[CullingTheHerd]

eventually even atoms will stop spinning. i think what the commenter was getting at, is that, immortality is impossible, and so finding meaning in a life that must eventually end, is still important.

also, your argument, red herring. the commenter didn't say, let's all be happy that old age is crap. at all. that was you. you said that. why? idk.

[fizixer]

Again you're not making much sense. 'To reconsider getting old and dying as negative' is as close to 'consider philosophies in which old age and dying is not negative' as it can get.

Please look at a description of 'red herring' [0] and kindly elaborate how it applies to my response.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[CullingTheHerd]

The first line from Wikipedia:

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."

And, this is exactly why I keep "losing my password" for my HN account, so that I have to take a break from participating. I didn't need to look to Wikipedia know what a Red Herring is. And it's a waste of my time spelling it out for others when they could figure it out themselves.

So, it works like this:

You said: "If you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be, then I respectfully disagree with you."

But the person you were replying to said:"If you consider aging and death in old age as a negative, perhaps you should reconsider your philosophy, instead of chasing immortality."

their comment.. If P, perhaps Q. P = "you consider aging and death in old age as a negative" Q = "you should reconsider your philosophy" & "[not] chasing immortality"

and your comment... "If P, then Q." P = "you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be" Q = "I respectfully disagree with you"

so, the "P"s are at issue, as both "Q"s can roughly be translated into, "no", "false"

P[1] = "you consider aging and death in old age as a negative" compared to... P[2] = "you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be"

Not the same.

The original comment simply said, it's not necessarily bad. You said, "you're" arguing it is good, or natural, or the way it's supposed to be.

Again, red herring: "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."

You're misstatement of the original comment so distorts the issue that we're now arguing about whether "death is natural and inevitable" or "death is good". That is not what the original issue was. So, to reply to your comment, is to be distracted from a relevant or important issue. One would have been misled to go down that path.

logic 101. but hey, you have more karma points than me. so, what does logic really have against that.