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 (77243)	10/10/2003 1:07:19 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

Message 19292333 To:kholt who wrote (74352) From: Jewel_o_the_West Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003 6:05 PM View Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77243 "Well, yeah. Why don't you? There was no question about whether the masseur was successful, good, competent at his job. He has no problem providing physical therapy via massage to men. The only question that was posed is whether he should be forced to massage women as a matter of legality (ie discrimination). If he doesn't want to, YOU decided he is in the wrong career. "...it would be better for him if he were in another line of work. On what basis do you cast him out of the massage parlor? Your logic is not working. If a person chooses to be a vegetarian he probably would be averse to handling meat but not necessarily, especially if the only available jobs in town is at a slaughter house. Your logic is more like...if a guy is allergic to onions, he should stop being a vegetarian...huh?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (77243)	10/10/2003 1:08:33 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

At least that shows clearly that Neo's assertion that the initial scenario necessarily involved a violation of law and that Jewel intended it that way was totally wrong. Not necessarily. It may speak more to Jewel's state at the time of the post. If anyone had a grip on what Jewel intended, we wouldn't have had to take this long and circuitous road.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (77243)	10/10/2003 1:23:58 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"At least that shows clearly that Neo's assertion that the initial scenario necessarily involved a violation of law and that Jewel intended it that way was totally wrong. " The allegation that mojo is a law breaker is not established. A claim (your claim) has been brought against him that he is violating the law. If he is violating some letter of the law the personal and private space that includes his conscience about his practice would be taken into consideration by a reasonable judge. If it were determined that he has systematically excluded women unfairly and on the basis of their gender, the judge might punish him. If it were determined that his concerns are valid and that it is not negatively attributed to one gender over another or to one orientation over another then the gender discrimination charge might be dismissed entirely. If it were determined that this type of practice would normally qualify as having negatively stigmatized women and homosexual men but due to his issue of conscience and his demonstrated positive regard for the types indicated a reasonable judge would take these circumstances into consideration prior to granting a ruling.. and possibly grant him an exemption from the usual interpretation of the anti-discrimition code. Neocon has acknowledged that he does not know how a judge would rule. To my recollection it is only you and solon who have automatically without rounded reason determined that he is a harmful bigot. Quite a few more extreme characteristics have also been attributed to him but that is beside the point. You have continually parsed key points of your opponents out of your rhetoric. This gives the impression that you are not trying to find a fair and just outcome but are simply trying to find win through devise. This gives not only you but your side the perception of deception and dishonorability.