Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. That's assuming that we are somehow outside of nature. > We don't have to invent ex post facto explanations for why something is the case in nature or why there is some un-intuitive reason as for why the natural way is better. We don't have to , no , but we do , because that's how we learn. Nobody was claiming the "natural" way was better, just that it migh…
> That's assuming that we are somehow outside of nature No it isn’t. You know what they meant, you are just one-upping them on a technicality in a way that doesn’t advance the discussion at all.
Yes, it is.
> You know what they meant.
I have clearly stated what i think they meant.
They specifically said "disadvantages compared to us." that heavily implies ( if not outright declares ) an us vs them.
It seems you have a different interpretation, I'd be interested to hear what that is if you don't mind ?
> you are just one-upping them on a technicality in a way that doesn’t advance the discussion at all.
If you don't see how what i said was related to the discussion then we probably aren't going to agree on what constitutes a technicality.