PRP Issues

[TheCurtOne]

14th Amendment - I think that the 14th Amendment, which was designed to ensure that no person was allowed to be owned as chattel in our country, has definitely been twisted over a hundred years later. What started out as a equal protection, citizenship, and due process amendment has really changed over a century. First in 1965 with the Griswold ruling dealing with contraceptives in Connecticut, and then more importantly with Rove v Wade in 1973, and its’ companion case Doe vs Bolton. This right to privacy that was established in Griswold has been used as a stepping stone to “find” all sorts of rights, namely abortion.

Having said that, the easiest I find to deflect to the abortion/sodomy argument is to say that people engaging in so called sodomy are adults and have the right to do so. This could easily be found in the penumbras of the 14th Amendment. The fact of personhood of the unborn child which is hinted at in Griswold, and stricken down in Roe and Doe, is what has caused a great of the furor on this issue. If the developing child have no rights whatsoever, then of course, Roe and Doe are correct,. Then such procedures such as partial birth abortion can remain completely legal, and though the child is viable in utero, privacy laws would triumph.

Bigotry? - I am beginning to wonder about your train of thought when it comes to whether or not I am a bigot. Are you talking about a bigot when it comes to gay and lesbian rights? What are you trying to say, that if I don’t agree with everything you believe, that I’m a bigot? Because I don’t believe in everything you believe. Like I said before, I don’t care about what goes on in someone’s bedroom, as long as its’ consensual. But I do care what happens a month or two later down at the abortion clinic, if conception and growth occurs. Like Lord J was saying (in jest or semi-jest), maybe lesbianism is preferred among women, in that they have no conceptions (without intervention), they seem to be monogamous (a high ideal), which would cut down on VD.

The debate issue – Hey Wolf, I want you to stick around and be happy, debating with me. But soon EO will be back, cause nothing is going to keep him away, and I see that Denis from his office is on the boards, too. Don’t know about Athanasius, he may have found greener pastures, he may not have. From what I’ve read in May and April, we all might not get along, and quite frankly, you put a high ideal on everyone getting along. But hey, I might not even get along with my best friend’s views. If arguments happen, it won’t be from me, but I would hope that we would all make the attempt to be constructive. Denis I don’t know that well, and he doesn’t attend the church that EO and I do, so it’s up in the air, and I guess we’ll see. Hey, he’s originally from across the border, so who knows what his views are going to be.

I make no promises except that I am not a bigot in the Middle American sense. And I don’t have the same “intensity” (there’s that word) on any of these issues (except abortion), except I’m for solidarity among union brothers and sisters. Not that intense, but I like to debate. Also, I don’t hold the views of others so dear and in such high regard as EO does. He gets all hurt and bothered if someone is offended and then takes days apologizing. I am not a beggar that I am so concerned if you, Dante, Andrew, Edric, EO, ath, Denis, or anyone thinks my views are crap, because I know they’re not.

[Andrew]

I make no promises except that I am not a bigot in the Middle American sense. And I don’t have the same “intensity” (there’s that word) on any of these issues (except abortion), except I’m for solidarity among union brothers and sisters. Not that intense, but I like to debate. Also, I don’t hold the views of others so dear and in such high regard as EO does. He gets all hurt and bothered if someone is offended and then takes days apologizing. I am not a beggar that I am so concerned if you, Dante, Andrew, Edric, EO, ath, Denis, or anyone thinks my views are crap, because I know they’re not.

I have no problem with different views. And I don't think anyone will be banned for having different views from others. As long as they are presented in a readable form that allow discussion and at least follow some etiquette (not: omg gays are evil and burn in hell etc).

[Wolf]

14th Amendment - I think that the 14th Amendment, which was designed to ensure that no person was allowed to be owned as chattel in our country, has definitely been twisted over a hundred years later. What started out as a equal protection, citizenship, and due process amendment has really changed over a century. First in 1965 with the Griswold ruling dealing with contraceptives in Connecticut, and then more importantly with Rove v Wade in 1973, and its’ companion case Doe vs Bolton. This right to privacy that was established in Griswold has been used as a stepping stone to “find” all sorts of rights, namely abortion.

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?

