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 (504620)	12/5/2003 6:52:53 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You really ought not be so dishonest. If you are going to use my statements you must keep them in their proper context and meaning. My statement on selection had to do with nature's balancing the human population in accord with available resources. The point was, that she can do this by killing innocent people because she is beyond morality. WE ARE NOT (see the point below in its context). ME: "It is the way of the world. Either Nature will select or you will. You do not have any innate right to select - but nature does. Bob Barry: So...... if we could find a way to cut off food supplies through the umbilical cord... ME: then you'll have found a way to artificially select humans by murdering others." Message 19563292 Then you came along to ask if I was "OK" with Nature using disease to select. Message 19563457 This was quite stupid because it was off point and I had already established that nature is beyond my sense of "OK." But, to stay on point I told you I was all for helping people, just not by murder (because, referring back to my earlier post, humans have no right to murder).http://www.siliconinvestor.com/msg_multireplies.gsp?msgid=19563457 Then, like a true idiot, you insisted I judge nature, saying "...there are lots of ways that 'nature' selects... So, are you are 'OK' with nature selecting by means of disease, accident, nutrition, predation, etc., or do you take your 'nature' a la carte?"http://www.siliconinvestor.com/msg_multireplies.gsp?msgid=19563588 Now you are thoroughly off point and are insisting I tell you whether I have judged nature to be "OK" when I have already established that nature is beyond moral judgment. I responded by moving back on point, telling you your post was "irrelevant to the point. If nature selects, however it selects, it is nature's moral right to do so because morality does not apply to nature. We, on the other hand, are not at liberty to select if in doing so we murder another one of us." siliconinvestor.com You then insisted once again that I judge nature, saying: "So, you are OK with childhood diptheria? Landslides and predation of humans OK by you?" siliconinvestor.com This is stupid, and I told you so here siliconinvestor.com. It does not apply to my point at all. It was instead an implication that my position requires I do nothing in the face of my own sickness when nature herself has built into me a character that automatically seeks to negotiate her forces in order to live. Not doing anything would in fact be against my nature. You then began to speak of nature's moral will, as if she has some will that can exist against my life (when she actually selects that which can survive within her laws. She selects life). And you demanded I judge her will when in fact she is beyond all such judgements as I have already stated. siliconinvestor.com I simply began to show how consumately ridiculous and irrelevant your point was by discussing it here siliconinvestor.com. Gotta run to dinner. The rest of the story has you whining about me lying when all along I have maintained my position with the utmost in integrity. You ought to stop acting like such a leftist and tell the truth for a change... (grin)