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: The Philosopher who wrote (76918)	10/8/2003 11:10:59 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"-- is the evangelical Christian who believes that Jews are inherently and absoltely evil because they killed Christ and who believes that any contact with Jews will taint his soul permitted to refuse to serve jews? Your answer, and your basis for it, please. I did not know that this had previously been a serious question. I do not support any kind of illegal harmful discrimination. You did not define the service but if it is something like a Christian book store then I would require the proprietor to sell books to who ever wants to buy. If it is something like being a pastor then I would not require the priest to provide pass over services to the only jewish family in town when they complained that they are being excluded because no rabbi lived near-by. Likewise...If mojo is selling oils and such out of his store front I would expect him to sell to anyone who saw them as useful. True a woman could come into the store and seeing that he is a handsome and charming man, become aroused sexually. A retail sale is not intimitely entangled by its nature in the sensuality of one's person. You have made a blanket statement that women have a right to be included in mojo's services but you have not drawn a limit on that right. Mojo has, and I do not see it as rising to the level of discrimination that you have labeled it (bigotry). In fact using such high powered words that connote every kind of hate and cruelty and associating them with the worst circumstances and events in human history reveals something else about the basis of your complaint...I've covered that already.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (76918)	10/8/2003 11:50:53 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"We had very much that argument what, twenty years or so ago?, when the issue of women reporters being allowed in professional team locker rooms emerged as a major factor. The guys didn't want them there while they -- the guys -- were in various states of undress. " I don't know how the locker room interview originated but I can speculate that some guy who once played with the team got a job with a news agency. A play or players felt comfortable having him in the room while they are changing and other players wanted their comments in the news and so more news men were welcomed in. The fact is going from your sweaty football pads, and getting naked to clean up has some privacy issues. IMO we were exploiting the players in the first place. There is no reason these interviews couldn't take place in a separate room on the way to, or coming from the locker. Then the women's issue came up. It was a valid issue. So was the issue about compromising the players comfort and privacy in the shower. The resolution that we came up with is the most spineless reaction to the doctrine of anti-discrimination that I know of. It is a good example of abusing the intent of the whole issue. It is an excellent reason to think about our future and refining discrimination policies to ensure that they are doing what they were intended to do, strengthen our regard for human dignity and allow no one to be belittled, or exploited as a consequence of the policy. This is a very goooood example of us not being in the 1800s anymore and not facing up with dignity to the challenges of our own time.