Finally! All that evasion and dancing around from you, before you finally say just "yes".
Now, was that hard?
"nature has no will that I might judge as "OK" and that includes the purposeful destruction of my life because nature is beyond such things."
>>> OK. Nature has no 'will', but predations, disease, accident, entropy all occur in the 'normal' course of events in the universe. You do not dispute this.
"I also responded that my position does not require I do nothing to continue living in the event disease strikes because human nature itself is one that uses its resources to live."
>>> OK, so... if bad things threaten you or those close to you, you would resist. (How hard was that to reveal? It's hardly an unpopular position. :)
"When you quote someone you don't just take a snippet out that alone would mean something other than what it would mean in its original context. You quote the post, making sure to maintain the poster's meaning. You did not do this. You quoted the statement on selection and then using solely the statement extrapolated a very stupid idea."
>>> Hey, your post was short enough (two sentences or so, if memory serves). I thought my quotation of your post was succinct and accurate enough. If you really don't think that, I've offered to QUOTE YOUR ENTIRE POST AGAIN WORD-FOR-WORD, AND THEN ASK MY SIMPLE QUESTION AGAIN.
>>> Would your two part answer be any different Johannes? ("Yes" you would resist, and "No" nature has no 'will'?) |
