From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 04 2003 - 08:42:58 BST
Hi Rick,
>Well, I'm not familiar with Kaczynski so I can't comment on his terms or
>how
>they might relate to the MoQ. But I don't believe that homosexuals are any
>less capable of 'directly experiencing social patterns without thinking
>about them first' than heterosexuals are.
Well, most heterosexuals are sodomites also. They have incorporated
homosexuality into their hetero relationships, become perverted, which means
"to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted",
and I would say that itis intellectualizing about sex that perverts people.
>R
>Marriage was an intellectual idea that was a defensive reaction against
>intellectual ideas that thwarted 'natural social marraige'? Huh? What
>exactly is "natural social marriage" if marriage is, as you say, an
>intellectual pattern?
Natural social marriage would be what we see in penguin society and the
societies of other life long monagomous species. My hypothesis is that
human society evolved monogamy as a predominant social pattern before it
realized that it had. And then there probably developed that intellectual
"why should I?" pattern that messed with the social order, and then came the
intellectual marriage laws and adultery laws.
>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?
An intellectual agenda that benefits from homosexuality, yes.
>J
> > Yes, arresting someone for a murder comitted in private would seem to
> > violate their due process. Murders committed in public are enforcable,
>but if you do it in private it is legal.
>
>R
>How on Earth did you draw that conclusion?
THe court seems to have said that if enforcing a law would violate the
perpetrator's privacy, then there can be no crime at all in that privacy
zone.
>J
> Explain to me why it doesn't, without
> > bringing up anything biblical, like "thou shalt not kill".
>
>R
>An arrest (which is a kind of seizure under the 4th amendment) can only
>violate due process if the arresting officer fails to comply with whatever
>process is due. If the crime is committed in public, right in front of the
>officer, he has immediate probable cause to arrest and the only process
>that
>is due is the reading of Miranda rights and the chance to get a lawyer.
>This would apply even if you were in your own home in your own bed and the
>officer just happened to see it through the window by happenstance. If the
>officer merely suspects you of the 'private crime' and wants to come search
>for evidence, the process due is that he'll have to show probable cause to
>a
>judge to get a warrant (in most cases, although exceptions do exist).
>Naturally, there's alot more to due process law and the 4th amendment, but
>I
>think you get the idea. Privacy doesn't "legalize" behavior so much as it
>just changes what process is due before the government can take certain
>actions.
So the word "due" is elastic, then? Depending on the crime that is being
enforced, the process due changes? So a murderer faces a different due
process than a fornicator or an embezzler? Who decides what is due? And
whatever that is, as long as whatever is due is done, then due process was
served, right?
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
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 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 08:44:02 BST