 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 03 May 2009 14:29:01 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmail com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:53:03 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>> No prob. Pigs will avenge them all. ;)
>>
>> Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, Rulz :)
>>
>
>I was thinking more of the swine flu. :P
Oh! But who gave the flu to the pigs?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
> a sentient malevolent being.
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
But it is held responsible, and is punished by the extensive attempts to
eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > A virus cannot be held responsible for killing millions because it's not
> > a sentient malevolent being.
>
> You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
>
> But it is held responsible, and is punished by the extensive attempts to
> eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.
Besides, as Agent Smith well pointed out, our modus operandi is pretty much that
of a virus. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> But it is held responsible
Not in the moral sense.
> and is punished by the extensive attempts to
> eradicate it and/or prevent it from functioning as it pleases.
Only in the same sense as people building houses to keep the cold out,
or building walls to stop floods from destroying crops.
In human civilization punishment is a consequence of a crime, and a
warning to others about what will happen if they do the same. No such
thing makes sense with viruses.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Because, in the past, so called "extinction events" didn't happen that
> quickly.
Would we know?
Maybe one species of dinosaur actually was intelligent enough to make spears
and fished to extinction several species that were already scarce in the
fossil record. How would you know?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
> kinds of life, here.
On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life, there's
no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If you're not
afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
> assumptions that are not commonly shared.
Like the word "fair". People only talk about whether something is "fair"
when they're on the losing side of an arbitrary decision.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Man's nature can change with proper education. The trajectory of a
> meteorite can't.
It can if you educate Men to go out and change it. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The meteor cannot be held morally responsible
So who is held morally responsible for the meteor?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-5-2009 6:39, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Given this, I value all life, and I would like to preserve as much as
>> possible. I am not speaking of preserving individual lives, but of
>> kinds of life, here.
>
> On the other hand, if you do not particularly value your own life,
> there's no particular reason to especially value someone else's. If
> you're not afraid of death, you're not afraid of extinction.
>
The last line should be 'If you're not afraid of death, you're can not
object to extinction.' to be an answer to Chambers. And in this form it
is of course nonsense.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
