On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a
whole makes, through the representative democratic process. At the moment,
society disagrees with you.

Maybe in US society, but not Canadian society. There are no laws that
dictate what consenting adults may or may not do in private. In fact,
one can even choose to trade sex for money or other goods and services;
prostitution is legal in Canada. You see, in Canada, we are free to
act without the interference of government.

But
effectuating that change takes more than the sort of sophomoric
argumentation you provide.

It took very little time or effort to make it happen in Canada.

Congress or the state legislature gets to make the decision

In a free country, the individual gets to make the decision.

There is no "right" to
engage in homosexual sodomy in several states.

Only because the state has taken the right away.


I'm a skilled logician

You misspelled incompetent.

This dishonesty on your part is despicable.

What dishonesty would you be referring to?

Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely
bogus. There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the
statements into something they are not. There are your deliberate
misquotes. You have not conducted yourself in any way that would
lead anyone to trust anything you write.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:

On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

This dishonesty on your part is despicable.

What dishonesty would you be referring to?

Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely
bogus. There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the
statements into something they are not. There are your deliberate
misquotes. You have not conducted yourself in any way that would
lead anyone to trust anything you write.

It's called trolling... Scott has been doing that for many years,
sometimes being more effective, often becoming ever less effective over
time, except towards newbies, because the regulars here started to
ignore him. He thrives on creating discord and tension, savouring
attention and responses.

Looks like every new generation of posters learns the same lessons about
Weiser eventually: Don't feed the sick puppy!

http://wilko.webzone.ru/troll.html

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a
whole makes, through the representative democratic process. At the moment,
society disagrees with you.

Maybe in US society, but not Canadian society. There are no laws that
dictate what consenting adults may or may not do in private. In fact,
one can even choose to trade sex for money or other goods and services;
prostitution is legal in Canada. You see, in Canada, we are free to
act without the interference of government.

Somehow I doubt it.

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 ****.

Congress or the state legislature gets to make the decision

In a free country, the individual gets to make the decision.

Er, no, in an anarchy the individual gets to make the decision. In any sort
of civilized system, an individual's decisions are circumscribed by the
greater needs of the society in which he lives.


There is no "right" to
engage in homosexual sodomy in several states.

Only because the state has taken the right away.

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



I'm a skilled logician

You misspelled incompetent.

No, you misread logician.


This dishonesty on your part is despicable.

What dishonesty would you be referring to?

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

Sez you.

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.

There are your deliberate
misquotes.

Such as?

You have not conducted yourself in any way that would
lead anyone to trust anything you write.

Pot, kettle, black.

--
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

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.

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.

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.

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

What are the rights that exist? What holy stone are they
cast into? What makes you the arbiter of what constitutes
a right?

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.
Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.
Height within a species is a sign of a morphological difference - bogus.
H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.
Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus.
Want more?

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****.


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

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


There are your deliberate
misquotes.

Such as?

See above.

You are a liar and behave in an extremely dishonest manner. Yet
you try to present yourself as some holier-than-thou master
logician. Bull****.

Mike

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

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

Deliberately infecting a person with any disease is illegal around here.
No sex required. This does not address the issue of sexual freedom.
But then you like changing the topic instead of addressing the issues.

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."

They cannot arbitrate over that which does not exist. So I ask again -
where are those rights defined?

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

Really? Have you personally interviewed all of their peers?

Have you? You made the claim - you have to back it up. You have not
been able to do so. I have studies a lot about the history of science
and can tell you that there is nothing that suggests that Galileo was
not well respected. Ditto Newton.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

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

By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.

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.

Perhaps you should look at how scientists use the term and not lexicographers.
We are discussing it in a scientific context. If height was a significant
morphological difference, there would be no morphological similarity between
any members of a species and would make the study worthless.

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

Not a claim I ever made.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

Bull**** again.

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

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Not a claim I made.

Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.

It's implicit in your statements

And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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

Deliberately infecting a person with any disease is illegal around here.

Indeed.

No sex required.

But sex is a vector.

This does not address the issue of sexual freedom.
But then you like changing the topic instead of addressing the issues.

The issue is whether the state has a legitimate interest in proscribing
unprotected sexual activity by someone who is known to be infected with an
STD. Why don't you address that question?


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."

They cannot arbitrate over that which does not exist.

Of course they can. They can decide that a particular "right," like, say,
the "right" to an abortion is found within the ambit of the Constitution.

So I ask again -
where are those rights defined?

Er, nice try, but that's what I'm asking YOU.

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.

Perhaps you should look at how scientists use the term and not lexicographers.

If they use it differently than the textbook definition, they are misusing
the term, and thus their scientific credential are in question. I think it's
more likely that you are misusing the term, and that the scientists use the
proper terms.

We are discussing it in a scientific context. If height was a significant
morphological difference, there would be no morphological similarity between
any members of a species and would make the study worthless.

Perhaps you are using the wrong word.

--
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

On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

The issue is whether the state has a legitimate interest in proscribing
unprotected sexual activity by someone who is known to be infected with an
STD. Why don't you address that question?

If deliberate transmission of a disease is already forbidden, there is
no need to outlaw any sexual activity.

If they use it differently than the textbook definition, they are misusing
the term, and thus their scientific credential are in question. I think it's
more likely that you are misusing the term, and that the scientists use the
proper terms.

They define their own textbook definition. Their scientific credentials
are not in question. Scientific definitions are not always the same as
those used by the general public. Scientists need specific meanings to
terms in order to ensure that communication is concise and precise.

Perhaps you are using the wrong word.

Perhaps you are full of ****.

You don't challenge any other items I posted. Is that an admission
that you've been lying and bull****ting all along? Or are you
too cowardly to stand up for your ridiculous claims?

Mike