[Platt] Your ignorance of the MOQ is astounding. [Arlo] If you actually wrote something supported by the MOQ once, maybe you'd have the ability to say this. As it is, you only show what a sad, pathetic man you are.
But despite this moronic comment, what I said what if there is no quarrel between the MOQ and "teleological theories of purpose", then WHICH theories of purpose are correct? If the MOQ has no quarrel with any, does that mean they are all correct? If so, then that's pretty much saying that purpose is relative. Or, are you saying that all these other teleological theories of purpose are wrong, and the MOQ's purpose for life, "forward to greater levels of versatility and freedom", is correct? Does that mean Krimel's purpose, to reproduce life, is wrong? Is there a purpose to YOUR life, Platt? What was the purpose to the life of the children wiped out by the cyclones in Burma? If they were expendable, they didn't really have much purpose, did they? Or is our purpose to be cogs in a greater wheel? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
