He is not prejudging individuals" You are dividing humankind into groups of inferior and superior, and then claiming not to prejudge them. If women and homosexuals are NOT more likely to engage in misconduct, then why deny them services equally with heterosexual males? And if you think they ARE more likely to be unethical and to breach trust, then ON WHAT GROUNDS do you make that prejudicial determination??? You seem to be entirely unaware of how a woman must feel to be treated as a second-class human by virtue of her gender--that she is either weak or immoral, on that basis alone. And you hide behind this "mojo" characterization as though this were some sort of cartoon fun we were having. Give your head a shake, man.