Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [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.
I quote Lila regularly. You ignore it. As for sad, pathetic -- typical smear used in an attempt to divert attention from your kooky ideas. > 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. What theories are you talking about. As for relative, we know you're a postmodernist where even truth is relative. So why believe anything you say? > 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? Reproducing life is part of the overall evolutionary thrust. > 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? Who knows? Like I've said, chance means "We don't know." The overall movement of evolution is obviously toward greater levels of versatility and freedom. Or would you rather be a mule? ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
