Col Rouge, I've dipped out of this thread mainly because I feel I've said my piece, but as you've specifically referred to me I'll add this further short message (then it's definitely good night from me).

I did not respond to your earlier message partly because some of the points you made had already been raised in different language and addressed; and partly because I felt the debate at that time generally had moved to a higher level than your contribution's (sorry, I cannot think of a nice, unpatronising way of saying that). I preferred to use my two posts a day limit to respond to those at that level and try to move the discussion constructively forward, trusting that a response to your points would be self-evident to most readers.

ScienceLaw “I felt the debate at that time generally had moved to a higher level than your contribution's (sorry, I cannot think of a nice, unpatronising way of saying that).”

It seems to me, there can be no higher level of consideration than the matter of an individual’s personal sovereignty.

Certainly, I look at society as the supportive organization for individuals which comprise it.

You may consider it differently, maybe that we individual’s are all mere components which go to comprise a social whole. If that is the case I can appreciate at least why the matter goes completely over your head.

It seems to me, your patronizing attempt at deflection from that debate is simply because you lack the intellectual rigor to address it directly.

That you are so obviously disposed to dismiss what you cannot comprehend says volume to your limits, despite your pretensions.

I look forward to you coming back, once you have mustered both the backbone and the comprehension to challenge me.