Wolf

Oh, you're such a leotard. Those aren't "negative-oriented discussions"--those are all valid points! Do you lack evidence? Then admit you're wrong or drop the point until you do. Do you ignore other people's points (like you just did), or talk about irrelevant material (your personal life, other people's personal lives)? Then stop doing it! Do you have bad grammar? Well, I'll be honest, that shouldn't effect the substance of your points (if your points are valuable), but poor presentation really does make others skeptical of the quality of your work. Trust me, it's true. Like we said, weeks ago, your problem was issue-dropping, the refusal to acknowledge other peoples' points (like you've just done, really), and the refusal to back down once you were shown proof that you were wrong or that your position lacked proof. That's all you have to do. No, this isn't a "front" to get you to stop talking about homosexuality.

Actually, this is a perfect moment to stress exactly why I take issue with your behavior and, hopefully, to illustrate the basic point I've been trying to make. What happened? I had a theory (which I still think is true, your behavior and the behavior done under the aegis of other usernames has been highly suspicious), but I don't have enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the mods are telling me to shut the hell up, for a variety of reasons (not all of which I think are fair). What did I do in response? Nothing. I'm not going to pursue it again until I have hard evidence or am proven wrong. I don't feel like I've been proven wrong, yet, but it's possible that I might be surprised. What is this called? Reason. What do you never do? Exactly this. My argument that you're sockpuppeting was not only a legitimate one, it was one shared by at least half a dozen people on this forum. Unfortunately, I don't have the technology to prove it, and the mods seem to be unwilling/unable to assist me. So, game over. I have to deal with you even though I think I have good reason to believe that you're continuing to abuse this forum. What did I not do? 1. Interpret the mods neutral stance as "CENSORSHIP" and whine like a bratty child that I was being repressed. 2. Continue to press the issue in the absence of evidence: refuse to acknowledge the points made by others, hoping that simple, blind repetition and increasing unwillingness on the part of my opponents would win by default. Nope. I behaved like an adult. I think all people using this forum should strive to behave like adults. However, at least two people I know generally conform their behavior to the above two patterns. That's my PRP issue. Dragoon's got a point, and, for the record? Don't ignore him: it only makes you look like an asshole. EDIT:This is an important message for "Curt," assuming that he's an individual distinct from Eras: You may never be able to escape the suspicion that surrounds you on this forum. I'm sorry, but that's the reality. It's not your fault, but it is 100% the fault of your "friend." His irrational, unreasonable, tasteless, and offensive behavior coupled with his egomania and general underhandedness has completely stripped him and anything he has associated himself with of any validity or legitimacy. People are conservatives in spite of Eras; people are humanitarians in spite of Eras; people are Christians in spite of Eras. If Eras (assuming he isn't just a troll) actually cared about anything he claims to care about, he'd disassociate himself from them as quickly as possible.

How rude! Actually, what you call my "assumptions" are perfectly logical. You asked if this was possible, and you started this thread. Therefore, it clearly can't be that crazy an idea, can it? Well, that's assuming you behave logically. If I actually assume that you're completely backwards and irrational, then yes, it's perfectly illogical for you to start this thread then say the idea is crazy (or is that still a logical thought?). Oh, Ath, I love that you now avoid PRP out of spite for rightfully sanctioning your spamming. I love it more that you try to take it out by trying (key word) to insult me. Eras: the Vent meet wasn't my idea, I just seconded it. Why did you attribute it to me?

