Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
shaka5

Ny votes against......

293 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

TRUEYOUTRUEME

Dear chap, you're the one who brought "science" and "nature" into the debate.

And the reason we don't eat our young is simple, the human body isn't designed to gain sustenance from human flesh.

You were the one who was trying to claim that the science is settled because you found some animals showing homosexuality tendecies. :lol: You said it helped relieve tension! :D

I simply said that the science was NOT settled but I guess if it works for you then more power to ya!

I still think that your post was funny though! Strange but funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Dear chap, you're the one who brought "science" and "nature" into the debate.

And the reason we don't eat our young is simple, the human body isn't designed to gain sustenance from human flesh.

the cannibals from the past would disagree about gaining sustenance from human flesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

the cannibals from the past would disagree about gaining sustenance from human flesh.

An unhealthy lot on the whole if I remember correctly. It'd be logical that the human body contains everything the human body needs to survive, but that's not the case (again if I remember my high school science correctly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

An unhealthy lot on the whole if I remember correctly. It'd be logical that the human body contains everything the human body needs to survive, but that's not the case (again if I remember my high school science correctly).

Well maybe if they taught you not to eat your own species they should of also taught you not to have sex with your own gender as well?

Seems like common sense to me. But for you maybe just a thought.... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

If you think that the sole purpose of sex is procreation then shagging a bloke if you're a bloke serves no purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

If you think that the sole purpose of sex is procreation then shagging a bloke if you're a bloke serves no purpose.

You are funny. Keep telling yourself that. I know you are trying to free your mind. Dont hold back.

I guess if the sole purpose of eating is gaining sustenance then munching on the corpse of some bloke serves no purpose either for you.

Unless your real purpose is to ignore all forms of what is moral and natural and to just do what makes you feel good becuase you saw some other animals do it and it must be alright.

Hilarious!

Edited by TRUEYOUTRUEME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

An unhealthy lot on the whole if I remember correctly. It'd be logical that the human body contains everything the human body needs to survive, but that's not the case (again if I remember my high school science correctly).

You should really go back and check on what your high school science really taught you. I highly doubt that they said that if animals do it then it is also natural for humans too. Nor do I think that they taught that whatever feels good is natural and to disregard what parts of the body are meant for biologically if it feels better to you to use body parts otherwise.

Edited by TRUEYOUTRUEME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler

What do the words "natural" and "unnatural" mean here? If human society is to be considered removed from nature then whether something we do is "natural" seems like a moot point that has no bearing on how society governs itself. If, on the other hand, we still consider human beings to be products of the earth and thus somehow "natural" then isn't a simple tautology that everything we do is "natural?"

Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

What do the words "natural" and "unnatural" mean here? If human society is to be considered removed from nature then whether something we do is "natural" seems like a moot point that has no bearing on how society governs itself. If, on the other hand, we still consider human beings to be products of the earth and thus somehow "natural" then isn't a simple tautology that everything we do is "natural?"

The words 'natural' or 'unnatural' mean whatever the majority decide through their representation in this regard. No one said that human society was removed from nature. We just do not simply look at animals as a means of deciding what behavior is good for us. I guess that was to hard for you to figure out? lol.

If you think that everything is natural then I guess the word 'corruption' has absolutely no meaning at all for you in regards to nature? Somethings in nature are a corruption. Homosexuality is one of those things.

Besides aren't you one of those people who are constantly claiming that mankind is corrupting nature (the earth) and that we need to regulate everything mankind does to stop them from corrupting the natural climate? It is pretty hypocritical if you claim that is a type of corrupion against nature but then deny that corruption could exist in this realm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
The words 'natural' or 'unnatural' mean whatever the majority decide through their representation in this regard. No one said that human society was removed from nature. We just do not simply look at animals as a means of deciding what behavior is good for us.

So "natural" is an entirely artificial (dare I say "unnatural") construct here? This is a bit of useless language then, don't you think?

