That "A" and "B" are the same thing. And that the true nature of an event or a thing is not affected by the language we assign to it. If you want a rejoinder to the above article, by the way, that was it, in one sentence.
Is there an intelligent design to it all or mindlessness?
I don't know. If there is a design, though, I believe that it is likely much more subtle than anyone has yet suggested, and that God is not nearly so hamfisted as most design theorists make him out to be.
Your words become less than characters.
It's true they're the same event. However, from a moral, metaphysical point of view they're quite different.
Case "A" applies equally well to a snowflake landing on a radiator, or a fly hitting a windshield, as it does to the interaction between humans. There's no intrinsic moral content to it.
Case "B," on the other hand, has undoubted moral implications, by virtue of the fact that it deals with humans, as opposed to inanimate objects.
Dernavich's question is: Why does Case "B" have moral implications, whereas Case "A" does not?