Kanakori Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Yes, at birth, then you grow up and become something else. Equality isn't about treating everyone the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Could you be more vague? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 It's not natural. End of. Now, It doesn't mean it can't be acepted, it aldready is. However it remains a deviation, and for me it's wrong to involve a third person in that process we know so little about. Kankakori, what do you mean by 'natural'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 This is what he means: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 No. That's a deviation. You're dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptowen Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Think of it this way Kanakori The majority of people who make weird electronic music are male Two males in a relationship would be the most likely scenario in which both are weird electronic musicians A child raised by these two would be exposed to weird electronic music from an early age & no doubt go on to be Techno Jesus Ergo having two dads is IDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 http://dictionary.re.../browse/natural Those are 36 definitions. You can't mean all of them. Tell me the specific one you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schlucharski Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Think of it this way Kanakori The majority of people who make weird electronic music are male Two males in a relationship would be the most likely scenario in which both are weird electronic musicians A child raised by these two would be exposed to weird electronic music from an early age & no doubt go on to be Techno Jesus Ergo having two dads is IDM that kid would end up being the next axl rose, brah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 lol @ not natural being an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinski Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 this reminds me of that time my dad's brother was visitng. being the orthodox catholic he is, he said 'why would we allow gays to have kids? they will fuck eachother in front of them!'. i was like WTF and asked him if he's fucking in front of his kids that he's so concerned with other people doing the same. then he called transvestite a monkey and i gave up. this is kinda like a thread version of that event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 @video We're not animals. You're assuming they're doing that for pleasure, wich hasn't been proven by science in the case of dogs or lions. Any man can have pleasure being penetrated in the ass, it's where our G spot is at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinski Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 lol @ not natural being an argument. It hasn't even become an argument yet, only will once Kankakori picks a meaning for 'natural.' Until then, the claim has no meaning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 lol @ not natural being an argument. It hasn't even become an argument yet, only will once Kankakori picks a meaning for 'natural.' Until then, the claim has no meaning! nat·u·ral [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Show IPA adjective 1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): anatural bridge. 2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted bynature: Growth is a natural process. 3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty. 4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of naturalscience: conducting natural experiments. 5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 @video We're not animals. You're assuming they're doing that for pleasure, wich hasn't been proven by science in the case of dogs or lions. Any man can have pleasure being penetrated in the ass, it's where our G spot is at. you're not making any sense, dude. seems to be you're mixing up all your statements/arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Something about trolls and not feeding etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Well this is a very complicated subject and I'm alone here so I'll end my participation in this thread for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinski Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (nach-ruhl is a legitimate pronunciation?!) So, definition 2: 'Growth is a natural process.' Growth is a biological process. So you might mean: (1) 'Natural' = what biology describes. (2) Biology describes the processes that promote the survival and propagation of species. (3) Gaysex doesn't promote the survival and propagation of species. (4) Therefore, gaysex is unnatural. That's a valid argument. But from that, you want to draw the further conclusion, (5) Therefore, gaysex is morally wrong and should not be legal. (And you can substitue 'gay marriage' or 'gay partners adopting kids' for 'gaysex,' if that's what you're most concerned about; it's all the same, logically speaking). But to move from (4) to (5) you need an additional claim: (4.5) Whatever is not natural (whatever doesn't promote the survival and propagation of species) is ethically wrong. This is where the argument becomes invalid. Nature, I hope you will agree, doesn't have an 'ethical code' built into it. Remember, 'nature' in this argument is a biological concept. Biology countenances what does and does not promote survival, but this has no evaluative content; as far as biology is concerned, survival is not ethically good or bad; it just happens or it doesn't, and things change. In order to support (4.5), you'd have to argue that something created the biological world with the intention (or 'divine command,' you could say) that it proceed in a certain way, on pain of some kind of moral punishment. But that would be to operate with a different sense of 'natural' than the one in definition #2. ----------- Definition 3 can't be used in your argument without making it circular ('nature' = 'what pertains to nature') ------------ Definition 4 is like definition 2, except that it could mean 'physical' and not (or not just) 'biological.' But this argument encounters the same problem about there being no intention that things happen in a certain way in the physical universe. Things just collide and bounce around. The stone isn't doing anything 'ethically right' by following the law of gravity. ------------ Definition 5: 'Natural' = 'uncultivated' (by human beings, I take it). That would make the argument nonsensical: Gaysex is 'unnatural' because it is 'cultivated by human beings.' What could that mean? Maybe that we invented it. But if something's being 'unnatural' in this sense makes it ethically wrong, then anything human beings invented is ethically wrong. And that is extremely implausible. Lightbulbs? ------------- In sum: My hair is a bird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Do you think that Romulus and Remus were raised by gay or straight wolves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Well this is a very complicated subject and I'm alone here so I'll end my participation in this thread for now. Seems your argument was pretty simple, "it's not natural" ... yet without any further clarification on this, it's hardly an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (nach-ruhl is a legitimate pronunciation?!) So, definition 2: 'Growth is a natural process.' Growth is a biological process. So you might mean: (1) 'Natural' = what biology describes. (2) Biology describes the processes that promote the survival and propagation of species. (3) Gaysex doesn't promote the survival and propagation of species. (4) Therefore, gaysex is unnatural. That's a valid argument. But from that, you want to draw the further conclusion, (5) Therefore, gaysex is morally wrong and should not be legal. (And you can substitue 'gay marriage' or 'gay partners adopting kids' for 'gaysex,' if that's what you're most concerned about; it's all the same, logically speaking). But to move from (4) to (5) you need an additional claim: (4.5) Whatever is not natural (whatever doesn't promote the survival and propagation of species) is ethically wrong. This is where the argument becomes invalid. Nature, I hope you will agree, doesn't have an 'ethical code' built into it. Remember, 'nature' in this argument is a biological concept. Biology countenances what does and does not promote survival, but this has no evaluative content; as far as biology is concerned, survival is not ethically good or bad; it just happens or it doesn't, and things change. In order to support (4.5), you'd have to argue that something created the biological world with the intention (or 'divine command,' you could say) that it proceed in a certain way, on pain of some kind of moral punishment. But that would be to operate with a different sense of 'natural' than the one in definition #2. ----------- Definition 3 can't be used in your argument without making it circular ('nature' = 'what pertains to nature') ------------ Definition 4 is like definition 2, except that it could mean 'physical' and not (or not just) 'biological.' But this argument encounters the same problem about there being no intention that things happen in a certain way in the physical universe. Things just collide and bounce around. The stone isn't doing anything 'ethically right' by following the law of gravity. ------------ Definition 5: 'Natural' = 'uncultivated' (by human beings, I take it). That would make the argument nonsensical: Gaysex is 'unnatural' because it is 'cultivated by human beings.' What could that mean? Maybe that we invented it. But if something's being 'unnatural' in this sense makes it ethically wrong, then anything human beings invented is ethically wrong. And that is extremely implausible. Lightbulbs? ------------- In sum: My hair is a bird. so horny right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.