[MD] Sin Part 1

[Platt Holden]

> [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?

I don't think we have much trouble identifying Islamic terrorists any 
more than we had identifying combatants in WW II, Korea and Vietnam. 
Did we charge them? No.      

> [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. 

Agree. The individual is a minority of one and as such is most in need 
of protection from 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.

If I have interpreted the MOQ correctly, science and religion are on 
separate levels. But, I could be wrong.

> [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...

When those characters start sending suicide bombers into our cities,
in effect declaring war on the U.S., they will forfeit their rights.

> [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?

You are not aware of the global cooling predictions a few years ago?
Anyway, it looks as if we'll never agree on this issue,  so arguing 
about it would be a waste of time don't you think?. 

> [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.

Don't think so. The laws of probability are fairly well established as 
being intellectually sound. Perhaps you can explain why in this case 
there application is a "perversion." To assign creative power to chance 
seems anti-intellectual to me, like saying "it's a miracle."