Controversial General Political Discussion

[Zenos7]

the nature of the human reproductive organs is to express dimorphism in a manner that generates life. in humans, this only occurs between the opposite sex, and so same-sex sexual actions are inherently sterile, and deviate from this end very strongly, and so it is not natural.

real dick move of god to create intersex, asexual and infertile individuals.

 

[RyoQ]

are you a YEC?

no, old earth
[automerge]1759236195[/automerge]

real dick move of god to create intersex, asexual and infertile individuals.

not sure why you are bringing God into this?

anyway, God does not "create" any aberrations within nature.

Allowing defects to spring up inside creation =/= creating them, and it also doesn't entail endorsing humans acting upon said defects (like willingly acting on a homosexual or any other unnatural inclination)

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

or does your definition of natural only encompass aspects of nature that you like?

 

[Zenos7]

i meant natural as in, the essential aspects of a thing including what it's natural ends are. For example the nature of a pencil is that it's made of wood and lead, it's natural end is to write, to the degree it can do that is the degree that it's a quality pencil, a shittier pencil is one that can't do write well, etc.

damn even pen spinning is evil. . . .

 

[RyoQ]

damn even pen spinning is evil. . . .

no? lol

 

[Zenos7]

If we're going to crack down on every single thing that can be considered "unnatural"

and conversations like this always dance around the term natural, we have already seen him talk about "nature of X" bs, without substantiating what that nature is or how it is derived, because sex in humans clearly is linked alot to pleasure and not just reproduction, due to the very basic characteristics of our genitalia, so how come that part isnt also the nature of sexual relations in humans?

 

[RyoQ]

you just admitted earlier homosexuality is unnatural like incest is unnatural, but your justification for it's "marriage" being legal is that other immoral shit like circuses and gambling (which should also be banned) are legal

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

you just admitted earlier homosexuality is unnatural like incest is unnatural, but your justification for it's "marriage" being legal is that other immoral shit like circuses and gambling (which should also be banned) are legal

Unnatural doesn't inherently mean immoral in any capacity
You'd have to explain why homosexuality is immoral unlike things like pedophilia or incest

 

[RyoQ]

and conversations like this always dance around the term natural, we have already seen him talk about "nature of X" bs, without substantiating what that nature is or how it is derived, because sex in humans clearly is linked alot to pleasure and not just reproduction

"it's also linked to pleasure, not reproduction"

LOL what the fuck is that pleasure for

does the body feel sexual pleasure just for it's own sake or is that pleasure (like all pleasures) ordered towards something beyond itself?

 

[Mathias]

What's your favorite scene in films with far-right wingers in it ?

Spoiler: actual spoilers

they all die within in a minute

 

[RyoQ]

Unnatural doesn't inherently mean immoral in any capacity
You'd have to explain why homosexuality is immoral unlike things like pedophilia or incest

except unnatural = immoral

which is why incest is immoral, because it's inherently unnatural

if your reasoning for incest being immoral is because of issues sometimes associated with it, then in situations where those issues aren't present, incest can sometimes be moral which was the issue I pointed out with your earlier logic

 

[Zenos7]

There are many diseases that can end up lead to death of people specially babies and kids because the lack of meat/chicken/fish ingestion. I'm not so sure about grown up adults but I heard many take supplements that are made of animals and hide that fact from their audience, talking about influencers.

all the supplements they need have vegan options as well.

 

[Mathias]

except unnatural = immoral

Log off from the internet my amish fella

 

[RyoQ]

Log off from the internet my amish fella

natural law ethics does not entail going and becoming amish you fucking idiot, technological progress is a natural end for intelligent beings like humans

 

[Zenos7]

People don't even understand what natural means. It means common. It is natural (common) for men to marry women. It is natural (common) for white to marry white. So by your logic we should ban interracial marriage too.

damn yall pulling a right-wing logiko on us
[automerge]1759237561[/automerge]

this is something advocates of transgender say, but don't really mean. people say their gender isn't changing, but then they go and get hormonal treatment, change their name and how they dress

well, because they didnt choose the first name they had, right? so their name doesnt reflect their gender, because it was given by the parents. in that sense they legally change genders, but ideologically-wise they always were the same gender. and this is corroborated by actual science on brain functionality in transgenders

 

[RyoQ]

not going to reply to that coomer who i can see is ankle-biting me in the replies, no, "natural" does not mean what is common, it means what is what something is according to it's essence, which defines it's teleology (what it is meant to do)

 

[Zenos7]

you think only a small percent of transgenders and transgender defenders support transitioning?

also, it's not only sex changes, transgenders change their physical outward appearance (such as their clothes, their names) which doesn't make sense if we are to believe nothing changes or that gender is not something bodily

"sex change" is something people use colloquially maybe. but its actually called gender reassignment or gender affirming care. because people cant change their sex, but they can change their physical appearance for it to closer match their gender identity. because the mismatch between gender identity and their physical attributes is one of the factors in gender dysphoria.

 

[RyoQ]

well, because they didnt choose the first name they had, right? so their name doesnt reflect their gender, because it was given by the parents. in that sense they legally change genders, but ideologically-wise they always were the same gender. and this is corroborated by actual science on brain functionality in transgenders

no, that is a contradiction

why would a name reflect a gender? doesn't this imply gender has some biological or social genus?

actually, any external behavior changes associated with gender dysphoria contradict it. If transgender advocates were logically consistent, they would affirm one's gender but discourage changing names, changing their clothing, etc.
[automerge]1759237830[/automerge]

"sex change" is something people use colloquially maybe. but its actually called gender reassignment or gender affirming care. because people cant change their sex, but they can change their physical appearance for it to closer match their gender identity. because the mismatch between gender identity and their physical attributes is one of the factors in gender dysphoria.

>is called "gender affirming care"
>changes their sexual biology

transgenderism is such a fucking contradiction, why the fuck would changing your sex affirm your gender identity if sex isn't gender

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES are caused by your sex, if changing your PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES brings your gender into alignment, this means sex = gender

 

[Zenos7]

not going to reply to that coomer who i can see is ankle-biting me in the replies, no, "natural" does not mean what is common, it means what is what something is according to it's essence, which defines it's teleology (what it is meant to do)

congrats, human genitals are clearly designed to experience pleasure.

 

[BleakAsh]

because sex in humans clearly is linked alot to pleasure and not just reproduction, due to the very basic characteristics of our genitalia, so how come that part isnt also the nature of sexual relations in humans?

Why is the criteria for homosexuality being natrual premised on humping the same sex feeling good due to the innate nature of human genitalia.

Does that mean beastiality is natrual to human relations too if for instance a dog and a female both benefit from the interaction pleasure wise @Zenos7