Replies

Sigh. Three of the same, tired, misguided responses we always see, bang, bang, bang.

"Who empowered you with the right to decide that for the whole of society, since you are discussing the "rights" of society?"

This is an oft seen and particularly disingenuous substitute for an argument. Oh, it pretends to be an argument, but it's not.

Actually, it is an attempt to discredit--rather than answer--an argument through the pretense that the person making that argument concocted it all alone in isolation, has no support for it, and is its sole adherent.

I didn't "decide" that SSAD is a destructive and self-destructive disorder. Mankind *observed* those facts over at least a couple of millennia.

"Societies have no rights, only individuals have rights."

Sorry, but I have to give you a big "duh" on that one.

Do you recognize these words?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Or is the concept that people have a right to organize their society in such a way as to *them* shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness a new one for you?

"Come up with the constitutional provisions giving the government the power to control private sexual activities between its citizens."

There are three dishonest points in that statement.

The first is the attempt to focus on the federal government. I'm not talking about the federal government. The right of state governments to do so derives from the 10th Amendment and the document cited above, as well as a thousand years of English common law and myriad other sources.

The second is that you continue to return to that old fallacy, "private" sexual activities. If the pervofascist agenda had been a private one, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And the third is this: if the government is allowed under the Constitution to regulate something like murder, then it is allowed to regulate *any* behavior that our representatives decide should be criminal. The constitution nowhere mentions computer fraud, either, but I don't hear anybody calling laws against it extra-Constitutional.

Under the Constitution, our Representatives could criminalize chocolate chip cookies and legalize incestuous child-molesting. We--we the people, AKA "society"--are (ideally) empowered to decide what we want to be legal and what we want criminalized, and to make that happen through our representatives.

Those who disagree with you have just as much right to argue for their position and try to have it passed into law as you do to oppose them.

"Put it up, link to it."

This old ruse is so transparent that if you left your house wearing nothing else, you'd be arrested. What happens now is one of two things--either you provide no links, and the fellow declares victory on the grounds that you have no support; or you do post links, and the other fellow pronounces your sources unreliable and declares victory on the grounds that you have no support.

Waste of time, either way.

You should have been paying attention over the last 30 years. If you had, you would have seen the hundreds of sources supporting my assertion. Even now, an Internet search will provide you with plenty of material.

"I didn't "decide" that SSAD is a destructive and self-destructive disorder. Mankind *observed* those facts over at least a couple of millennia."

A good portion of mankind, and a substantial portion of Americans, disagree with you. Some of us, particularly those of us who are conservative by nature, do not believe that the government has the right to enact laws to protect us against ourselves.

Why would you cut out the portion of the Declaration of Independence where the Founders established the fact that all men are created equal?

Could it be because you are arguing that some are not?

I missed nothing from that document, you missed much.

Governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUALS.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Governments are set in place to secure the Liberties of the people from whom they derive their power. And NOWHERE on that document does it say one single word about the rights of a society. It talks about the right of the PEOPLE to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

"...if the government is allowed under the Constitution to regulate something like murder, then it is allowed to regulate *any* behavior that our representatives decide should be criminal."

That's about a scary a statement as I have ever seen.

It's also a blatant lie.

"What happens now is one of two things--either you provide no links, and the fellow declares victory on the grounds that you have no support..."

In other words, you have nothing to substantiate your claim of some kind of "agenda" existing anywhere other than in your mind.