[MD] Sin Part 1

[Case]

[Platt]
I would deny the intellectual level right of due process to anyone who
is dedicated to destroying that right, such as an Islamic terrorist.

[Case]
If you don't put a person through due process how do you know they are what
you say they are. Without due process you can say anyone is dedicated to
destroying anything and hold them without charges. You are willing to allow
this to happen to you?

[Platt]
Rather I would look to the Supreme Court to uphold individual rights 
against the collective. Legislators are tempted to pander to the 
"collective good" (as they define it) to win votes -- a weakness of  
democracy.

[Case]
I agree the Supreme Court has been a buffer for the minority against the
tyranny of the majority. 

[Platt]
Can you explain why you get "outright hostile" at the moral superiority 
of one level over another? Seems to me you would agree to the moral
superiority of intellectual science over social level religion. 

[Case}
I didn't know I had done this. I also didn't know that science and religion
were on different levels. It seems to me both of them are intellectual and
both of them are social. This is what puzzles me about the levels in
general.

[Platt]
Those dedicated to forcing their anti-intellectual religious laws on us 
forfeit all status under our intellectual level laws. 

[Case]
While I wish Robertson, Fallwell, Colson, and Thomas would shut up I don't
think they should forfeited their legal rights. But how long could we hold
them with out bond I wonder...

[Platt]
I think there is serious scientific disagreement. The global cooling 
consensus of a few years back indicates the science is far from 
settled.

[Case]
I don't know what evidence you are talking about but what evidence of any
kind can you cite for a lack of scientific consensus on this matter?

[Platt]
The intelligent design crowd relies heavily on the laws of probability 
which, while not strictly scientific, are not religious. 

[Case]
I think you mean they are saying that things are so complex they could not
possibly have developed by chance. This is a weird sort of inverse
perversion of the laws of probability and are not scientific in any sense.