If this is even a possibility, then I don't think I'm totally out there on this issue. In any case, I could be mistaken, but I definitely recall there being a way to tell. I'll have to do some research, then I'll let you know in private.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that there should be overlap, I'm saying that he's probably using public access terminals. Can you tell what the ISP is and who it's registered to? I don't know how this necessarily works, but I think Chigger's been able to determine whether morons using his blog have been covering their tracks by posting from public access. (Let me be clear: I don't want to know any private information, or any specific information about identity, I just want to know whether the other two accounts are posting from inconsistent locations or public access locations, not necessarily locations that overlap with "Eras.") Then why aren't you disagreeing about it here? Don't say you'll disagree, disagree--my God, it's exactly the same lesson I had to teach "Curt." See? This is why I actually believe that sockpuppeting is the most logical explanation. No two people are so similarly boneheaded. No, you don't. That's how obsession works. Only for you. Seriously, Eras, I have said absolutely nothing that indicates that my belief of your sockpuppeting "Curt" (and "Denis," but you don't post from that as much) arises from his "not fully embracing male homosexuality." That's ridiculous--to put it lightly. It's extremely clear that my belief arises from the similarity in the behavior of the two accounts, and the seeming trade-off between "his" activity and yours. I seem to be dealing with one, or the other of you, and I seem to be dealing with one, or the other of you, in exactly the same way. This thread was always about your "behavior," including your obsession with "male homosexuality." Honestly, while I do want to stand by the principle of rational discourse, I have to stand with Dante on this one: if you're going to argue by putting words in people's mouths, then fuck off. Which reminds, Edric, I don't think you've done the due diligence on this. I can't help but you think you haven't read a word that I, Dragoon, or Eliyyahu have said, and I think your assessment is, frankly, ill-informed. I'm sorry to be so dense about this, but if it makes you feel better, it isn't just because I personally believe it so strongly, but it's because a lot of the forum (and not just most of the Triumvirate) also seems to believe it. I think if you confirm that these three posters are all coming consistently from separate private residences, a lot of people are going to be surprised. EDIT: P.S. Actually, none. It was never my goal to get rid of any of you--even Ath. I just wanted his behavior to change, which it did. End of story. To be fair, for someone who claims to understand this forum a lot, you really don't. When I've felt that the atmosphere of the board was too hostile, in the past, I posted about it and tried to change it. Now, though, the forum seems to tolerate your absolutely infuriating refusal to engage in rational conversation. I mean, look at your last post, you just brought up "male homosexuality" for the thousandth time (even though you've never explained why it has to be "male"), and made a bunch of irrelevant accusations. That's what we hate. Stop doing that. Argue like an adult. You never do, and I'm beginning to think you never will, so, yeah, maybe Dante is right. Also, I also don't take responsibility for Hwi--I wasn't the prime player in that game, I think that had more to do with her obsessive relationship with one of the other members of the board. I don't remember what happened to Servant, and frankly, I dont really remember ever arguing with him.

You make it sound like he rented an apartment in another state so he could buy a new computer and have it hosted from a totally different ISP. It doesn't have to be a computer he's never used before, it just has to be a computer he's never posted to this forum from before. I don't think that's extraordinarily difficult, and I think his behavior, historically, has been extraordinarily weird. All things being equal, I'd agree with you, but things are not equal. This isn't totally implausible. Besides, doesn't each post have its own posted-from IP address? How hard is it to compare them?

Second.

I mean, I think it's bad to have a policy where antagonists are expected to ignore each other's threads, but if you don't want to talk, then I can't make you. I'm totally fine with that. Nevertheless, I'm still convinced you're sockpuppeting. I think Eliyyahu brings up a good point: you lack the credibility now because your past behavior has been so unscrupulous. I don't take what you say at face value--why should I? I have even less of a reason to take what you say at face value when your behavior is, on its face, suspcious. I suppose the only thing I don't quite understand at the moment is why the mods seem so willing to take you at face value. I guess they just haven't been reading the posts all that closely. It's kind of ironic, on many levels. On the other hand, I think Andrew may bring up a worthy question: why does it matter [if he sockpuppets]? It only matters if you do something that's worthy of a temp-ban or worse, and you then use the sockpuppets effectively to evade being moderated when your prime account is sanctioned. If you behave like a normal person, then it makes no difference what account you post under. In this case, I think you created other accounts precisely because you sensed an increased willingness on the part of the forum to moderate your behavior. Therefore, I think it's highly unlikely that you have any good faith reason for maintaining multiple accounts. That's the gist of the argument. Also, this: ... is highly inappropriate.

I think this is a very good question, but clearly, Ath, if you think it's worth investigating the methods by which this can be traced, then by definition, it can't be paranoia, can it? You at least think it's a valid point. Therefore, I'm insulted by your application of the term "paranoia" and I would like you to apologize.

So, now that you're back, what's gonna happen to the "TheCurtOne" username? In the meantime, let me take random selections of your posts and tell you all the ways they're broken. 1. I said "country bumpkin," not "idiot," usage of quotation marks is inappropriate. 2. I don't think you're two different people, I think you're the same person, so I think that you have one set of beliefs and anything Curt says is just a smokescreen, at times, to cover for you by seeming to disagree, and at other times, allowing you to advance your general belief set. Another reason I'm convinced you're the same person is because Curt isn't saying anything about his beliefs, at least, not specifically. He claims to be conservative, on some level, but it's "ErasOmnius" that points to specifics--often, before they're even said! That's bizarre. I mean, that's basically proof right there! 1. This is the most recklessly dishonest thing I think you've ever said. That's saying a lot, given your long and proud history of bearing false witness. I think it's funny how you try to lecture people about godliness, yet consistently defy God's admonition against lying. It's downright proud of you. 2. No, but seriously, I haven't just tried to debate with you, I've tried to teach you how to debate. 3. This statement is a good example of yet another reason why I think you've been sockpuppeting. It betrays a very intimate level of knowledge about the current conversation. Yet, you claim to have been absent for the past several weeks? Naturally, I suppose you could have been observing and resisting the urge to post, but, given your history and what I know of human nature that's highly unlikely. And finally: 7:37 PM to 8:25 PM = 48 minutes. (Eras to Curt) 8:25 PM to 10:17 PM = 1 hour 52 minutes. (Curt to Eras) It looks like your best time so far is 48 minutes. If you can have a discussion between your two handles with posts no more than 20 minutes apart, then I'll be impressed. Let's say, at least 10 posts total. That lets you each get at least 5 paragraphs in and gives you ample reading time. Well, son, get to it!

