Re: MD Should privacy be a right?

From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jul 06 2003 - 21:27:23 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD Should privacy be a right?"

    Hey David, Platt, Johnny and all,
    I'd like to thank David for changing the title of this thread to something I
    believe better reflects the actual conflict. However, this will be most
    last post on this topic as I believe that I will never convince Platt or
    Johnny otherwise and I'd rather spend my time on more potentially fruitful
    discussions. My final responses on the thread to all involved are below.
    David first...

    DMB
      Clearly, this is a
    > case where intellectual values won over particular social values, and
    > understood in terms of Pirsig's codes, this is a great moral victory. A
    > higher, more inclusive and expansive set of moral values were validated by
    > the courts decision. Laws based on nothing more than bigotry and hateful,
    > obsolete religious sentiments were struck down. Social codes came into
    > conflict with the principle of the individual's right to privacy and
    rights
    > won. This is a good thing.

    R
    Agreed, agreed, agreed. Now, Johnny....

    > >R
    > >George W. Bush is the leader of a vast homosexual agenda to make violent
    > >crusades against morality? Are we talking about the George W. Bush who
    > >is currently the President of the United States?

    J
    > An intellectual agenda that benefits from homosexuality, yes.

    R
    I am literally dumbfounded by this. You are so trapped in your own theories
    that you really give absolutely no credit to people for what they claim to
    be their own beliefs. George W. Bush is a life-long politically
    ultra-conservative, hard-right Christian republican of the kind who thinks
    public school children should be made to pray and abortion is evil even in
    cases of rape and incest. "Morality" and "family values" appear promptly in
    virtually every speech the man has ever given. He's very openly anti-gay
    and very openly supported the law which was struck down in Lawrence. And
    yet, you would have it sound as though he was the Pope of San Francisco.
    How am I supposed to argue with someone who concludes that one of the most
    conservative presidents we've ever had is an agent of a homosexual
    conspiracy?

    Finally, Platt...

    > > RICK
    > > That is true, there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution.
    > > However, there's nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the
    > > states the right to regulate sexual conduct either.

    P
    > The 10th Amendment is specific in what rights are left to the states to
    > determine: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
    > Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the
    > States respectively, or to the people."

    R
    Did you actually read the 10th amendment or did you just copy it into your
    post? If you read it all the way through, you will see that it reserves all
    powers not enumerated to the Federal government to either the states or to
    THE PEOPLE!!! What that means is that somethings can only be decided by
    the federal government, and everything else belongs either to the state
    governments to decide, or to every individual to decide for them themselves.
    How you read that as saying "the states can regulate all sexual conduct" is
    quite a marvel of interpretation.

    P
    What I
    > see is a minority on the supreme court deciding for a majority in Texas
    > what their standards of decency ought to be.

    R
    Disagree. The court said every single citizen of Texas can now decide for
    themselves. That sounds like a majority of Texans to me.

    P
     I do not like to see the
    > judiciary encroaching on legislative territory.

    R
    They didn't. Interpreting the Constitution is the Supreme Court's exclusive
    territory.

    P
     That way lies tyranny.

    R
    Liberty is the enemy of tyranny. The way to tyranny lies in entirely
    surrendering one's own right to decide to any government body (court,
    legislature or president). Giving the power to decide directly to the
    people, as the Court did in Lawrence, is a step away from tyranny towards
    liberty and towards Dynamic Quality.

    take care
    rick

    The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its
    strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the
    foundations of society. - Thomas Jefferson

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 06 2003 - 21:25:28 BST