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 (77352)	10/11/2003 10:44:35 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Not unless the damage is arguably unjust. So you're acknowledging that, if the damage is arguably unjust, Mojo could be held liable? Then we are in agreement?

To: Neocon who wrote (77352)	10/11/2003 11:50:28 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Not unless the damage is arguably unjust." The damage of the "idea" has been labeled as insideously harmful in a practically undetermined or at least indirect way. So, I created a parallel Hypothetical, 'James's Bath House'. James owns a free-lance bath house with separate facilities for women and men. James has a basket of condoments for soaping, scrubbing, and toweling the men on request. He provides these services directly for the men who request it. James's daughter, Jenny, is saving for college and works on the women's side of the facility providing the same services. This is normally considered a non-sexual activity. However, when a woman demands that James provide the soaping, scrubbing, and towelling services to her, he refused as a matter of conscience. Chris labeled this an act of insidious bigotry that should result in James being force to either perform services to women or lose his business. I asked if this applied to Jenny as well. If a man demands that Jenny provide him soaping, scrubbing, and toweling services and she refuses, would chris label her an incidious bigot who should be driven from employment at the bath house. His response was 'yes,' for exactly the same reasons. So, is the allegation of insidious bigoted discrimination a valid factor that stands alone in consideration of this scenario or not. I fail to see a significant difference in the James scenario and the mojo scenario.