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 (77604)	10/16/2003 5:20:24 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"And the point that you seem to be missing is that the mojo ethic is BASED ON the standard ethic and applied at a more conservative level." Show me where Moho's ethic of avoiding his personal "harm" by descriminating between clients is part of a standard ethic of sexual dscrimination? Moho is the same ethically as everyone else--when he wishes to avoid sexual abuse of the client by following the impetus of his character and his training. But his idea of avoiding a mercurial harm to himself by discrimination is foreign to the ethics of his superiors. If this was considered the ethic of normalcy, there would be no need for one self-absorbed man to approach the Court. That ought to be clear enough. "Whoa gus. That is quite a presumptuous statement" It was YOUR statement. I can dig up the quotes if you wish! "Arousal is a degree of sexualization that we have already agreed is beyond just thinking about sex." Irrelevant. But for the record: Just thinking about sex may indicate arousal. "We have already agreed that it has direction toward an object of arousal." Irrelevant. But nothing was agreed like that. Arousal is based on nervous stimulation, which may be entirely unwitting. "We have already agreed that becoming aroused in some situations because of some object of fantasy, that has nothing to do with the relationship between the two persons present, might cause some awkwardness but would not, by itself, be objected to as having caused harm. We have already agreed that if it is directed at some one who is involved in the moment, it can be considered inappropriate in some settings. No. We have asked what arousal has to do with Moho. And what it has to do with injury to Moho. The client is unharmed by his own thoughts--and certainly not by his unconscious endophysical responses to smell or touch. "The harm is a violation of conscience for mojo regarding his willingness to be involved in sexualization that he considers inappropriate" What is the harm? Is it physical. Is it caused by another? We all have a conscience. When I walk outside and I feel cold wind I could claim "harm". But what are the damages to Moho when someone (within her right as a human being and a citizen) allows her skin to become hot in a massage and remembers her ex and how much fun they had! SO everybody else is happy. Why is Moho harmed by the arousal of a homosexual and not a cat? How is he harmed? How does my arousal harm Moho. What damage has occurred. Fill in Moho's unique ethic for us: I, Moho wish to discriminate against A, B, and C because if they ever get aroused in my presence it will harm me. What harm will someone's private thoughts and feelings cause you? It is none of your business what people feel, is it?? It is none of your busiiness what people feel, is it??.