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: Neocon who wrote (75660)	9/26/2003 1:25:15 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Therefore, with the exception of therapeutic situations where denial of treatment might constitute a serious problem for a patient, the state has no reason to dictate clientele and forbid the masseur from acting according to his scruples......... I'm quite sure I never suggested that the state should regulate him, either. That's not all there was to it. If that were all there was to it, you and I would have been in lockstep and Jewel wouldn't be pissed at me. I only offered that Mojo might be in the wrong line of work, no different than Jewel's saying that Auntie K should stay home if it was really a matter of conscience. Which Karen happens to agree with, BTW, and part of why she doesn't do weddings. I didn't notice you're arguing against my suggestion about the line of work. Oh, yes, I forgot. You lost interest. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. Wouldn't do that any more than I would ruin someone's wedding. Just want you to see my wink.

To: Neocon who wrote (75660)	9/26/2003 3:22:13 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Just so as we do not inadvertently describe a plywood floor as one of marble, let me state some points (and it goes without saying that I accept without reserve that any errors or misconceptions you have undoubtedly stem from your lack of attention to the discussion). The issue was NOT a religious issue. As near as I can tell, the issue was one of anticipated harm to the client. Presumably, there was a higher potential for harm to females and homosexual clients as contrasted with heterosexuals--for reasons that are unclear. What is clear is that Jewels relied very heavily on some statistics which showed (as would be expected) that misconduct and harmful consequences sometimes obtain in the massage industry--although to a lesser extent than in many others. He appeared to consider these statistics essential to the crux of his argument and reacted with a certain rage to what he perceived as attempts to trivialize them. I said from the beginning that I did not see it as a freedom of conscience issue. I do not on principle like to restrict the rights of individuals to be eccentric, foolish, or deluded. On the other hand, I think people are entitled to fair comment on how they think and feel about kooky behaviour. I made it clear to Jewels that (in the absence of religious caprice) I considered such discrimination to reflect a neurotic and unstable individual. And I applauded the voluntary exclusion of oneself from servicing clients where he felt uncomfortable and uncertain in his ability to stay impartial and professional. I just had my teeth cleaned and the young gal was very pretty and sensual in her white uniform. Her body moved provocatively around my ears and she plastered her hands and fingers all over my face. But neither of us entertained the thought of misconduct or breach or trust. Besides, there wouldn't have been time.