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 (75704)	9/26/2003 5:02:19 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"I understand that YOU WANT me to identify somebody as bad" Then you understand NOTHING. I want no such thing. "You and yours want to define mojo as a culprit." Again...you are in deep left field. I do not want you to define your hypothetical as a culprit. I just want you to be honest and share with us who he is and what his reasons are. "What do you want mojo to do?" Just be honest. Who is at risk if you massage a woman? Is it you? Is it the woman? Is it either one of you and perhaps both? Is it this "risk" which is the fundamental reason for exclusion? There is always a "potential" for misconduct in myriad areas of life. But potential is not the same as risk. Risk is a measure of probability. Potentially, there will always be sexual misconduct from time to time. Potentially, a client can steal a bottle of oil while the therapist turns her back. Potentially, the therapist can give the visa numbers to his cousin in Preoria and they can scam a thousand dollar liquor purchase. But what is the risk and what does the risk justify to a rational person? Listen: Out of ten thousand people being left alone with the spouse of a friend while the friend goes for barbeque coals...some will flirt, and some will have intercourse. The potential is there, and it WILL happen. But what is the RISK of YOU screwing with your friend's wife (who you may truly love)? What is the RISK of YOU screwing a stranger with whom you have a professional relationship because you are her grocer, her barber, her doctor, or her therapist. If you are a decent person the risk should be virtually NON-EXISTENT. In that case, one would expect you to NOT discriminate against blocks of people. If however you DO discriminate against blocks of people, there is a normal reaction: Firstly, good for you for being aware that you are NOT impartial and can NOT guarantee your character or behaviour with these blocks of people (homosexuals and women). Secondly, your self awareness does not over-ride my perception of you as a troubled and neurotic person. I would not trust myself to the hands of someone with such self doubt--regardless of his personal awareness of some of his limitations. I want to deal with professionals who trust themselves. If they cannot trust themselves after years of training...then why should I???