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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (2484)	10/9/2006 6:38:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Why would you wear something provocative if you didn't want to provoke something? A female has the right to wear provocative clothing without having to worry about comments in public that would cause her to feel uncomfortable or vulnerable with regards to her gender. I think the comments would be made with regards to her occupation rather than her gender.

To: one_less who wrote (2484)	10/9/2006 6:40:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

For example: A female has the right to wear provocative clothing without having to worry about comments in public that would cause her to feel uncomfortable or vulnerable with regards to her gender. Or at least if she is made to feel uncomfortable, she can expect the system to support her in putting a stop to it. I don't think I agree with that, but some of the words or terms could be interpreted in different ways. Depending on exactly what you mean by "right", "feel uncomfortable or vulnerable with regards to her gender" and "can expect the system to support her", its possible that I agree. For example if you say that the government should support her against sexual assault or even against someone who follows her around harassing her in a very aggressive way (even without actually touching/assaulting her) I'd agree. But if some guy says "nice tits" and she feels objectified and/or uncomfortable I don't think there is any such right to not be uncomfortable or reasonable expectation of government support. partly because I don't think we did enough with the sexual harassment thing in the first place. Could you expand on that?

To: one_less who wrote (2484)	10/9/2006 6:44:22 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

For example: A female has the right to wear provocative clothing without having to worry about comments in public that would cause her to feel uncomfortable or vulnerable with regards to her gender. Or at least if she is made to feel uncomfortable, she can expect the system to support her in putting a stop to it. In that case you have one party who is authorized by society to express herself fully as a woman and another party who is punished if he does. That doesn't sound very mutually tolerant to me. I agree, though, that it's an interesting comparison to the question of religious tolerance. I don't think that in either case a win-win is possible. People cannot fully express their religiosity in all circumstances without stepping on someone else's because many religions directly or indirectly contradict each other. Tolerance could be achieved in social circumstances, theoretically, if we could all learn to just give each other space to do their religious thing, whatever it may be, without getting offended. If you attend a wedding, for example, you accept that there will be prayers that might be incompatible with your religion but you accept them in that context. But I don't see how that could be feasible in any governmental venue. You either hang the Ten Commandments in the court room along with some equivalent from every other religion and non-religious spirituality there is, co-equal, or you don't hang it at all. You can't get any closer to mutual tolerance than those two options, best I can tell, and each has it's shortcomings. In one you lose full expression. In the other, you create a bureaucratic monster.