Having said that, the easiest I find to deflect to the abortion/sodomy argument is to say that people engaging in so called sodomy are adults and have the right to do so. This could easily be found in the penumbras of the 14th Amendment. The fact of personhood of the unborn child which is hinted at in Griswold, and stricken down in Roe and Doe, is what has caused a great of the furor on this issue. If the developing child have no rights whatsoever, then of course, Roe and Doe are correct,. Then such procedures such as partial birth abortion can remain completely legal, and though the child is viable in utero, privacy laws would triumph.

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?

Bigotry? - I am beginning to wonder about your train of thought when it comes to whether or not I am a bigot. Are you talking about a bigot when it comes to gay and lesbian rights? What are you trying to say, that if I don’t agree with everything you believe, that I’m a bigot? Because I don’t believe in everything you believe. Like I said before, I don’t care about what goes on in someone’s bedroom, as long as its’ consensual. But I do care what happens a month or two later down at the abortion clinic, if conception and growth occurs. Like Lord J was saying (in jest or semi-jest), maybe lesbianism is preferred among women, in that they have no conceptions (without intervention), they seem to be monogamous (a high ideal), which would cut down on VD

6. I wasn't suspicious before, but I am now. You doth protest too much.

7. Answer my question. This is strike 3.

The debate issue – Hey Wolf, I want you to stick around and be happy, debating with me. But soon EO will be back, cause nothing is going to keep him away, and I see that Denis from his office is on the boards, too. Don’t know about Athanasius, he may have found greener pastures, he may not have. From what I’ve read in May and April, we all might not get along, and quite frankly, you put a high ideal on everyone getting along. But hey, I might not even get along with my best friend’s views. If arguments happen, it won’t be from me, but I would hope that we would all make the attempt to be constructive. Denis I don’t know that well, and he doesn’t attend the church that EO and I do, so it’s up in the air, and I guess we’ll see. Hey, he’s originally from across the border, so who knows what his views are going to be.

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?

I make no promises except that I am not a bigot in the Middle American sense. And I don’t have the same “intensity” (there’s that word) on any of these issues (except abortion), except I’m for solidarity among union brothers and sisters. Not that intense, but I like to debate. Also, I don’t hold the views of others so dear and in such high regard as EO does. He gets all hurt and bothered if someone is offended and then takes days apologizing. I am not a beggar that I am so concerned if you, Dante, Andrew, Edric, EO, ath, Denis, or anyone thinks my views are crap, because I know they’re not

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.

[DenisAtreides]

As a long time lurker, I'm thinking this forum needs a heavy dose of marketing to pick it up off the floor. First off, why in the #ell is the first page of news on this place got something on it from last year, and then the info's about a book that is being written by Frank Herbert's dimwit son? Second of all, did somebody scare all the girls off? Each of us need to invite at least one other person to start posting, and hopefully one of us will get smart and ask a female. Get creative, and since this is Dune forum, hopefully she'll look like the chick who played Alia from the "Children" mini-series. Yum! Pity she had to die at the end, maybe Leto could have kept her around as a servant girl. Damn,I forgot she was his auntie.

Got some ideas as someone who has lurked a bit over the months. Not necessarily for the forum, but here they are, should fit somewhere. Babe of the day (and since I don't give a $hit, Guy of the day) with a tasteful picture. Joke of the day (don't try to offend any one philosophy, or perhaps, offend everybody equally?) maybe with a cartoon or some sorts. This should allow some action to start happening, and get the profile up. Just ideas.

A bit about me. I'm from Ontario, Canada, and I work for He Who Must Not Be Named (hint: his name are the 2 robots from dimwits' Butlerian Jihad (or BJ, as I like to call the 3 books)). For those who read Thomas Covenant, the last book Stephan Donaldson has written is a trip and a half, and there is a character in there called She Who Must Not Be Named. Cool character, cool book. We talk about Covenant at the office. But I'm digressing. Anyway, HWMNBN asked me if I would join, and so I did. Now I see why he has to work late all of time, I've re-written this post 3X. I'm going to be at peace with everybody, and I'm looking forward to being at peace with all of you.

Not a bigot, love all people. If you're going to stick it somewhere, at least wear a condom (same thing if you don't want kids). Think about it. Economics, I say soak the rich, that's my belief. They've got more money than they can handle. We little guys we should hardly be paying taxes at all, can barely afford gas. That's my thoughts for today. Peace.