That is absolutely one of the creepiest and most depraved post I've ever read. My only question, though, is why he chose to post it using "ErasOmnius?" EDIT: "Great Writer?" That's a little weird... (no offense, Dante) but hasn't Eras been kind of obsessed with Dante since... well, the beginning? How hilarious would it be if "he" were Hwi all along? To be honst, I've never been able to understand why some brain-damaged bumpkin would keep harassing the posters of this forum, but Hwi always had a personal stake in that. And she did hate gays. She was obsessed with them, come to think of it... You know what, Edric (or Andrew), whenever you do get around to investigating the IP addresses of Eras and his sockpuppets, throw Hwi into the mix as well. Just in case. It's been a while, and I'm sure she's long since acquired a new IP address, but if her old posting location is even geographically close to Eras' I'm willing to bet that it's her. If it is... well, at this point she's acted creepily/obsessively enough to secure a restraining order. That would be fun.

You're such a little liar. 1. You claimed (either using "TheCurtOne" or "ErasOmnius") that you were taking a hiatus from the forum to "take care of your family." Clearly you're still keeping current enough to post in this thread within hours of others' contributions. Even assuming you aren't "TheCurtOne" you're still posting using "ErasOmnius." So, clearly, this whole "take care of your family" thing was an utter fabrication totally unrelated to anything that we were talking about. If you have to take care of business, then go do it. I don't want to hear about it. It doesn't change my views of you, or this argument... well, save for the extent to which it's just another irritating lie of yours that I need to sift through to try to have a decent argument with human beings. 2. I was pretty charitable above in (1). The truth is you are "TheCurtOne." I'm not really interested in how you fooled Edric initially: you claim to be a teacher, maybe you used a school computer. You seem to be really involved in your church, and I'm sure your church has some operational Internet technology. Maybe there's more truth in your lie than I'm giving you credit for, and there really was a real person who was willing to let you into their house to use their computer. Maybe he or she even posted once or twice. I don't care. Fundamentally, "TheCurtOne" posts in exactly the same style, regarding exactly the same arguments as "ErasOmnius." Even if you were different people, it wouldn't matter, because the range of ideas between you two totally overlaps. There's nothing new. There's no diversity of thought. Therefore, nothing can be added to the conversation. Well, except for my analysis that the handles "TheCurtOne," "ErasOmnius" and "DenisAtreides" are being operated by the same person. Speaking of which, let's look at that, shall we? A. Motivation "TheCurtOne" and "DenisAtreides" were conveniently registered when I began asking for increased moderation of PRP. You've known for a long time that many here find your views offensive, and further, that your incredibly frequent issue-dropping was a source of constant and profound irritation for everyone else who used PRP. Basically, I think you thought it was possible that "ErasOmnius" might get banned. Emphatically, that's not what I asked for in this thread. Emphatically, I did ask you to change your behavior. Instead, you did something that I find quite contemptuous: you registered or had friends register multiple new accounts so that you could continue that behavior. That's something a bratty child would do. It is. And that's the behavior that I and everyone else despises. In any event, it's just too convenient for your "friends" to register at this particular juncture. You've mentioned that you've had "friends" before (in fact, almost a year ago, I think), but they never registered. Why now? Why only when the stakes were raised that your original username might get banned did you decide to pitch the forum to others? No, the simpler explanation is that you hoped to evade moderation by creating sockpuppet accounts. B. Posting Pattern This could be broken down further into multiple sub-sub-parts, but I'll be brief. "ErasOmnius," historically, was always obsessed with homosexuality and abortion. He justified this obsession because of his adherence to "traditional views." Now, "TheCurtOne" is ostensibly a new person. "TheCurtOne" is also seemingly-obsessed with homosexuality and abortion because of his self-proclaimed adherence to "traditional views." His first posts on this forum consist of an argument that is fundamentally and stylistically identical to the arguments of "ErasOmnius." You can still talk about these things, you know? Those threads aren't closed. You can be honest about it and post using the handle the forum has come to know you by. If everyone disregards your arguments because they've been had and rejected already, well, tough luck. You lost. Stop being a bratty child. On the other hand, "DenisAtreides" is just a yes-man, and I think was created simply to confuse the forum as to the real origin of these usernames. It isn't used much, because I think ErasOmnius is busy using "TheCurtOne" and, increasingly, "ErasOmnius" again. The posting patterns of these accounts are just too convenient. For example, all three of them did post within 6-8 hours of each other when I first accused ErasOmnius of sockpuppeting. That was a little convenient, wasn't it? That actually brings me to my next point: Of course, if these people really were his friends, he could prove me wrong by agreeing with them to engage in some substantial discussion in PRP. Three people cannot all have the same views, unless they've been brainwashed into a cult, and any robust discussion of an isssue will bring those differences out. End of the story! That's all that needs to be done! And when given this option, an option that encourages him to talk, he rejects it! Think about that, for a second! The scumbag that constantly accuses me of "gatekeeping" and "censorship" refuses an invitation to talk! This isn't hard: if you were telling the truth, and these people were your friends, then this would be really easy. But isn't, is it? Is it too hard for ErasOmnius to drive to his church, then to his house, then to his school to maintain IP consistency while he feigns a conversation on PRP? I think that's absolutely the case. As SandChigger used to say, "Pix or it didn't happen." I honestly don't care what handle you use, as long as you're consistent so I know who I'm talking to. The point of this, and my anger regarding it, is that you've done this precisely to avoid being moderated for behavior that you know is damaging to discussion and/or views that others find offensive. I find that supremely annoying. It's also a little pathetic. The kind of person who creates three usernames on a forum simply for the purpose of talking about himself (basically, there's no substance to your views on homosexuality or abortion, and the rest of us are sick of those conversations) really does need professional, psychological help.

