I suspect I could easily argue against your assertions, but only if I was to take some liberties with how Ms Keys defined her terms (e.g. "anyone" and "heart").

Without that support I will only say that if I throw a coin out the window onto the ground it is not equally possible that it landed facing up with "heads" or "tails". Just because we don't know which side landed up does not make either position possible. The coin did land. It is either "heads" or it is "tails". The possibility of either outcome only existed before it was thrown. After it was thrown and landed, only one existence is possible.

Vick's coin was thrown many years ago, and because you can't see which side landed up does not make all ethical conditions possible. He did not grow up around dogfighting. His father says that Vick knew it was wrong.


I think you're going to have to do a better job of defending the notion that something isn't "natural" because you can find somebody somewhere that doesn't share the same trait. Are you claiming that nothing can be natural unless no person can be found that does not have this condition? You don't believe in any natural conditions of humanity? Does that also mean that no act is unnatural, unethical, or immoral only illegal or legal?