PS. Wolf, I read your posting where you wrote, "Holy crap" to Curt, it reminded me of the father on "Everybody Loves Raymond".

[TheCurtOne]

Wolf:

1. Amendments - I stand corrected about the direct, specific intent of the 14th, although it was passed in the same era to address newly freed African-Americans.

2. Birth Control - As far as pre-implantation birth control goes, it is my belief that the should remain legal. Contraception is a term that is used loosely, since it specifically only refers to the time before the union of the sperm and the egg. After conception, I prefer the term "birth control".

3. Deflecting an Argument - I am not sure exactly what it is that you are getting at. Are you saying that I am deflecting the argument of gay and lesbian rights? Are you trying to impose some type of "litmus test" upon me, and if I don't measure up to your standards, then I am a bigot? I believe in the allowance of rights onto gays and lesbians, as they have those rights because they are humans. Anything that benefits society that enhances their lives and their proeprty, I am for. This would include, for example, "civil unions", because it enables them to share and transfer property and estates. But like many people, using the centuries old term of "marriage" to describe the union of 2 gays or 2 lesbians, I believe that is "upsetting the apple cart". From what I know of you and this forum, I hope that you are not setting yourself up as some "pass through" gatekeeper on my moral beliefs.

4. Wow, there's that grammar correction that you already got going.

5. I think there are alot of people in our country who believe as you on this one. Yes, I understand why

6. "Doth protest too much". You talk ambiguously, then I have to wonder what you are trying to say, I have to try to guess.

7. Strike 3? Ambiguous.

8. How about less ambiguity, and less calling the other person "less intelligent" than you.

9. Canada.

10. Gonna ignore.

11. Intensity of thought. Intensity of reflection. Intensity of meditation. In other words, as an example, I have thought about abortion over a good deal of time, and researched the topic. I have looked over the news, current events, and come up with a logical world view about the subject. Other issues, I have not, hence my lack of "intensity".

12. There are more things that are worthless.

Denis

Hi, this place may not be for you. This is a serious place of serious debate, it is only for the academic and the well researched, and the goal is not to grow the size of the forum. It's not a blogging place, or somewhere where you talk about women, that is the General forum. Not very much joking going on around here, either.

[Wolf]

*Needed to do this in two posts, my apologies!

1. Amendments - I stand corrected about the direct, specific intent of the 14th, although it was passed in the same era to address newly freed African-Americans.

So what? How does that matter? How is that more important than the text of the document?

2. Birth Control - As far as pre-implantation birth control goes, it is my belief that the should remain legal. Contraception is a term that is used loosely, since it specifically only refers to the time before the union of the sperm and the egg. After conception, I prefer the term "birth control".

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.

3. Deflecting an Argument - I am not sure exactly what it is that you are getting at. Are you saying that I am deflecting the argument of gay and lesbian rights? Are you trying to impose some type of "litmus test" upon me, and if I don't measure up to your standards, then I am a bigot? I believe in the allowance of rights onto gays and lesbians, as they have those rights because they are humans. Anything that benefits society that enhances their lives and their proeprty, I am for. This would include, for example, "civil unions", because it enables them to share and transfer property and estates. But like many people, using the centuries old term of "marriage" to describe the union of 2 gays or 2 lesbians, I believe that is "upsetting the apple cart". From what I know of you and this forum, I hope that you are not setting yourself up as some "pass through" gatekeeper on my moral beliefs.

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.

4. Wow, there's that grammar correction that you already got going.

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!

5. I think there are alot of people in our country who believe as you on this one. Yes, I understand why

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.

6. "Doth protest too much". You talk ambiguously, then I have to wonder what you are trying to say, I have to try to guess.

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?

[Wolf]

7. Strike 3? Ambiguous.

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].

8. How about less ambiguity, and less calling the other person "less intelligent" than you.

(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.

9. Canada.

Really! I would never have guessed.

10. Gonna ignore.

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.

11. Intensity of thought. Intensity of reflection. Intensity of meditation. In other words, as an example, I have thought about abortion over a good deal of time, and researched the topic. I have looked over the news, current events, and come up with a logical world view about the subject. Other issues, I have not, hence my lack of "intensity".