That's not what I said. Read my posts. I don't care what you are. I have not said you are too conservative. Are you lying, or are you making an assumption? Please tell me which. Also, the only way that you can prove that you're not Eras is if this handle, Eras, and Denis all have a robust conversation at around the same time. Extensive. Multiple paragraphs. Salient points. Real disagreement. I'm waiting for that. It shouldn't be too hard, you're all adults, you all have jobs. You should all be online around the same time. You're friends, you know each other. Prove it. If there are so many disagreements between you three (as you claim), then why don't you talk about them? Why not? All you're doing now is posturing and talking about Eras. Until that changes, your name is Liar. Just the liar I always knew you were.

Actually! Glad you mentioned that. Why don't you and Eras have a robust dialogue about politics, religion and philosophy? Let's see these disagreements! You know what, DenisAtreides should join in, too. Everyone's tired of hearing from me, naturally, let's see some new debates. Don't be shy, you three go at it! Really get into these points! In depth!

No one finds my insinuation that EO is sockpuppeting multiple accounts followed by a roll-call of the alleged sockpuppets suspicious? Even when two of them hadn't been active for about a week or more, they both suddenly appear at the opportune time? Really? Come on, this is ridiculous. I was content to play along as long as it wasn't crazy, but this is crazy. Literally. You can tell it's still him because of the similarity in writing style and the identical subject-matter obsession, but he's actually trying to have them conform to multiple, distinct personalities and he's sticking with it. ErasOmnius, whatever your real name is, you really, I mean really need help, and, believe me, it has nothing to do with your political views. They are certainly a symptom. Anathema: I thought it was Evangelical Protestantism that spearheaded the anti-abortion views of the last 200 years, of course I could be wrong. How did the Catholics have a hand in it? P.S. I'm waiting to respond to points 2, 5-11 and 13 until Curt, or the individual controlling his account, articulates them clearly. Currently, all of his statements are off-topic, irrelevant, or incomprehensible. I'm not wasting my time with garbage. EDIT: Nah, I ordered Indian. Let's rock.. 2 & 5: You asked me about my views on abortion in the abortion thread, Eras, I gave you an answer then. I also gave you an answer above. Please rephrase your question (if it is a new question) or reread my responses (if it's the same one, which I think it is). 6: Who are you referring to by "we?" 7. You really are obsessed with the gays, Eras. 8. This is pretty close to incoherent rambling. No, I'm not a gatekeeper. Yes, I do have high standards for the behaviors of others. You have not met them. You're still behaving the same way you always have, Eras. As for my inbox... the people who choose to converse with me are all either convinced or fairly certain it was you all along. Some people think you might have had a real friend (you have one?) make the first post or two, but, for the last week, it's just been you using multiple IP addresses. Kudos for that, by the way, that's far more effort than I put into here. Of course, I could be wrong: Edric might have to do a lot of work to confirm that you've been consistent with your IP usage for the three accounts. 9. Hahahahahaha. 10. You're delusional. 11. I didn't understand why it was relevant before. I asked you why you thought it was. Your answers have not been helpful. 13. I mean, you speak for yourself. Look, cloaking yourself in other accounts isn't going to work. I mean, think about it rationally: you're doing it so you can advance the same views you always have, but without an account that's been utterly discredited on this forum. You know ErasOmnius is a worthless handle now. To be fair, it's because what you said and how you said it was worthless. But do you think starting new accounts is going to change that? It was always the behavior, not who you are, and not the name. Haha, I mean, this is crazy! This is exactly what I was talking about when you were using your primary account a week or two ago. You just don't get it, do you? When I complained that PRP was just an endless litany of your name and Ath's (saying that he was the only person you agreed with was not a good way to stay "incognito," as you called it, by the way) this is not the solution I had in mind and it is not a solution in any reasonable sense of the word. Pick a name. Stick with it. Act like a fucking adult.

