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 (77425)	10/12/2003 2:55:53 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I have no problem with your assertion.

To: Solon who wrote (77425)	10/12/2003 8:41:21 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

"My question to you is this: Can you accept my assertion that I am not injured? And will you honor my assertion as the truth? " As I said earlier, I have no problem with your assertion. I had a problem with the opponents of the mojo scenario claiming that, the harm could be of an insidious nature that was not apparent to the harmed, but there anyway. If Mojo were to make the same kind of claim (the claim of insidious nature of harm being done), via his view point about what is going on with you and your service provider; it would be a hypocritical position for him to take. The claim, and especially the mirrored claims being without substance and irreconcilable. He recognizes that the realm of making claims of "freedom of conscience" is internal and can not be directed as an external judgment about the ethics of others. It is similar to the argument over who's religion or world view everyone should be forced to serve. We have an individual freedom to choose ... so far. If you and your massage provider do not have an ethic that is compromised by erotic involvement at the level you described, then I do not know what harm we would be referring to. Claims might be levied about how society could be impacted. This is the same claim being made in opposition to mojo and the very claim he has objected to. At some point the social engineers might want to argue it out but that has little to do with the question of whether or not mojo's position is founded on 'freedom of conscience.'