But then ultimately what you're saying is circular. What's "natural" is what the majority enshrines in law as being natural. But homosexuality shouldn't enjoy legal protection because it's "unnatural." By that logic, no new laws or legal protections should ever be created.

Somethings in nature are a corruption.

Corruption of what? This is liking saying some things in the physical world are unphysical. I'm reminded of Kiri-kin-tha's first law of metaphysics: nothing unreal exists.

In the end, this all amounts to terminology that, unfortunately, is losing whatever meaning it's supposed to be conveying.

Besides aren't you one of those people who are constantly claiming that mankind is corrupting nature (the earth) and that we need to regulate everything mankind does to stop them from corrupting the natural climate? It is pretty hypocritical if you claim that is a type of corrupion against nature but then deny that corruption could exist in this realm.

Corruption as some concept that has to do with nature is your innovation, not mine. I don't believe climate change--caused by man or not--is unnatural (I think you could argue that either way because, frankly, that's a pretty meaningless term in these sorts of contexts). I believe it's undesirable, as human society arose during a period of climate stability and the changes--and the expenses associated with them--that can result from a changing climate are something best avoided, if possible. This isn't a Captain Planet episode and I couldn't really care less about what's "natural" in this instance of how the Earth "should" be in some idealized reality. I care about the negative effects climate change can have and the (admittedly selfish) undesirably of it all from the point of view of human civilization.

Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

So "natural" is an entirely artificial (dare I say "unnatural") construct here? This is a bit of useless language then, don't you think?

But then ultimately what you're saying is circular. What's "natural" is what the majority enshrines in law as being natural. But homosexuality shouldn't enjoy legal protection because it's "unnatural." By that logic, no new laws or legal protections should ever be created.

Corruption of what? This is liking saying some things in the physical world are unphysical. I'm reminded of Kiri-kin-tha's first law of metaphysics: nothing unreal exists.

In the end, this all amounts to terminology that, unfortunately, is losing whatever meaning it's supposed to be conveying.

Corruption as some concept that has to do with nature is your innovation, not mine. I don't believe climate change--caused by man or not--is unnatural (I think you could argue that either way because, frankly, that's a pretty meaningless term in these sorts of contexts). I believe it's undesirable, as human society arose during a period of climate stability and the changes--and the expenses associated with them--that can result from a changing climate are something best avoided, if possible. This isn't a Captain Planet episode and I couldn't really care less about what's "natural" in this instance of how the Earth "should" be in some idealized reality. I care about the negative effects climate change can have and the (admittedly selfish) undesirably of it all from the point of view of human civilization.

I like how you slide into using the word 'undesirable' as a replacement for using the word 'corruption' simply in order to disagree with me on this. You really are a trip.

So you can regulate human behavior in your view if it is 'undesireable' behavior but not if it is 'corruptive' behavior because everything mankind does is 'natural' in your worldview but mankind should be regulated because of some 'undesirable' bahavior that is changing the earth's climate.

You really are a massive hypocritical trip. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

You are funny. Keep telling yourself that. I know you are trying to free your mind. Dont hold back.

I guess if the sole purpose of eating is gaining sustenance then munching on the corpse of some bloke serves no purpose either for you.

Unless your real purpose is to ignore all forms of what is moral and natural and to just do what makes you feel good becuase you saw some other animals do it and it must be alright.

Hilarious!

I'm a hetero, so the "you're unnatural" subtext slander there is missing the mark, but then I'm not so afraid of sexuality that I want to deny rights to other people.

Your argument, BTW, cuts no mustard. Either we look to nature, and in which case given there are cases of homosexuality therefore it's natural, or we look to the Bible and in which case - do you eat mussels? Wear mixed fibers? Work on the Sabbath? then you're going to be stoned along with all the queers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
I like how you slide into using the word 'undesirable' as a replacement for using the word 'corruption' simply in order to disagree with me on this. You really are a trip.