You just mean that you only care about some issues but not others? Okay. Why should I care?

12. There are more things that are worthless.

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.

[TheCurtOne]

2. Pre-implantation the fertilized egg is not joined to the mother, is not growing and receiving food and water from its' mother. After joining, only a miscarriage or abortion can stop the zygote from reaching maturation.

5. Do you see any time before viability in which the state would have a compelling interest in protecting the growing human? Since viability is now around the 26th week, but the child is well developed at the 25th week, the child does not have any rights whatsoever?

6. I never recall saying I was afarid of gays and lesbians. Your using the word phobia is inaccurate. Let's not get into left wing social rhetoric when talking about issues.

7. Murder is worse than porn.

8. I am conversing intelligently. You are trying to be a type of gatekeeper for this forum.

9. You seem genuinely confused as to what border I meant. Since Detroit is right across from Ontario, I thought you had a lack of understanding of geography, so I answered you. Your really, which is sarcasm, is also unwelcome and unneeded.

10. I am not talking just to you Wolf, but to others. To the lurkers, to those who regularly visit, etc. If I want to expound as to whom I am, I can do just that, I don't need you trying to censor me if I don't feel like posting exactly what you don't want me to post. Once again, you are not a gatekeeper.

11. There are only so many hours in the day to think issues through. My big ones are union solidarity, abortion, protectionism, and a couple others. Those are the issues that I have thought through fully. The other issues, I take them as they come, and look to see where the middle ground may be.

12. Our arguments are definitely only as good as the constructs that we have backing them up. Mine, your, everyones.

13. You're right, we may not get very far at all, because I think you come to me with a set of ideas as well. I've heard the bitching and the moaning about this forum for almost a year from EO. I thought for the longest that it was just EO being himself. He's a good speaker, good Sunday school teacher, good teacher on campus, but he's a brick wall. Well there are a couple of brick walls to go around on this forum. A place like this can only exist if everyone thinks that same, exactly the same, or is the person who is not liberal/left on "social issues" keeps their mouth shut. But I'm already tiring of it, so I'm going to see if EO wants to come back.

Because things need to change here, keep up with a newer way of doing things. More like a current event place of ideas, like a free for all of diverse views. The wars in the Middle East, the situation in Europe, abortion and the Court, the deficit. The way of the last few weeks isn't working for me.

[Wolf]

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.

[ErasOmnius]

Curt, are you having fun yet?

[TheCurtOne]

Wolf:

2 & 5. Upon what rights are you saying that the state has the right to restrict any types of abortion at all before birth. Obviously you agree with the opinions of Roe vs wade and Doe vs Bolton, since you can talk so medic-talk about abortions near viability. There's blood, screaming, crying, (2 go in, 1 come out), during abortions in the second trimester, but this doesn't have any effect upon you? I am somewhat uninterested in what the 9 people in Washington DC (the supreme court) have had to say over the years, I am pretty much familiar with what they believe. Far more interested in the opinion of Wolf.

6. We are all aware of what has happened in this forum over the last year. I have read quite enough, and have had my friend fill me in on the rest. I consider my opinion on gay and lesbian rights to be a middle ground that I, and many Americans, are comfortable with. Didn't say my church is comfortable, didn't say that EO was comfortable, didn't say that you were comforatble. Just as long as I'm comfortable.

7. Murder is worse than gay porn. (BTW, I know what your really after, so you should just ask what my core constructs are on gay rights).

8. Inbox? Inbox? So you are a gatekeeper? For whom? Am I being tested? For what? To make sure that I belong? That I fit in? That I'm not EO incognito? Let me get right to the point. I don't care if you, or "the rest of the people who are in your inbox", like me or ever post on this forum again. The only person's beliefs that I agree with somewhat across the board (from what I read) are aths.

9. Yeah, okay. Here's the deal about EO. He'll be back soon, then you can ask him yourself.

10. Am I "in"? Am I in the "club"?

11. You were asking me about "intensity". Why I am not familiar with some issues as much as others.

13. I am not EO, period. He doesn't compromise at all. Having said that statement, it will be funny how it is taken by him and you. As he reads this posting today or tomorrow, he will take this "no compromise" statement as a great compliment from me. You, of course, will view the statement as his beliefs as dim-witted and his no-compromise as backward. Myself, pretty familiar with the forum, after all, my best friend was obsessed with it for a year. Cripe, almost 1000 posts in 2 years, damn. So let's make a deal, we'll both stop talking about him until he comes back. As far as Denis goes, you may never hear from him again, or you may hear from him 20 times in 1 day.

