Posted by phone monkey at jerry1.healthpartners.com on February 28, 2002 at 14:58:45:
In Reply to: Re: Interesting. posted by Kevin on February 28, 2002 at 14:23:58:
community here, there's a huge political canvass subset that makes their living off of going door-to-door strong-arming money off everybody. If you've got a good excuse to bring a stronger argument into it, you use it, and ethics is for the other guy.
The irony runs thick on this one.
But, you know, you have a crowd that has THE TRUTH and THE ANSWER, and being the source of light and goodness in the world there's a certain amount of leeway allowed as far as how they muster their resources.
sad, but money is a target, and if there's a will, there's a way to make someone feel they ought to give you theirs.
If Kevin's reading this, your response was the perfect "double positive" response - it shows first that you are in fact a decent person, they should feel ashamed of themselves for what they implied, and second, it is money to a good cause, and I hope they did put it to good use because we're all better off when these dark days of hatred are behind us.
This is the classic case to use to show how prejudice is not beneficial to anyone. The existence of prejudice allows people to build walls where there aren't any, and throw bricks when it's not justified.
I heard the controversy before I saw the film; I never hesitated to go because it was clear from the start it was just bullshit.