Re: Veganism is hipocritical and as absurd as religion
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:22 am
You're confusing me with somebody else. I didn't say anything about oil. Before this post, I only made one post in this thread.LogicIsNotRelative wrote: And brimstone.. you're the uneducated one.. you where arguing that oil is not an animal product you numnut, and your arguments are idiotic and like to twist them, great way to make your point across to people.
The only topic I addressed was your usage of the word "natural"; something you refused to respond to.
As such, if you don't respond to the topic of your usage of the word natural, and instead make any other post, I will support your ban as a troll. Your non-response will indicate an unwillingness or inability to have actual conversation.
Like Jebus, I think it'd be a shame to ban you, but if you won't or can't engage in rational discussion, there's nothing else to be done.
Again, LogicIsNotRelative, the topic here is currently "natural". The issues will be addressed one by one because you have repeatedly ignored criticisms people have brought up and straw manned.
LogicIsNotRelative, DO NOT respond to or attempt to bring up any other points unrelated to that subject: "natural" as I explained in my one and only prior post in their thread.
Again, the current subject is your usage of the word "natural":
brimstonSalad wrote:1. "Natural"
Everything is natural (unless you believe something is supernatural). Meat is natural, rape is natural, airplanes are natural, stars are natural, beaver dams are natural. None of these things are supernatural.
Or, alternatively, the line between what is "natural" and "artificial" is arbitrary. Why are beaver dams unnatural, but the products of human action not?
If something exists, it is part of the naturalistic not-supernatural world. Unless, again, you believe in supernatural beings, ghosts, gods, and all of that.
LogicIsNotRelative, do you believe in such beings? We do not.
If you want to draw an arbitrary semantic line between what man exclusively does as magically "unnatural", and what some wild animals also do as "natural" you are free to do that, but such a line is scientifically and philosophically useless, as such, it has no place in this discussion.
You could sometimes also use 'natural' to refer to the difference between innate and learned qualities. e.g. "natural talent". This usage is very scientifically poor, though, because there is not a clear line between innate and learned behaviors. Liberal usage in this way would be an indication of ignorance of behaviorology and psychology.
If this is something you would like to discuss more, we can discuss this.
If you want to call those things that are conducive to evolutionary success "natural" and those things that are not "unnatural", you are misusing the term "natural". Evolutionary failure is perfectly natural by any acceptable use of the term. Use a dictionary. You are not free to use the word in this way, and if you do you will be considered trolling. If this is the case, say what you mean. If you want to say that, say "conducive to evolutionary success", not "natural".
LogicIsNotRelative, I need you to confirm that you agree to not use the word "natural" as if it has any relevant meaning in this conversation before we move on to the next issue.
If you think it's relevant, then explain why, and we will discuss that.
Be more specific. If you want to talk about evolutionary success, say that. If you want to talk about what you are probably trying to say are uncontrollable impulses to do a thing (which is making a very tall scientific claim), then say it clearly. If that's what you want to talk about, leave this whole "natural" thing out of it.