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 (76659)	10/6/2003 4:57:26 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Perhaps I missed the word "overheated". But nevertheless I acknowledged the mildness of your reproach so I was not "quite wrong". However, let us not bandy trivia. I must do a little shopping. Perhaps the evening will present a more sympathetic topic.

To: Neocon who wrote (76659)	10/6/2003 9:31:33 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

”I have said, since realizing the basis upon which he had placed the Mojo matter, that he didn't have a leg to stand on,… At the time you said this I was responding to quite a few wild extrapolations that were not founded on the actual scenario. Most of these have subsided and the scenario has been flushed out for what ever that is worth. Solon, being the exception, is still adding his reversions, judgments about his reversions, challenges to his own reversions and conclusions on what he has reversioned regarding the hypothetical. But that is just something we live with here in the septic tank. I’ve chosen not to participate for the moment. I wanted to revisit your challenge …so here is a leg up …to stand on… Maybe. There is a saying, attributed to Jesus, that goes something like this: If you look on a woman with lust in your heart, then you have committed adultery. Now, the people on this thread clearly would not see getting turned on by someone’s presence or touch as harmful in most cases. In fact, the standard seems to be the physical commission of hanky panky. "The standard for Mojo's profession is no actual hanky-panky. I subscribe to the industry standard. The standard for Mojo is, apparently, no impure thought or visceral reaction. So his threshold of risk is, er, non-standard--the exception, deviant" However, If mojo and others, with his belief system, identify harm as the unintended turn on, serious at or near the level Jesus described, do they not have the right of conscience to have services that are sensitive to their belief, by someone of a similar view point…even without claiming to be Christians or claiming to found this belief on a religious doctrine at all? Just a cross section of people who are committed to the view point. Of course, I know that most here consider that kind of value system amusing or even scary but that is not the point. ”His belief is that it is wrong to put people into a situation where there is a reasonable possibility that they could become sexualized inapropriately. The harm or level of harm has been pretty broadly discussed, as I hope you know. The focus now is more on the harm caused by the mojo belief system and conscientious stand than on what risks of harm can occur to persons in the massage setting. But, it makes sense to look at harm from both perspectives if we want to truly way the merits of the scenario. It is not a particular harm, level of harm, kind of harm that is in question. Simply that it is reasonable to believe that for some people everything from a passing fancy to pouncing on someone qualifies as harm and that mojo's operation is responsive to that sensitivity. So, from the start, this is where I had hoped we could enter the discussion to struggle with the mojo notion. You stated “no leg.” What criteria or set of criteria disqualifies this leg as a freedom of conscience. Sorry, it took so long to get back to you.