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: Lane3 who wrote (76306)	10/2/2003 7:04:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"This whole thing started with Jewel repeatedly insisting that Mojo was doing no harm. Several people suggested potential harm but he would hear none of it, just kept insisting that there was none. That's not true karen. I asked you specifically "what harm." You did not respond. If you are referring to solon and his bigotted hateful extrapolations (see recent posts), these were not valid aspects of the hypo. Chris made statements about discrimination and then went off on examples where the perpetrators hated the victims and tortured or incinerated them. These were not valid analogies to the hypo or to the mojo character. So, what several people and what valid claims of harm? I was willing then and now to address them. What harm karen? Not only could no one define the harm but mojo's stand was in respect of a risky and sometimes harmful situation.

To: Lane3 who wrote (76306)	10/7/2003 2:23:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If you have a group of people who are the subject of painful systemic discrimination, then anyone who is not part of the solution is part of the problem It makes for a nice political slogan and it might motivate people to help achieve a solution and if so it has done good, but unless you are defining the problem as apathy, or laziness , or lack of commitment to solving some other problem then I don't think those who are not part of the solution are part of the problem. I you do so define the problem then I would say that not being committed to solve bad situations doesn't amount to doing harm to someone else. We've talked about an aspect of this on another conversation. I seem to find the distinction actively doing something that can cause and just not doing anything to be more important then many people on this thread. In response to your last paragraph I think there is a potential for harm, or more specifically that the person denied service may feel harm. I don't think that if "Mojo" handled the situation discretely, honestly and politely that he could reasonably have been said to have caused harm, but even then its possible someone else may feel harm, I just wouldn't put the responsibility for it on Mojo. Of course if Mojo behaved obnoxiously or dishonestly then he might be properly blamed for harm but I don't think that was part of the initial scenario. Tim