1. they haven't overridden fight or flight responses. go poke some animals in the eyeball and see how they respond.

2. domestication is also a man-made construct, and is not natural.

3. forming nations and towns, in itself, is not a natural phenomenon; no other organism in nature organizes itself similarly in terms of complexity or magnitude/expanse. Again, humans are the anomaly on the planet because we can defy and overcome nature completely.

oats stays killing this thread, tbh.


Most sound of mind statements read in this thread.

That's a pain response. Humans have one too.

Just because you keep saying its unnatural, doesn't make it unnatural. Fuckin hell.

pain-response is similar to fight or flight.


natural=occurs freely in nature. Point to any other part of nature that meets anything that you're saying (builds civilizations and large-scale communities, domesticates other animals, modifies other organisms genetically, etc etc etc) and you have an argument. Until then, you're stuck citing the EXCEPTION (humans) as your evidence, but that's a logical fallacy. My repetition exists solely for the purpose of your cognitive registration.

the only fallacy I see here is burden of proof

you haven't made a clear argument, only stated why ours is wrong

if you don't wanna go full discussion that's cool.

ants create cities that dwarf ours.

they even domesticate other bugs as a constant reliable food source

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1009212548.htm

look at that one ant city, gonna have to google it. but in africa or somewhere, they poured concrete into it and then excavated it. shit was insane.

but word i understand what you are saying. you are just pulling a wool over your eyes and saying "UNNATURAL" when everything is natural. a serial killer is a natural occurance. it happens in nature.

I have made a clear argument, numerous times. If anything, the whole "everything is natural" argument was a rebuttal to what I was saying about homosexuality.

My argument: Modern human society is built on a series of unnatural phenomenon, with "natural" defined as "something that occurs freely in nature," with "freely" meaning there are numerous, readily demonstrable examples.

Implications: Labeling something as immoral via being unnatural is a false assertion and cannot be made.

Im against gay marriage because the church don't want it,
if two fags wanna hook up and get medical benefits, then there should be
something passed it parliament to make them a registered recognized couple.
But they shouldn't be allowed to get married in a church, that it against what
the church stands for and they are just being fuckwits basically..
So no problem with gays having partnerships, but they will never be recognized by
the church, easy!
And I'm an atheist, I just feel the church is being slighted here.

I anticipated the ant colony objection, though the aphid part is interesting and can definitely be used as a means to say animal domestication for the purpose of farming is natural. In terms of ant colony size, relative to total population it's not nearly as impressive or massive as LA or NY. Not to mention an entire civilization, such as the United States. Add in the complexity of networks (communication, plumbing, infrastructure, social hierarchy, specialization of labor, etc), ant colonies and human countries are not in the least bit comparable.


lol@pulling a wool over my eyes. 1. never said anything about serial killers (the act of killing is a naturally occurring phenomenon) 2. baseless comments about me indicates a lack of valid things to say on your behalf.

Thx

Now, what I am saying is this- the other connotation of the word "natural", as used by people in the homosexuality debate, implies that something is "with the will of nature", or is something that occurs/ 'comes to be' regardless of choice

As in skyscrapers and genetic modifications 'came to be' in order to efficiently house urban businesses that allow our society to function. And people see homosexuality as something that didnt 'come to be' because it serves no role in society

And I'm saying it is natural, because if it is a result of formative upbringing or early child development, and influence by culture, then it is inherently a part of human nature, and therefore within the scope of being purposeful



That might be poorly argued idk. I don't debate usually

I agree with what you're saying, but:

you're arguing connotation, I'm arguing definition. connotations are subjective, I'm talking in terms of universal acceptance.

It may be a "natural" inclination for humans to build and organize how we did, but that doesn't make the actual constructs natural. As opposed to ant colonies, which are built in conjunction with natural resources, our constructions are built on top of nature in a way that prevents coexistence. Therefore, they are not part of nature; they replaced it.

it could be argued that we aren't on the level of ants. they communicate through smells and shit right? how can we even wrap our human brains around there existence and try and compare them?

the only valid thing said in this debate is that everything is natural. you dont accept that because in your human brain, humans are important. we can't just be another organism on this rock doing its thing. we do this and that, and THIS. how many countless things do animals do that we don't? we live. we adapt. shit happens. its all natural.

everything just IS.

you're talking about a different means of communication biologically because ants don't have the capacity to speak or write (just like we can't use echo-location to communicate - that's evolutionary, different animals don't need the same skills for their environments). Still yet, internet>communication via smelling in terms of sophistication and complexity.

I've said many valid things supporting that everything is NOT natural. You're projecting values that I've never mentioned (IE humans are important, can't be just another organism, etc). I've provided evidence for why humans are the exception to the rest of the planet, never made a judgement call though.

This thread bores me.

None of u soundsmarts kno shit. Faggits r gay. Thread.over.

Which constructions? Buildings, yes, but most habitats of animals are exclusive.

There are entire ecosystems within cities and especially towns, deer live in our parks and our backyards. They do excavate and remove nature, initially, but nature eventually comes back and enjoys a symbiotic relationship with humans. Even in the densest of constructions such as Mexico DF, Tokyo, and NYC, animals and nature are not removed or gotten rid of

Ants have to venture forth from their colonies to retrieve resources, just as we do. Our resources are processed time and time again, but we are tethered to the earth at a basic level through fossil fuels, food, water, etc

I think humans are part of the natural world for the reasons you said (we are biological organisms and still rely on nature), but we also overcome and extend beyond what is natural, which is exclusive to humanity as a species.

Parks and trees exist in cities, but by no means are symbiotic. They're there because we choose them to be there. Symbiotic would be us digging holes into mountainsides or the ground, not killing everything beneath us with cement to build a sturdier foundation (cement, by the way, also not a natural substance, so anything made out of it is unnatural).

in any case, I foresee this discussion going on and on, so I'm gonna bow out for now. I appreciate the civil debate, gentlemen.

Only read the first and last pages so sorry if someone already made this point, but

The "it's gross therefore it's wrong" argument is so stupid. There are numerous combinations of people whose public displays of affection might gross you out:

- fat people
- old people
- your parents
- people you know in a professional capacity
- ugly people


etc etc etc

Unless you also have a problem with these people being together or getting married, that argument against gay marriage is dumbbbbb...


Also @Dystopian you need to make the distinction between a state marriage and a church marriage. I agree churches can decide who they will or won't allow to marry, but governments can't.

cement is natural

thats like saying a wasp nest is unnatural. its some weird paperish thing that wasps make there homes out of. it doesnt occur naturally unless a wasp makes it.

same can be said for cement. it doesnt occur naturally unless a human makes it.

we do not extend beyond what is natural. that is impossible. we just have different definitions or something yo. everything is natural. its just what it is. when you think of nature you must think of the woods.

theres a reason there is a saying "its in his nature". its something he naturally does. its in bill gates nature to do nerd shit you would view as unnatural, when in reality it is as natural as it gets bro

but word this is going nowhere. im agreeing to disagree and am saddened you refuse to see the light.

Lol just look up the first definition of what "natural" means. You're talking philosophical interpretations of natural, I'm talking standard definition. There really is no debate here tbh.