2. I'm unsure as to the relevance of your last statement. If you admit that the privacy rights conferred by the 14th Amendment are sufficient to make bans on contraceptives unconstitutional, then I do not see how the same logic does not apply to abortion. Remember, the late-term abortion ban is not a ban on abortion, period, it is merely the regulation thereof by preventing the most invasive and high risk (and socially repugnant, the state has some interest in that, too) procedures from being performed. After contraception, I do not see how the state has as much of an interest in preventing the mother from electing to have an abortion as it does when the fetus is near-term. I certainly do not see how it has enough of an interest to justify an abortion ban. At the moment, we're talking past each other, but you need to know that the issue is here, not where you apparently think it is. 5. Well, the Constitution defines birth, not contraception, as the dividing line for electoral eligibility and, via implication, citizenship. "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States ..." (emphasis added) etc. As far as I know, abortions were performed in the 17th century, so I don't see how this is any more of an issue now than it was then, and unlike things like the Compact Clause, the Natural Born Citizen Clause is clear on its face. So, a fetus is not a legal person. Unless a fetus is made a legal person through incorporation (I don't think this is possible, I'm sure statute or regulatory authority does not permit it), then I do not see how it has any rights whatsoever. The mothers may have a property or other valid legal interest in the fetus, but in those cases the fetus is not the interest-holder. 6. I never said you were. You need to read carefully. I said you overzealously and (largely) prematurely defended yourself against charges of homophobia. I said that I thought that indicated some level of awareness on your part that you needed to defend against homophobia. Certainly, the implication is very strong, but I did leave you room to deny it. As you continue to do so. Of course, whether or not that will be compelling is up to your continued behavior, not to whatever proclamations you make thereby. 7. Strike 5, unless you clarify that the definition of "porn" includes gay as well as straight porn. Until then, is murder worse than gay porn? 8. Do, don't say. You aren't reading as closely as I'd like, and you seem to be saying a lot of things that I feel are unsupported/irrelevant. Based on my inbox, I'm not alone in this feeling. Be intelligent, don't claim that you are. You don't see me talking about how smart I am? Furthermore, what you call "gatekeeping" I call "quality control." So far the only people who've bitched about that are the people who have found themselves called out for some combination of lack of support, irrelevence, or offensiveness. Until there's widespread consensus that I'm being truly unfair, then I'll consider your point. Until then, I'll regard such charges as a baseless way of dismissing my well-founded and generously-explained criticisms. 9. It was confusing, I agree. I was asking if EO was an immigrant, and if so, where he was from. I thought your answer meant that he was from Canada. Also, the "really" was more surprise, less sarcasm. Be less defensive. Again, your insecurity here is largely the product of EO's experiences, not yours. Try to be more open-minded. 10. I'm conversing with you and I'm questioning you. I'm providing you not only with clarification via implication by my questions, but I am also giving you important tips for how to express yourself. That is the exact opposite of censorship. If you think that is censorship, then either you have a very poor idea of what intelligent discourse actually looks like or you can't take any amount of criticism or questioning. Don't worry, I won't write it off to personality faults just yet, I just think you're new to this. Try to enjoy the challenge. 11. Again, relevance? I work 10 hour days, do you care? Of course not. Why should I care about how much time you have to dedicate to these posts? 12. Yes. That is true. 13. Question. Are you and ErasOmnius (and DenisAtreides) representative of the population in that area (since you all seem to argue the same way and have the same or similar views), or are you just ErasOmnius using your buddy's computer(s)? I ask because your sweeping generalizations of this forum's culture and atmosphere are really incredible given the "experience" that a user with 22 posts might have! Yes, yes, I know you claim to have read "everything," but I thought you had only "limited time" to use this forum? And this is disregarding the similarity in names, the pre-eminent focus that your and DenisAtreides' posts have on EO, the effusive way you talk about EO being a "good teacher, good speaker, good preacher" etc. ... P.S. I'm assuming that all unanswered points are ones you've dropped and therefore ceded. Muchos gracias.

