Dear individual,

I see you're still flying the creation science flag.

Dear Banjo,

I am sure that you know the law better than myself.

That said, I was referring to the truth of the matter rather than to what the law claims that the truth is.

Contracts can indeed be implicit. We have implicit contracts between parents and children, people and their pets, shepherds and their sheep. When I order food at a restaurant, I don't care about legal obligations to pay for the meal - I actually have a moral obligation to pay, regardless of the law.

Just as there are instances when the law fails to acknowledge the validity of a contract, there are instances when the law invents a "contract" which does not actually exist. Sometimes there is even a signed piece of paper to make that "contract" explicit, such as a letter of surrender written under duress by invaded people, such as the Tibetan people, where Chinese law claims that Tibet is a Chinese province. At other times, when no piece of paper is present, the strong side just claims that there exists an implicit contract, that the wolf and the sheep have a contract by which the wolf is to eat the sheep.

And such is the case with the presumed "social contract": the strong side claims, for its very convenience, that the weak side has sought its protection and agreed to abide by its laws - what nonsense!

«individuals within the jurisdiction of the state who commit atrocious crimes deserve, in my opinion, to lose their right to life»

It is possible for individuals to have a contract with a state whereby if they commit atrocious crimes then they are to lose their right to life. Fair enough, but here you introduce the term "jurisdiction", referring to a certain area of land. The assumption as if everyone who happened to be born or live within a particular area has some contract with the state that claims "jurisdiction" over that area, is tyrannical, immoral and untrue.

Hi there BANJO PATTERSON...

If we were to stone a person to death, for the crime of murder, or instead, we give him a painless injection and euthanise him instead - it still amounts to the killing of another human being? It matters very little, how you moralise it, how painless his execution (the needle) maybe, you're are still killing, whichever way you cut it. Moreover, and what if the executed man is ultimately found innocent, what then?

G'day there INDIVIDUAL...

You questioned the way God created human beings? There's one quite distinct, but disagreeable characteristic that God must have endowed us all with, one that no animal seems to possess - Malice.

Misopinionated,

Many of us make ironic references to gods without actually believing in any. Hence Individual and O Sung Wu's wry comments.

My singing group was having a go at Bette Midler's "From a Distance" and I commented to someone that maybe god was having second thoughts, that he might smite the lot of us and start again. I.e., Misopinionated, IF there was a god, then she might decide "Bugger it," and have another go. i.e. a hypothetical.

She might leave out mosquitoes the second time around though.

Hmmmm ....... how do we know she hasn't dome something like that already ? Many times ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

«She might leave out mosquitoes the second time around though.»

She already eliminated vampires: why not look at the half-full side of the glass and be thankful?

When our acts are worthy enough, no mosquito even will come close to hurt us.

Dear Loudmouth,

You creation science types have an excuse for anything and everything.