Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (504110)	12/5/2003 11:25:34 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<G> You 'saying' that it's 'stupid' doesn't get it --- you have to 'prove' that it's stupid. I proved it is stupid by showing how it avoids my position while also demanding me to apply a moral judgement to nature. That is quite obviously stupid. For I can just as easily say that YOUR earlier statement is stupid... which it is. It is not stupid. My earlier statement, taken in context is that unlike nature, humans do not have the innate right to select - by killing off innocent humans. There is simply nothing stupid about that. And I believe I illustrated just how stupid your statement was by my simple question --- which you refuse to answer. You believe this, but you are wrong. Your question was beside the point I originally made. It was stupid. Sure it does! You said nature has the 'moral right' to decide who lives or dies... Indeed, but only because morality does not apply to nature - as it does to us. I simply tried to determine if you obeyed this 'morality', or if you personally attempted to thwart it's will at every opportunity! I attempt to live as nature has enabled me to attempt living. I attempt to help others engage in the same struggle as I. But I do none of this by murdering other humans. To claim nature has a "will" to kill me by disease is stupid, Buddy. The question was: do you resist this 'moral will' of nature, It is a stupid question. and do you encourage others to resist it? Do you pick and choose a la carte style, when it is 'OK' to resist the 'will of nature', and when it is not? You simply are unable to think clearly here. There is no arbitrary picking and choosing here at all. The boundary is simple and most reasonable. That boundary is the right of life of every innocent human being. If one proposes to destroy that right to select others, then the proposal is wrong.