I thought "The Men Who Stare at Goats" was incredible. J: have you researched how much of the book/film is true? The movie-version is right, it really is more than you would believe. In that vein, I have no doubt that psychopathy can be treated, either medically or therapeutically. But, out of curiosity, what did you mean by "grading?" In what sense? How so? If you wouldn't mind, would you care to provide some examples of how/why you handed out certain grades?

Strike 4. And that wasn't ambiguous at all. Which is worse, murder or gay porn? Your answer is best expressed as a form of the following: [idea] is worse than [idea]. (sigh) You know something, I don't think I was that ambiguous at all. I meant exactly what I said. I can't express it more honestly any other way. You don't give a shit about me. I know that. I don't care. I don't give a shit about you. You don't care. It's the perfect business arrangement. But, do I expect you to behave intelligently? Yes. That doesn't necessarily mean I called you stupid, and I wasn't. But, gee, you really aren't helping yourself on that front. I know words really well. I know what they mean. I use them precisely because I intend to utilize their meaning to communicate. You need to trust me more. Really! I would never have guessed. Yes! That's exactly what I meant by point 10! Don't talk the game, play the game! Hey, this is exciting. Eras would never have gotten past this one. You just mean that you only care about some issues but not others? Okay. Why should I care? That's true, I was being hyperbolic. *** EDIT: I really need to add a point 13: Curt: You're letting your preconceived notions of this forum and, paticularly, myself, blind you to what I'm actually saying. Pretty much everything you thought was "ambiguous" ... wasn't. You only thought it was, because you let a very specific (and incorrect) paradigm of my behavior guide your responses. When that paradigm didn't match up with reality... well, you got confused. Guess what: that means it's wrong. If you don't start taking the actual words at face value or if you don't stop using a flawed framework of interpretation to respond to my behavior... well, then you and I aren't going to get very far.

*Needed to do this in two posts, my apologies! So what? How does that matter? How is that more important than the text of the document? Cool. Bans on contraceptive technology are unconstitutional beacuse of the implicit privacy rights conferred by the 14th Amendment. Admitting this pretty much destroys anything you said re. abortion. I have no idea what you're talking about. I was just saying that it was funny that you used the word "deflection" to describe your own behavior. It has a negative connotation, it was like you were admitting you weren't addressing anything. I thought that was funny. Yup. And it's a legal correction: "penumbra of rights" is a term of art. It's a way of describing the realization that the rights explicitly conferred by the 14th Amendment imply a lot more rights that have to exist if the explicitly conferred rights exist at all! Do you? Why? Can you describe the change in the balance of interests that I described in my last post? Also, "alot" isn't a word. You seem really eager to disprove your homophobia. I think that implies that you, yourself are aware of homophobic ideas and tendencies on your part. Was that unambiguous enough?

1. Actually, the Thirteenth Amendment is the anti-slavery amendment. You might not think that matters, but it does. They say different things. 2. Are you saying that statewide bans on contraceptives are legal and do not abrogate the due process rights of any citizen? 3. You do realize that usage of "deflect," as in, "to deflect an argument," has the connotation of avoiding an issue while pretending to address it? 4. "Penumbra of rights." It's singular. The thing only has one penumbra. 5. The law doesn't function in absolute terms, why do you treat it as if it does? You're jumping to the conclusion that because (1) fetuses (fetii?) are not legal persons then (2) there's no limit to what may be done with them. No, the actual test (which I don't expect even a moderately-educated person to know, these days), is whether or not the state has a compelling interest in the sought-after regulation (the abortion ban) that's important enough to risk abrogating the due process rights of the mother--in this case, the right to remain involate in her person. The reason I think the partial-birth abortion ban is justified is because the state has a compelling interest in viable future citizens (which increases, relatively, the closer the fetus comes to term), and because the mother has carried the child near-to-term, the value of her right to remain involate is, in this case, relatively lower (since she remained "violate" for so long). The balance has now shifted in favor of the regulation. The same cannot be said of a fertilized embryo: there, the balance strikes in the opposite direction. Do you understand why? 6. I wasn't suspicious before, but I am now. You doth protest too much. 7. Answer my question. This is strike 3. 8. Nah, don't lie, you don't give a shit about my happiness. But that's okay, I never expected you to, so I'm not disappointed. On the other hand, I do expect you to converse intelligently. 9. What border? Mexico? What... what are you talking about? 10. Holy crap, dude! I said it before: stop telling us what you'll do (or won't do), and just do it! Is it so hard? 11. I don't care about "intensity." Frankly, I think that entire issue is irrelevant, but you're welcome to try and prove me otherwise. 12. Uh... no. Your ideas can be crap regardless of how happy you are with them. I'm not saying that all your ideas are crap and, to be honest, you really haven't given me enough to work with to say that any one idea that you've presented so far is crap, but, I'm sure you have some crap ideas. I'll be happy to point them out to you. If you think I have crap ideas, please, feel free to do the same. However, you should know you'll need good arguments and logic for that. Just throwing out your opinions on my opinions is pretty much the most worthless thing I can think of.

