But my comments weren’t „off-topic“. As I’ve said, they are only tangentially related. Religion plays no small part here, given that the girl is kept alive because of her parents’ religious belief, and because NJ laws state that braindead patients can’t be taken off ventilators if families have…

“Have respect for other people’s points of view. While I think it’s arrogant and non-sensical for human beings not to believe in something greater than themselves, [..]”

Like most of the time, the discussion gyrates around the meaning of words: intent, purpose, function, weapon etc. Most of your points are certainly valid. The contention is in the definition of purpose. A lot of points you make I solely disagree with because I use “purpose” in a different way than you do.

“The intent doesn’t really matter.”

“That’s as much a perversion of the intended use of the inanimate object as your example where someone “accidentally” fires a gun (which seems odd to say right before implying that consequence was intended).”

But every state requires you to own a license to operate one. Which is what I wrote:

“If a gun goes off accidentally, it didn’t do what it was supposed to do.” Yes, it did. It fired a projectile down a metal tube. It just didn’t do what the user intended at the time and in the circumstances.

“If a gun goes off accidentally, it didn’t do what it was supposed to do.” Yes, it did. It fired a projectile down a metal tube. It just didn’t do what the user intended at the time and in the circumstances.

“Closing your eyes and saying “Just don’t have a gun!” [...]

“Guns are also used for sport and competition.”

Except that cars are not made to kill. If a gun goes off even accidentally, it does what it’s supposed to do, it just doesn’t do it as you intended. A car is not intended to be a tool for destruction. Your comparison would work only if cars were created solely to harm others, which is the sole purpose of guns.

To paraphrase David Attenborough (from “Life In Cold Blood”): “Animals do a lot of interesting things, but most of the time they pretty much don’t do anything at all”.

“Spending all your money on stuff you don’t need or want,[...]”

Unfortunately, they have never stopped and tried to figure out why they were called racist and sexist in the first place. And if Trump is their choice candidate to get back at all ‘em liberals for real and perceived injustices, then all the condescension may have not been so baseless after all.

Except that „memetics“ is utter and complete bull and just shows how even supposedly smart and scientific-minded people fall prey to unscientific nonsense. It’s bad enough that people like Dan Dennett peddle this crap, but she’s got to be the worst of the meme-bunch. There’s enough criticism of the concept (I’m not…

Isn’t it also possible that you never really enjoyed what you were doing? From your article, it seems that your goal always was financial success, starting a business seemed to be a means, never an end. It seems to me that very often, success is a “byproduct”. People who love what they are doing in and of itself don’t…

"Quitters never win, winners never quit. But those who never win AND never quit are idiots."

Oh, another atheist-bashing article. I've never heard an atheist claim to know it all. Atheists full well know that human understanding has its limits, that there are things out there that are currently, maybe forever, beyond human capacities. But that's exactly the point: There are "things" out there. They are there.…