Obviously, Tom, the issue is much more complex than the paragraph example I used in 'talking' with Frank.

There is nothing wrong, BTW, with curcularity (tautology) in a premise- its like saying existence exists (you know the reference, of course Tom Rand? ;-)) The question is: Is it useful and descriptive. Saying (A v ~A ) as a premise is of the same order.

As for the sentience of society, while I accept your basic premise- that the individual constructs the society and is the 'seat' or 'atom' of the sentience of the society, it is FAR from certain that we can't realistically talk about a collection of individuals having cognitive states that don't map to the states of any one thinker. In fact, I could prove it based on Parallel computation models- but were already at the stage of dialogue where your going to start throwing boogers at me, so why go there?

Even if we were to strip the notion of society of moral importance (which is I assume the direction you were going with the sentience issue), and just focus on the individual, there is absolutely no *in principle* argument to say that it is inconsistent with individual rights nor inconsistent with a free society to place certain structure on the individual. We do it all the time with Public Decency ordinances, Criminal Law, and even norms. In general, it is a difficult thing to levey those structures, and I oppose probably a go0d half of the ones that are there today. I am libertarian-like on many issues.

As for christian morality... Thank God (heheh) America is a secular society ;-)

If you want to continue this- lets go off to off-topic, I am serious about wanting to stay away from CE- I can't even stand to browse here anymore. Just do me a favor, as an old debate partner, and don't even bother with the 'High Falutin' Language' tac of argument- just don't even respond if your going off in that direction.

Davin L.