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: Solon who wrote (76716)	10/7/2003 9:36:43 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Presumably, the lust argument is only for women, but who knows? Yes, presumably. Since the lust in his heart argument doesn't cover his discrimination against gays, that then seems more like plain vanilla prejudice. Perhaps all the distractions were to try to put a better face on that. Why couldn't he have just said that he had a religious scruple I think he implied it strongly at the beginning. I remember posting an interpretation where I explained it in those terms and I periodically offered a religious exemption but he shut that down. I took that as his preference for justifying Mojo's attitude without resorting to playing the religious card thinking that it would stand on its own as a matter of ethics, principle, conscience. I'm guessing, since he also eschewed the disability card in our discussion of ADA, that he didn't want Mojo's beliefs characterized as needing any crutch or special accommodation. That would be supported by his insistence that Mojo was being noble. So that's my take on it, at least today's take. All my takes are presented as works in progress. <g>