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 (504234)	12/5/2003 5:36:36 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ha! (You disingenuous rube....) I NEVER ASKED you "to apply moral judgment to nature." You most certainly did. You apparently are not supple enough in thought to see how you did. I have not been disingenuous at all. I am just self-aware, whereas you apparently are not. I simply asked if you followed 'nature's judgements' or if you actively RESISTED them in your own life... And when you ask such stupid questions you require me to judge nature, as if it has some aim that is in moral conflict with mine. That is patently stupid. My struggle is defined by nature. I am in and of nature and it is my job to maintain the natural identity I have in nature - to do what nature designed me to do. To resist nature is to act in ways contrary to my design (like committing murder). Clearly, you must, because you REFUSE to answer my one simple question It is a stupid and irrlevant question that I have nevertheless answered without flaw. and continue to misstate what I said, and play the fool by answering your OWN questions... but never mine. Well, you see my position is the issue here. Not yours. Your question is an entirely different matter from my position. In this context, it is stupid. If cancer strikes one near to you, do you resist nature's will? Dear me. How self-ignorant can you get? I am designed by nature with faculties that are free to be used toward the natural object of living - so long as my efforts do not depend upon the infringement of the right to life in any other innocent being of my kind. If disease strikes, it is not that nature has now some "will" to kill me. Some organism is involved, like me, in the struggle to express, using me as a resource. Or, I have run contrary to some force in nature. I am designed by nature to do all I can to see that my own expression continues. To intentionally aim to do otherwise is to literally act contrary to nature - not "obeying" it as you so stupidly put it. Position ever intact and not a single error. Do you immunize your kids? See above. (Looks like your personal adherance to your philosophy is most defininately "a la carte!") No ala carte at all. Not even a shred of it. You are just confused, thinking nature is some person with a will that is in conflict with life. You are wrong. Nature actually selects for life. It gives us a character that strives for life within certain natural parameters. If we can survive within them, using the faculties with which nature has endowed us, then we are selected. If we cannot survive, then we are not selected. To ask whether I obey nature and willingly die in the face of disease is just stupid, because it requires of me to act as if nature is a moral entity whose will is against my naturally living character. A pity you cannot see this. And really, this is terribly irrelevant. The point under discussion has to do with whether we are given the innate right to select humans by killing innocent humans. We do not have this right - NATURE DOES simply because it is not bound by human morality. That is why if nature selects via disease, I cannot judge her. If you select by murder, I can and will judge you to be a murderer.