EO:

You owe me a 10 spot, you said a month.

[DenisAtreides]

As far as Denis goes, you may never hear from him again, or you may hear from him 20 times in 1 day.

Denis, present and accounted for, sir!

[Anathema]

I never recall saying I was afarid of gays and lesbians. Your using the word phobia is inaccurate. Let's not get into left wing social rhetoric when talking about issues.

And hydrophobic substances like fat aren't afraid of water. The term homophobia may not be strictly accurate, but everyone knows what's meant with it. It's not left wing rethoric.

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.

I know for a fact that abortions have been practiced for well over 2000 years. The christian churches didn't care that much about it for most of the time (St. Augustine thought that it was only a sin when it happened in the last stages of pregnancy) and, even if they thought it was immoral, didn't think it was equal to killing an actual person. That development started with the Catholic church in the 19th century.

[Wolf]

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.

[ErasOmnius]

I am going to gratify myself just this once, because I made a promise to a friend to not post until later this month.

Oh Wolf, you are too much. Too, too much. Don't you look at the news? Don't you look at anything that's not in your law journals. You don't think that two men who are friends and who go to the same church can have the same view on pro-life issues. Don't you know what motivates true Christians in the US? Do you think that the National Right to Life has one of the largest membership bases of any organization in our country for nothing? The fact that children before birth are being killed is what causes some true Christians to act, post, volunteer. Not to ramble endlessly about what this Constitutional Amendment means, or what some Justice from 50 years ago meant, as they penned some document that declared people before birth less than human. But I guess you don't see life that way.

Curt is a real person, and he's not me. Edric can confirm, over and over again. Denis is a real person, and definitely not me. Confirm onward, Edric! But why am I strongly encouraging my friends and associates to join the forum? Because I am not going anywhere, because I have not done anything wrong, I consider my 'handle' a good one, and soon I'll be back. But you [and others] may or may not return when I start posting again around my birthday [Happy Birthday George Michael and ErasOmnius!]. I would hope that you and fellow post-ers in Scotland, in the western US, and around the world would continue to contribute, but you may not. So the good in me cannot allow something as fine as this blog/forum to wither, so I must strongly recruit others to fill in the blanks. Will the forum change as the people change in it? Sure.

Wolf, it is my sincere desire that you stay, and I hope that you will try. We have a great deal to talk about when it comes to discussing Christian writers from 80 AD to 350 AD. Certainly you will want to put someone with a History minor degree who lectures at a community college campus in 'their place', or we may agree on some things. We got side-tracked last summer into topics that dominated this forum, which is sad. When we talk about early Church leader's writing this year, let's not get side-tracked. Other friends across the sea, I want to hear your UK opinions, as well, on a variety of Threads. I'm not sure where everyone thinks this is all going, but let's all have a new, fresh start. See you in 2 weeks.

[Anathema]

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?

The protestants may have been more active in the anti-abortion movement, but it started with Catholics. Someone (a historian) posted some sources on another forum I visit, but I can't find the thread. Here's a wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_and_abortion

It was noted in the latter half of the 19th century that the Catholic Church were leaders in denouncing "criminal abortion". A medical journal in 1870 reported that in an era where most churches were "neglecting" the subject of abortion, Catholic priests were teaching that "destruction of the embryo at any period from the first instant of conception is a crime equal in guilt to that of murder," and "that to admit its practice is to open the way for the most unbridled licentiousness, and to take away the responsibility of maternity is to destroy one of the strongest bulwarks of female virtue."[6] In 1881 the same journal reported that Catholic anti-abortion efforts had been much more successful than Protestant ones.

[TheCurtOne]

Anathema: Here is a good summary of what many famous people from ancient times to the present have though about abortion. If it is to believed, then Augustine though abortion occurred after the 40th day for males, and the 80th day for females. That's pretty sexist, but shows it was pretty early on. I think that ultrasound techniques have shown that kids in utero deserve more of a benefit of a doubt. As far as the word homophoic goes, that conjures up some rhetoric that isn't fair. Like I said, gays and lesbians need some more protection from the law. No bullying laws for kids, civil union laws, property rights spelled out, not sure why I'm labeled a homophobe. But this place is one of a kind.

