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 (76686)	10/6/2003 7:52:17 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

”you'd think that the notion that he might be wrong would at least occur to him enough to seek understanding of the opposition.” How typical… Mojo has demonstated an understanding of why you and yours think he is wrongfully discriminatory. He has demonstrated a complete understanding of all the reasons you and yours would fear that his scenario is harmful. He has demonstrated an understanding of the legal, political, philosophical, personal, and world view oriented complaints against him. He has also addressed these concerns. YOU, have not considered his view point on these concerns. You have made many valiant efforts to convince him to change his wrong headed attitude through retraining, pretending to go along with the system, and other measures to stay under the radar. You have not shown that you considered his view points on key factors (ie: harm, his view of types, etc.). As evidenced by your portrayal of his thinking. Nothing in the scenario qualifies the hateful thinking that you and yours have attributed to him. He has responded to those myriad allegations as well. YOU have never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never … Considered the possibility that his approach is in consideration of the well being of the people he serves and causes no harm except in the extreme what if’s (tree falling that no one knows about, harm that is not recognized but there, insidiousness that can’t be detected or defined). No, you have not considered anything except how to get him to change his wrong headed thinking. You have not sought an understanding of the opposition because you KNEW from the start that it was wrong. Its called projection Karen…Knowing the hateful thinking (that isn’t there) and knowing that he doesn’t seek an understanding of the opposition when YOU HAVEN’T. Is what you are accusing him of. I am ready for another round of everyone telling me how this is a personal attack that is too hard on poor Karen now…bring it on. You didn’t show that you had imagined the scenario through his perspective. Had you, all of the unfounded ranting about how hateful and harmful he is would not have been necessary. Had you, you could have focused on well founded aspects of the scenario, where you think his outlook falls apart. ”I never said anything remotely like that. For someone who is so into discrimination, you sure don't bother making relevant distinctions.” Yes, you have, as have your assistances to buddies. You were just not blatant about it ... the attitude dribbled through. The scenario had a lot of potential to give us an opportunity struggle over the issue of a good man with a good philosophy pitched against a good system with high ideals. Could have been a real learning experience for us all. Instead I spent all my time fending off accusations of hateful thinking, and demonic attitudes that were unfounded. too bad

To: Lane3 who wrote (76686)	10/6/2003 8:43:10 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I saw such an excellent summary you did earlier (and I had meant to tell you so, but it disappeared in a subsequent string of postings when I was distracted), that I thought to give a final summary of my own. Jewels wants to defend MOHO's discrimination on the basis that he is discriminating for a noble reason rather than as a put-down. Now you have explained to him why that doesn't fly even if it is true. That is clear enough. But is it indeed true that this perceived put-down is more akin to folks on the Titanic tossing babies into the lifeboats? Why does MOHO wish to send women and homosexuals to a special fountain, as it were? In trying to cut through his endless distortions and evasions, and to pluck an odd assertion out from amongst the ad hominems which predominate in most of his posts--I find a couple of repetitive notions: 1). That statistics show that sexual misconduct exists, and that it causes harm, and 2). That massaging homosexuals may lead to sexual misconduct and thus harm. Now, this exposes a terrible problem. We have been assured over and over again that MOHO is above reproach--successful, and morally worthy. Can we not assume then that Moho will not violate the trust of the homosexual who has paid out his money for a professional massage? Indeed, Jewels has asserted repeatedly that the client is not at risk from MOHO who is (as said) a praiseworthy human being. So who then is he at risk from? He is not at risk from Mona. Mona is also decent and above board. Jewels has referred to some mysterious presence of something sexually charged. Well, massage tables don't have a sexual charge, oils don't, towels and sheets do not. The only place where a sexual charge may exist is in a living creature. I think we can safely assume he does not refer to mice or germs or such--after all, he could easily have said so, if he did. So we are left with a therapist and a client--both of whom are sexual beings and whom carry that sexuality with them wherever they go until death. So the harm or danger can only be implied as coming from one or both of those two principles. Now the fundamental premise is that the therpist is sending the client to the Mona fountain out of concern for the client's safety. And this WOULD be an act of decency if there WERE a risk of harm from the therapist. But we are assured by Jewels that there is no risk from this PARTICULAR therapist (although there may be risks from others, such would be irrelevant to why MOHO sends them to the street). And although there may be risk from germs and mice and such...it surely cannot be claimed that there is a sexual risk from these creatures--can it?? So if this discrimination is for the benefit of the client (which might at least serve to justify it in an individual instance), then why will Jewels not inform us why a homosexual is in danger from a qualified therapist like MOHO (who is a decent person), and why that danger is eliminated by having Mona work on him?? There seems to be an insinuation that MOHO feels uncertain of his ability to be moral and upright when massaging a homosexual. He feels he may place homosexuals and women at risk. I can appreciate his frankness, but I have said that the ability to set aside sexual interest is necessary and expected of all practioners in a professional capacity. Just as MOHO must control urges when he shops at the grocery store, so he must control his urges even more so in a position of professional trust. It is true that Jewels has given some evidence that all clients are potentially at risk from some therapists in all fields of care. But this is not unexpected. This is not sufficient justification for systemic discrimination against innocent groups of people, and, in any event, we are ASSSURED by Jewels that this sexual violation would never occur with the upright Mr. MOHO. So we are left with the enigma. We are left with the sense that the argument is all pretense, and in bad faith. I, too, have pretty much had enough of the endless searching for pebbles of fact between pellets of cheap insults.