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 (76328)	10/2/2003 8:46:02 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Would it really violate your conscience to acknowledge that there is some remote theoretical possibility for some small amount of harm? See, I think that is kind of insulting. Who cares really and I wouldn't normally say so, but since it is such a favorite word today, I may as well join-em. Before I presented the mojo hypo, I considered the status quo of harm by denying services…duh? There are two primary concerns for harm. 1) That a person who is sent away would be hurt by the rejection. 2) Discrimination of types of people would cause suffering to those types and to society as a whole. In the first case a person may have their feelings hurt by being rejected. Service providers often refer individuals to other more appropriate services. Mojo had an active referral process where he referred people to other providers. Is this harmful? Harm may undeniably be (occasionally) felt and claimed by an individual who comes to one provider, who rejects them and sends them to someone else. Is it reasonable for the service provider to use their judgment to make such referrals. In most cases we would all agree that is (wrong insurance or whatever). The question here is would referring people based on gender be over the line. This leads us to the second primary concern for harm, discrimination: The reason that we are against discrimination is that it attempts to exclude groups of people from the benefits or at least equal benefits. This may be due to disregard, hate or considering the group unworthy. In the case of mojo his referrals were, in his judgment, to persons like cousin Myrna who was close at hand and reputedly equal to or better in the skills of the service. He had no ill feelings toward the groups. In fact his belief statement indicated that he was acting in regard for their well being. Though, his concern for the inherent risks is controversial, it could not be concluded that he is trying to or acting in a way that would exclude people from being served appropriately. So, by the spirit of the issue I do not see mojo as a perp. Another view of harm could be the solonistic view. Mojo’s success could threaten their view of which worldview is gaining an advantage. Since this is not what the hypo was based on it should be argued outside of the ethical basis of the scenario. Like wise with political leanings. Another similar view of harm is the CH view. The cultural commitment to a particular perspective or support of an issue (discrimination) is being compromised and the threat of that carrying over to other sectors or aspects of society is scary Another view of harm is the one you brought up. The burden on the system to accommodate such a scenario are too cumbersome. I believe, I engaged in a discussion of that type of harm in a forthright manner. Another view of harm is the one currently under discussion in which harm is felt but fault or accountability for the harm is vague and hard to attribute. I considered all of these. What I didn’t do was agree that they qualified as valid criticisms of the mojo hypo, or that mojo himself should take responsibility for making everyone ok with that. For some reason that irks you. If I have failed to acknowledge any other types of harm, let me know. The obvious claims of harm (discrimination) could have been discussed from the start instead of sending the issue over the cliff with claims that mojo wants to treat people like the slaves or incinerate them. Until there was a willingness to discuss the discrimination issue at a reasonable level that actually dealt with the mojo hypo, it seemed kind of pointless. " I am not prepared to play justice games with you. Mommy doesn't care who hit whom first." Karen, I don’t care either. Some of the behavior in this discussion was dismissive or down right destructive to the path of reason. I prefer to continue on the path of reason and would even include solon in that, if it were productive. The unproductive stuff, is best flushed out in the open. Not because it happened before and who done what to whom, but because as it arises again, it will accomplish the same things.