This can only happen if (1) the person posting some link or news item also posts their own perspective so debate can occur, and (2) if the original poster actually converses with respondents. You can't just drop a link and leave it at that or ignore respondents when they choose to comment. Ath did all of that. That's against the rules. He also posted in Greek. That's also against the rules. If you want to vent or just shoot the breeze, there's the General board. That's my take, maybe a mod can clarify what I've said.

Well... the 14th Amendment doesn't discuss privacy. It does however discuss the deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process of law. I think the line of cases that talk about a "penumbra" of rights implied by the 14th Amendment, where the amendment is impossible to enforce otherwise, is correct. These behaviors aren't "couched" in privacy terms, they are necessarily included in the definition of it. As I think about the argument, it seems impossible to me to say that abortion is wrong without also saying that sodomy laws are right. Obviously, the items I cited are very different concepts, and there isn't a hard-and-fast rule that you could infer from their citation. However, there is a progression of principles that applies in both cases. We are dealing with a behavior that is related to sexuality that does not infringe the rights of another legal person. Nothing else is implicated, therefore, there is nothing that may contravene the significant right conferred on the behavior by the Constitution. You might ask, what is the legal definition of a natural person? Well, I think you can infer it from the Constitution's definition of a natural citizen. I also take issue with the assertion that these rights are "ever-expanding." In reality, the trend is just the opposite. In an age predominately concerned with counterterrorism and the Internet, the privacy rights implied by the 14th Amendment are under attack on many fronts. Some attacks are legitimate, some are not. Others are intentional, many are not. I think the statement that the "penumbra" of privacy rights implied by the 14th Amendment is "ever-expanding" can only be made in ignorance of the actual trends. This is another Eras-style mistake. You're telling us what you're doing instead of actually doing it. Please, I beg of you, don't tell us, just do it. And as for your "disadvantage" ... so what? You can't kill the witness and then plead lack of evidence as a defense. If you asked Eras to leave, then you're going it alone and there's no use complaining about it. You didn't answer my question: which is worse? An answer to this question will contain some comparison between the two concepts. Evasion is not appreciated. It's not. The vast majority of people who post here felt more offended by Eras' behavior than by anyone else's. The only people who were offended by anyone else's behavior was... Eras, Ath, and now allegedly you, and the alleged "offenders" were only the people who dared to call Eras & Ath out on their, in a word, bigotry. That's interesting, isn't it? Look, you need to understand that there is a much wider diversity of views present here than you are acknowledging. Just because Eras behaved so badly that he gave... whatever he believed in a bad name doesn't mean that anyone who shares some or even all of those beliefs will be shunned. I've said it a dozen times and I'm getting a little irritated that I have to keep saying it: it wasn't neecssarily Eras' views that were unwelcome, it was his behavior. A lot of people also took issue with some or all of his views, and I think pretty much everyone took issue with his views that could only be explained by bigotry. But if you're not a bigot, then you're not going to have that problem. You will have that problem, however, if you keep behaving like Eras did. I've listed some of what you've done wrong above, not to insult you or to make you feel unwelcome, but to let you know well in advance how to debate in a way that is convincing and that earns you the respect of some of your peers. I'm getting the sense (based on DenisAtreides' post), that you guys are all pretty average Middle Americans. That's great. I'd love to hear your perspective. But, godammit, why do you all have to debate so terribly? We can't always assume innocent mistake forever, and eventually we'll have to assume malice. That's when things get bad.

Well, the worst part, in my view, was that if you attempted to challenge him on his opinion, he insulted you. That was literally adding insult to injury, and that was the catalyst for the "PRP Issues" thread, which, I will shamelessly plug, is starting to become the very model of reasoned disagreement. Notice there that Edric and I challenge each other, and the challenges result in clarifications of both parties' points (mostly mine). And a car.

