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 (77058)	10/9/2003 4:02:53 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I am tiring of trying to find what happened, and will probably quit. If you read through the lot of it, and lord help you if you do, I suggest that you pay attention to the changes in Jewel's affect as things played out. Among other things you may notice his glee early on when he considered you on his "side," his dejection and insecurity when you disappeared, and his near orgasmic elation (the end zone dance) when you found a basis for Mojo's freedom of conscience, after all, thus placing you firmly back home on his "side" where you belonged. If you do that, you may encounter some worthwhile "intelligence." That indicates to me that I am doing something right, but, of course, I may be wrong....... If at some point you elect to revisit this, you might find that intelligence useful. The issue is at what point does society get to substitute its moral conclusions for those of the individual, and how do we distinguish a conscience claim from mere prejudice or whim...... It seems that you have potentially found a basis for freedom of conscience in the Mojo scenario that may satisfy you. This discussion started, as you say, with a question of freedom of conscience. Jewel came up with the Mojo scenario to test the notion of freedom of conscience. I don't think there was ever a question of Mojo's right to believe what he wanted and practice it in private, whether based on freedom of conscience or on something else. What was in question was whether he could practice it publicly, in his business, without getting into trouble or hurting someone else. It is the practical aspect of the practice of this freedom that caused the hulabaloo, not the theoretical basis. All we know of your thoughts on that is that Mojo's business should not be regulated to proscribe his approach and that Mojo could have made a more practicable career choice. Well, the "opposition" pretty much agrees with that. It's the practical aspect of this that has generated the heat--practical questions about law suits and insults and referrals and sorting the gays from the straights. The theoretical part is child's play for you. You might not find the rest of it so easy. Yes, the prejudice vs. whim thing is of important, but even after you've sorted that out, there's still the question of what sign, if any, you hang on the door.

To: Neocon who wrote (77058)	10/10/2003 5:01:49 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think that post was purely contrived crap. Jewel's posts for the past month (at least) have not been argumentative. They have been personal attacks relying on insults, innuendo, distortions and lies. Here is an example picked truly at random and fairly tame (his vicious posts are sewer material): Christopher says: Message 19327853 "PLEASE, Jewel, stick to the discussion and stop attacking people just because they don't agree with you or see the situation in the same way you do." Jewels responds: siliconinvestor.com "OOHHHH, ya mean y'aaall who bin takkin bout'em beeegots, em paternalistic one's what don want no sex wi'yer wimin. or em paternalistic muslim women, who don't want to give you a sensual massaggggeeeee. that skushion you'n'yourn be habin, and as you'n'yorn said been in backs of your eennsy brains the whole time...was obvious by the way so don't worry that ya spilled any beans or nothin. not interested, less or till you get interesting...not likely." Notice that he introduces a religious angle and notice that his post is devoid of other than smarmy mouthing off. This was one of his mildest posts. The rest are so much more despicable...but you already know that. Every attempt anyone has made to bring the discussion back to reasoned dialogue has met with an enraged sneer. He sabotages all such attempts with despicable taunts. Occasionally I defended against his potty-mouth behaviour (actually, we all did) by throwing some remonstrative barbs back in his direction. But to no apparent avail. It would try the patience of Job to endure this relentless third person dung flinging without retaliation. But you already know this. You cannot plead ignorance of it! You know that his "argument" is composed of lies and bad faith and is 99% ad hominem. He was cornered time and time again by logic and just kept moving (bad faith) to a different corner. Then, when all his holes were filled in...HE FREAKED. He has stayed freaked ever since. You have enabled all of his crappy antisocial behaviour. You share in his ignominy; you share in his indecency. Those whom have been hit with pellets of shit from his mouth...have been hit with pellets of shit from your mouth. They have every right to hold you accountable--jointly. You cannot aid and abet despicable and reprehensible conduct and expect that your hands will not have spots that will not come out... I read through some of the old posts this morning and I was caught off guard by how ugly and insulting he has been. "Remember, I was in on the discussion at the beginning, and drifted away" I don't know that you drifted away more than anyone else. You likely supplied more posts than I did...more than perhaps all of us outside of you know who. But it is irrelevant really... "I am content that I got him to clarify his position, and that it has some merit, even if I have some reservations, and choose to give it further thought......." His position has no merit. Who told you it had merit? How do you justify bigotry on the basis that your reason for bigotry is that you feel entitled to control the conscience (the thought) of another? So if you can be a bigot in order to get your jollies that you are (yeah, right) preventing me from thinking sexual thoughts near you...then I can be a bigot so as to get my jollies in (yeah, right) preventing you from thinking about apple pie in front of me. Well, maybe you CAN be a bigot like that. But the question of concern to decent human beings is whether or not you can do it without repercussions from society. You can respond like Jewels--where you bring in religion and you taunt everybody with pig-headed insults! It seems to me that the two of you say the same things... "OOHHHH, ya mean y'aaall who bin takkin bout'em beeegots, em paternalistic one's what don want no sex wi'yer wimin. or em paternalistic muslim women, who don't want to give you a sensual massaggggeeeee. that skushion you'n'yourn be habin, and as you'n'yorn said been in backs of your eennsy brains the whole time...was obvious by the way so don't worry that ya spilled any beans or nothin..."