I thought I indicated what that means pretty clearly but if you wanted further clarification you merely had to ask. By "undesirable" I mean "expensive, potentially dangerous, and unpredictable." I assume you're using "corruption" to mean something akin to "morally objectionable" (correct me if I'm wrong), which is not at all what I'm talking about. The tangible results of climate change are undesirable because the effects on global agriculture could be severe, alterations in local water supplies could trigger a great deal of violence, warming temperatures will increase the ranges of numerous diseases, higher water surface temperatures can impact the severity (and costs associated with) certain weather events, and so on. I don't mean to suggest that climate change is objectionable on the grounds that it isn't man's place to alter the climate, or this isn't how the Earth should "naturally" be, or anything as nebulous as that.

See, I'm telling you specifically what undesirable means in the context of climate change. Have you laid out why homosexuality is "unnatural"?

So you can regulate human behavior in your view if it is 'undesireable' behavior but not if it is 'corruptive' behavior because everything mankind does is 'natural' in your worldview but mankind should be regulated because of some 'undesirable' bahavior that is changing the earth's climate.

Undesirable behavior certainly could and should be regulated. We don't allow murder, for example, because legalized murder would have numerous deleterious effects on society.

Make the case that gay marriage is undesirable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

I'm a hetero, so the "you're unnatural" subtext slander there is missing the mark, but then I'm not so afraid of sexuality that I want to deny rights to other people.

Your argument, BTW, cuts no mustard. Either we look to nature, and in which case given there are cases of homosexuality therefore it's natural, or we look to the Bible and in which case - do you eat mussels? Wear mixed fibers? Work on the Sabbath? then you're going to be stoned along with all the queers.

I wasn't trying to imply anything about your sexuality at all. Sorry you thought that even.

I just find your way of equating human morality to animal morality to be funny. It seems as if you want to be something that you are not. I just wanted to you let go and be free.

Free

Free as the Wind Blows

You know the song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Homosexuals should not be able to, nor expect a religious marriage should the religion forbid it.

However, there should not be a state recognized law restricting homosexuals from the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

I thought I indicated what that means pretty clearly but if you wanted further clarification you merely had to ask. By "undesirable" I mean "expensive, potentially dangerous, and unpredictable." I assume you're using "corruption" to mean something akin to "morally objectionable" (correct me if I'm wrong), which is not at all what I'm talking about. The tangible results of climate change are undesirable because the effects on global agriculture could be severe, alterations in local water supplies could trigger a great deal of violence, warming temperatures will increase the ranges of numerous diseases, higher water surface temperatures can impact the severity (and costs associated with) certain weather events, and so on. I don't mean to suggest that climate change is objectionable on the grounds that it isn't man's place to alter the climate, or this isn't how the Earth should "naturally" be, or anything as nebulous as that.

See, I'm telling you specifically what undesirable means in the context of climate change. Have you laid out why homosexuality is "unnatural"?

Undesirable behavior certainly could and should be regulated. We don't allow murder, for example, because legalized murder would have numerous deleterious effects on society.

Make the case that gay marriage is undesirable.

I flat out disagree with you. Every human decision has a distinct moral quality to it. Especially if someone is determining something as 'desirable' or 'undesirable'. So your claim that you are not talking about what is 'morally objectional' to you is a crock. You 100% are talking about what you find 'morally objectional' when you use the term 'undesirable'.

That is why I used the term 'hypocritical' when describing your previous statements. You want to label the term 'corrupt' as being unacceptable but then claim that your use of the term 'undesirable' is not. You are ridiculous. Pathetic.

Edited by TRUEYOUTRUEME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler

I don't understand how one can view disease or a hurricane as "morally objectionable." Or "unnatural" or as some sort of "corruption," for that matter. If you want to define morality as being simple rationality (e.g. I'd rather not get sick thus supporting actions to fight disease is the moral choice), be my guest. But then, again, we have an superfluous concept here. What I want (read: "desirability") is determined rationally.