At first you said: And then you said: I read your statement very closely the first time through. My opinion hasn't changed on a re-read. I believe "all" was implicit in the statement "I cannot name a single political party or movement that started out moderate and became more extreme with time" and I believe that was consistent with the statement "... it is always the other way around." That is why I singled out that paragraph for criticism. I still disagree and I disagree even more with the clarification: Let me parse this: [every movement] [that is radical at some point] in its history [is a movement that started out radical]. Every movement. That is radical at some point. Is a movement that began as a radical one. Can this be appropriately rephrased as "any movement that was ever radical began radical?" I think that's fair. Can this possibly be true? It seems incredible; I think it's far too sweeping. The Nazis began as a radical movement of sorts, yes, but they were mainly a veterans' association in the beginning and even then, the Holocaust was something that had to be rammed down the Interior Ministiry's throats (who still believed that the Reich Chancellory was holding steadfast to a policy of emigration, not extinction) at Wannsee in '42. I suppose the Republicans began as a party with some radical elements in the 1860s--the abolitionists, the Free Soilers, etc.--but they rapidly "mainstreamed." I suppose these examples could fit with your vision. But then how would you describe Britain's Conservatives, who became something of an extremist party themselves under Thatcher? Or, in the case of parties that see dramatic shifts in stance and ideology, what about the American Republicans following the geographic shift of the 1950s and '60s? They were extremely mainstream then and now we're seeing very radical elements embodied in the Tea Party. And that's not even the first time the party undergoes such a transformation. Do they "begin" in 1860 as a group of Northern liberals or do they begin in 1960 as a group of Southern conservatives? No. The evolution of political dynamics within any party is far too complex and involves far too many variables not related to political policy or radicalism to make such a sweeping statement. Every party is different, and there is absolutely no guarantee that a party that begins as a radical one will stay radical, or that a party that begins as a bastion of conservatism will not at some point turn to radicalism itself. I think Lord J's point about Islam is well-taken here: I can only imagine that the hardline Shari'a supporters are, and were for the longest time, such bastions of stability. Now, of course, there are many radical elements. I suppose you could argue that Islam began itself as a radical political ideology, but if this is the case, then I cannot think of any political movement that isn't "radical" simply by virtue of existing. Are the Federalists a radical party? How about the anti-Federalists? And then there's the trouble inherent in defining the term "radical"--radical to what? The Whigs (if you think the Whigs "started out" as radical, than skip to the last sentence of this paragraph) eventually help to form the Confederacy--is this a "radical" move or not? It strains credibility, in my view, to stick with the idea as you've phrased it. You may even be right, as I've said, in a very narrow sense, but it is so narrow that I think it renders the debate virtually meaningless. Fruitless? Yes. Unfair? I'm not so sure. If, as I've indicated and as you've acknowledged, all people are utilitarians "deep down," then isn't it actually unfair of them to try to hide behind an ideological shield that doesn't really exist? In any case, I have to assume the existence of an alternate morality (and even then, this issue is so complex that I cannot envision a scenario where there is absolutely no overlap between my moral view and a hypothetical other), and give it the presumption of internal consistency and "rightness" in its own sense. Is it noble of me to do this? Absolutely. Is it unfair of me not to? I think that's much more unclear; furthermore, I can actually quantify the amount by which it is unfair based on the amount of overlap between utilitarianism and... whatever it is. Deontological whatsit? I suppose this question is really answered by the following: Who are these people, and where are they kept? Also, Randians are "ultra-religious" in their own way.

While I agree that a person's ideas should be criticized on their own merits, I think that association happens to be one of those merits. If a certain political ideology has, historically, been frequently abused, then I think that's evidence that it's more open to abuse than others. I didn't start the conversation about economic left/moral right. That would be Curt. I think it's absurd, too, only, I chose to attack both the idea and his stance on it. In fact, I made just this point about a week ago in just this thread. I think you were just sloppy here, as oppposed to openly dishonest, but nevertheless you equivocate between "radical or extreme movement" and any "political party or movement." At first you talked about how every "radical" movement starts out as radical (a tautaology you tried hard to make seem wasn't), and then you go on to say how that's evidence that "every" (you actually said "every") "political party or movement" starts out extreme. That's... just plain wrong. Illogical. You may not be able to think of examples, but that's because I don't think the paradigm you operate under permits it. The limited field of "radical" ideologies does not implicate all historical political movements or ideologies. Period. Do you want to stick by the assertion that all political movements begin more radical than they end? This is actually a good point. However, right though you may be, this doesn't address the point I made regarding morality, which was that arguments that purport to conform to a moral worldview alone are not sufficient to support a point. Remember my example? Saying that X is good policy because it's moral is useless to me. Saying that X is good policy because it has Y consequences is not. When I attacked "moral" arguments I was doing something very lawlyerly and was talking quite literally about that narrow class of arguments that proceed from the assertion of morality alone. If you want me to admit that I'm a utilitarian and a consequentialist, that's fine, but (truth be told) [whispers] I think we all are. I was just skipping some steps. In short, you misunderstood my original meaning, but that's okay, I wasn't very precise about it. I mean, that's a little unfair of you, since you made it clear in your last post, I certainly must have realized it by then, right? And this isn't the first time we've covered this ground, so, give me some credit. However, if you're going to say that morality is "objective and absolute" well... that's interesting. What do you do when someone has a different moral view than you, and proceeds to support different policies based on that worldview? Besides tell them they're wrong, of course?