A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

For example, I know for a fact that you may not "consent" to being killed,
even in the privacy of your own home. Thus, you are full of ****.

Poor snotty - did I make you cranky? The context of the discussion is
sexual behavior. Deal with that. I know, that means not lying, but
at least you can try.

Hey, dip****, you were the one who started with the personal invective.


In any sort
of civilized system, an individual's decisions are circumscribed by the
greater needs of the society in which he lives.

If all decisions are the responsibility of the greater society, that
pretty much eliminates all your claims about freedom.

Try parsing the sentence again. Look specifically for the word
"circumscribed." Now go look up the definition and see if it means "all."
Then get back to me.


If an individual cannot conduct his most private life according to
his or her own rules, then they have no freedom.
We're talking
about sexual behavior here - between consenting adults - in case
you plan on bringing up some ridiculous analogy.

Good thing you qualified your overbroad generalization.

So, let's analyze this a little bit. Here's a sceneario for you to discuss:

Two individuals engage in consensual sexual activity in the privacy of their
home. Unfortunately, one of the partners (A) is infected with a sexually
transmitted disease, perhaps a deadly or debilitating one such as AIDS or
Syphilis. This partner knows full well of the infection, and fails to inform
the partner (B) of the health hazard, and takes no action to prevent the
spread of the infection.

Should A have the right to "conduct his (or her) most private life according
to his or her own rules?"

The state cannot take away a right that doesn't exist.

What are the rights that exist? What holy stone are they
cast into?

Good question. Generally speaking, "rights" are what the society agrees each
member has. Abstractly, one can claim just about anything as a "right," but
whether society decides to recognize and protect it as a "right" is another
thing entirely.

What makes you the arbiter of what constitutes
a right?

Nothing. I've not claimed that I arbitrate rights. I've not even said that I
disagree with your belief that interference with private consensual sexual
conduct ought to be beyond the purview of the law.

What I have done is to analyze your statements and respond to them in an
academic inquiry into the strength or weakness of your thesis.

However, to answer your implicit question, in the US, the US and state
Supreme Courts are the arbiters of the law, and thus arbiters of "rights."


Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely
bogus.

Sez you.

No, you make the bogus claims -

Galileo and Newton were considered fools by their peers - bogus.

Really? Have you personally interviewed all of their peers?

Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.

Height within a species is a sign of a morphological difference - bogus.

Factually speaking it is.

morphology: 2. The form and structure of an organism or any of its parts.

Height is a part of the form and structure, and differences in height are a
morphological difference.

Don't blame me if you used the wrong word.

H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.

Not a claim I ever made.

Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus.

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Want more?

If you expect to win your case, you're going to need a LOT more. Knock
yourself out.


You throw out any claim, hoping that those who read it will be at least as
stupid as you are and believe it. However, those of us that are smarter
than you will always take you to task for your bull****.

Uh huh. Whatever.



There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the
statements into something they are not.

Don't blame me if you are imprecise in your erudition.

I say one cannot prove either that God exists or does not exist.

You are wrong...maybe.

You say that means that I say God does not exist. Hardly a case of
me not writing clearly enough.

Not a claim I made.


I say fundies are fools for wasting their time with ridiculous
"theories" of creationism.

And yet you cannot disprove their theories. Your statements are deliberately
insulting because you know that your argument is weak.

You say that I say anyone that
believes in God is a fool. Again - not my writing that's the
problem - it's your twisted mind at work.

It's implicit in your statements. Feel free to clearly state your beliefs if
you disagree.



There are your deliberate
misquotes.

Such as?

See above.

You are a liar and behave in an extremely dishonest manner.

High praise from someone of your ilk.

Yet
you try to present yourself as some holier-than-thou master
logician. Bull****.

When logic and reason fails you, invective and evasion is your course.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser