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: one_less who wrote (77461)	10/16/2003 11:20:36 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Sorry. My computer was in the shop. I have a temporary arrangement. ___________________________ "As far as I know testosterone alone does not account for sexual arousal. There is always some object, even if it is a mental image that is involved." Let us not stray into irrelevancies. The point is that it does not have to be about Moho. It can be a high-heeled shoe in the corner. It can be the smell of the massage oil which makes some limbic connection to a previous sexual experience. People have wet dreams. Men wake up aroused because of a high early morning testosterone level. Cadavers sometimes have erections because arousal involves a complexity of nerve impulses which are often outside of (and independent of) conscious control. And I am sure you can masturbate yourself to arousal with a minimum of thought if you wish. Please don't try to bog us down in these tangential issues. THE AROUSAL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MOHO. What it DID have to do with is irrelevant. "If, as you say, mojo was not the object of interest, then his ethic has not been violated, and no harm done" Yes...as I said. "I can't imagine why mojo would have any problem providing services to this client" This confirms that his freedom of conscience excuse does not rest on the evils of homosexuality but rather on the harm that sexual arousal causes Moho. We will get to that later, but in the meantime, If his freedom of conscience issue rests on any intrinsic distaste for homosexuals or women--or any sense that their mere presence harms him...please let me know. Your previous statements made it clear that sexual arousal was what harms Moho...but I don't want to have any back-tracking or revisionism later, so now is the time to reconsider... "Your senario of Mojo asking about your sexuality is an extrapolotion and based more on your fears than on the personality of Mojo." What fears? Please, Jewels--don't start with the personal attacks again. I have no fears at all about Moho. You suggested that a miscommunication had taken place which allowed a bi-sexual to slip under Moho's radar. I provided a realistic scenario to account for it. If you don't like my illustration, make up one of your own. How or why Moho failed to discriminate to his standards is irrelevant. Just relax.