I'm not convinced that your usage of "natural" and "corruption" has an equally rational basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

Homosexuals should not be able to, nor expect a religious marriage should the religion forbid it.

However, there should not be a state recognized law restricting homosexuals from the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

No one is making law telling homosexuals that they cant tell each other how much they like each other, or live together, or any of that.

It is the left-wing who is trying to force everyone to respect their actions wihout giving everyone the right to representation on the issue.

EVERYONE should have equal representation on what is recoginized by the state.

It is the left-wing who is trying to restrict people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

True.. confuses me really. So... letting gays have the right to marry is surpressing someone else's freedoms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

No one is making law telling homosexuals that they cant tell each other how much they like each other, or live together, or any of that.

It is the left-wing who is trying to force everyone to respect their actions wihout giving everyone the right to representation on the issue.

EVERYONE should have equal representation on what is recoginized by the state.

It is the left-wing who is trying to restrict people.

The left wing isn't trying to restrict people. They're trying to GET equal representation for everyone. It's the cons who keep voteing no against same sex marrage and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

I don't understand how one can view disease or a hurricane as "morally objectionable." Or "unnatural" or as some sort of "corruption," for that matter. If you want to define morality as being simple rationality (e.g. I'd rather not get sick thus supporting actions to fight disease is the moral choice), be my guest. But then, again, we have an superfluous concept here. What I want (read: "desirability") is determined rationally.

I'm not convinced that your usage of "natural" and "corruption" has an equally rational basis.

So you would push someone into a hurricane suggesting that a hurricane has no basis in human morality?

Or inject someone with a disease claiming that no one could view a disease as being "morally objectional"???

I find your arguments to defy reason. You seem to only understand words if they suit you.

For you:

"Undesireable" = ok to regulate

But also for You:

"Corruption" = falsehood because everything is natural

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

No one is making law telling homosexuals that they cant tell each other how much they like each other, or live together, or any of that.

It is the left-wing who is trying to force everyone to respect their actions wihout giving everyone the right to representation on the issue.

EVERYONE should have equal representation on what is recoginized by the state.

It is the left-wing who is trying to restrict people.

Now I'm not sure I understand.

Homosexual couples are restricted from having the same rights intrinsic to heterosexual couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

Now I'm not sure I understand.

Homosexual couples are restricted from having the same rights intrinsic to heterosexual couple.

No. Everyone has the same right to representation on issues of behavior in society and follows exactly the same laws.

You think that they (left-wing) can just demand that their behavior has to be protected and to block everyone who disagrees from having any representation on this issue?

All people have the same rights. But... All behavior does not.

Get it now?

Edited by TRUEYOUTRUEME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

Ok so he's claiming the left wing is trying to push people into accepting homosexuality and equal rights for them as means of "restricting" the civil liberties of other people (who?)

While that's not true.. how is that then (going with this line of thinking) any different from the right wing pushing their christian and homophobic views on "other people"? The right wing after all, is constently prohibiting people's civil liberties... so I have no idea why he's going off on the left wing for trying to get equal rep. for homosexuals..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

Ok so he's claiming the left wing is trying to push people into accepting homosexuality and equal rights for them as means of "restricting" the civil liberties of other people (who?)

While that's not true.. how is that then (going with this line of thinking) any different from the right wing pushing their christian and homophobic views on "other people"? The right wing after all, is constently prohibiting people's civil liberties... so I have no idea why he's going off on the left wing for trying to get equal rep. for homosexuals..

I am really getting ready to head off-line but I'll bite. Do you have any specific examples where the right-wing is or has claimed that ALL people shoud not have EQUAL representation on an issue?

Dont just give me an example of them expressing their viewpoint on an issue. Give me an example of where they are actively trying to say that EVERYONE should not be allowed to have representation on an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.