Wolf: Yawn. What, am I supposed to be more timid for you? Am I a loudmouth for someone around for only a month? Get a life. Check out the differences between EO's beliefs and mine, and you will see that they are not the same. But whatever.

[Wolf]

Wolf: Yawn. What, am I supposed to be more timid for you? Am I a loudmouth for someone around for only a month? Get a life. Check out the differences between EO's beliefs and mine, and you will see that they are not the same. But whatever.

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!

[TheCurtOne]

Funny you should say that, cause I'm getting "it" from him and from you. From him that I'm too much a lib, and from you that I'm too far to the right. WTF!? Not crazy about your "citizenship" argument about abortion,. Illegal immigrants aren't citizens, but I think they have rights, although a whole lot should be deported from what I see on TV. Dogs and cats aren't "citizens" either, but even they have rights, not too many rights for unborn children, though.

[Wolf]

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.

[Gruntlord6]

Told you he didn't leave.

[Eliyyahu]

Curt,

Why should anyone expect you and Eras to espouse the same exact opinions on everything? Your posts come off as coming from the finger tips of the author of Eras' posts, regardless of the information being posted in them. So far I haven't seen much of anything from you outside of the topic of Eras. It seems you have come here for no other reason than to discuss Eras and his time on this board, which is the same thing Eras often came here to do. When your average person chooses to stop posting at a message board, they stop. They don't stop and then a friend of theirs shows up on said message board in their place doing nothing other than talking about them. As Wolf suggested,

"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!"

[ErasOmnius]

I know, leave Curt and I alone, and ath when he re-joins. Ignore us. By now I couldn't care less. Go post in your other threads. My best friend joined, and I have a good friend in Greece, I'm happy. Wolf, I don't care if you never acknowledge me, Curt, or ath again. Have a great time in a thread you may like. Let's see...there's a fine one about Psychotropy. Wolf, go ahead and post in it. Pretend ErasOm, TCurt1, & ath don't exist.

[Wolf]

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.

[Dragoon Knight]

[colour=#005FFF]It's become pretty evident that everything Wolf is saying is correct. Even if you're using different IP addresses, Eras, you're still a terrible actor. The first indicator that you were all the same person is your decision to make the usernames all very reminiscent of your own. "TheCurtOne" and "DenisAtreides" - both are multiple names contracted into one using capital letters to distinguish the individual words, just like your own. While this is by no means a certain sign of sock-puppetry, it was suspicious enough when the first of your alter-egos came on the scene. With the addition of the second, it was clear we were just dealing with you again.

Notice as well the meanings behind the names; a person called Curt, who is very curt with his views. Ha ha, it's funny because it's a double meaning. Except it's not. This is a classic example of what passes for humour with you. Next, "DenisAtreides" - hey, let's deflect the situation by talking about Dune! That's what your arguments tend to boil down to (amongst other platitudes and assorted bullshit, of course), so it seems perfectly logical that your third account would be designed as such. I've also noticed that, in a pitiful attempt to make your Curt account seem legitimate, you've taken on an avatar. That particular avatar makes me alert and suspicious on sight, as it happens, due to a previous poster who used it, so it helped me in identifying the language similarities between all three of you. The sentence structure, the poorly attempted changes in language and spelling ("#ell", for example) to try and differentiate yourselves. It's pathetic.

My suggestion to Edric (or Andrew) would be to perform a WHOIS check on all of Eras' IP addresses (and by that, I mean checking Eras, Curt and Denis) to determine just how far away from eachother they really are. Again, IP addresses aren't a surefire method of catching people like this out, but we can but hope that Eras has been stupid enough to make it this easy for us.

And finally, I agree; the only ways for you to prove us wrong, Eras, would be for you to have an argument with your "friends". Sit down of a night and post one after another. I don't doubt for a second that you're all the same person - it's just that I'm interested in seeing just how far you'll go to propogate a ruse that has already fallen flat on its face. I should get some popcorn; this is better than a deranged, middle-aged female any day.[/colour]