The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol. It was more rhetorical shorthand, and yeah, a bit tongue-in-cheek(I’m atheist).
The actual point I care about isn’t at all theological, it’s about where we draw the line between restoring function and altering a healthy body for social or aesthetic reasons.
The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol.
That’s a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.
And you’ve managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didn’t actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.
So i’ll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That’s insane, IMO. That’s jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
I wasn’t comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because that’s a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.
I was using it as an example as to why “god’s design” is a poor argument.
As it seems “god’s design” wasn’t an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.
I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in it’s many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).
I’m not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someone’s will, I’m saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.
In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.
As you’ve stated you’re not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.
Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.
It just wasn’t meant literally. Again, it’s rhetorical. That’s still an argument…
It’s not a great argument if taken literally but that’s also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isn’t relevant(I’m not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.
I’m essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.
Replace god with nature, basically.
If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess you’ll have your reward? But it’ll also be your undoing.
It just wasn’t meant literally. Again, it’s rhetorical. That’s still an argument…
Not a good one, but sure, technically.
It’s not a great argument if taken literally but that’s also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isn’t relevant(I’m not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.
It does not, ambiguity over an already unclear position does not make for a strong argument.
It took us 3 back and forths for you to actually explain what you meant.
You used a small phrase with no supporting context to imply it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.
I’m essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.
That’s also a poor argument in it’s ambiguity , “embrace their nature” is almost as hand-wavy as “gods design”, though it falls down for a different reason.
Replace god with nature, basically.
You’d have to work hard to pick a more subjective benchmark than “nature”, there are tribes and cultures who think/thought foot binding was natural, human sacrifice, tribal marking, scarification, FGM, MGM (circumcision), head binding and basically any other cultural practice you’d care to mention.
If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess you’ll have your reward? But it’ll also be your undoing.
That makes even less sense than “natural”.
It also addresses none of the points raised.
Honestly i think this is on me at this point, you did say right at the beginning you worked from a “gut feeling” it’s my bad for trying to get you to formalise that.
You have your boundaries, they seem arbitrary and nonsensical to me, but they don’t have to make sense to me because I’m not using them.
Maybe read up on Spinoza and Taoism, like the Tao Te Ching. I’m a pantheist. So god=nature=universe, and we’re part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!
By nature I don’t just mean me. I mean seeing the whole world as an interconnected and interdependent organism. All is one and one is all.
I can further explain, I suppose. I don’t really care for excessive vanity. People and their main character syndromes. They become so obsessed, as you say, with fitting in. Being a member to some sort of click or grasping onto things (ideologies) for the sake of identity… Which is almost always paired with some kind of intense disdain for some particular out group(like jocks v. Nerds, whites v. Immigrants, Catholic v. Protestant v. Atheist, left v right, etc). People that just constantly regurgitate sayings from pop culture (or even the Bible) are often insufferable.
Hive mind mentalities. People that aren’t really finding themselves, nor their people. They’re just conforming to something comfortable, I suppose. Anything preferable to loneliness?
Great examples: maralago face, most religious people, clicks, Reddit, tbf most social media, etc.
Uh. None of those rituals are natural. That shit is as natural as a clown or circus. That’s mostly just animal(human) abuse… Like a Barnum & Bailey circus!
Pave Paradise is reference to a song… Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. It’s similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.
I do get it, you have your opinions, i understand what you mean by them , I’m just saying they’re inconsistent, arbitrary and unnecessarily rigid to me.
for example:
So god=nature=universe, and we’re part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!
and
Uh. None of those rituals are natural.
Are contradictory.
If we are part of nature, anything we do is natural, as reprehensible as it can be, it’s still a part of nature because we are a part of nature.
To be clear I’m not stating a position on the objective morality/ethics of those rituals (i do have opinions, they just aren’t part of my argument) , i was using them as an example of why the term “nature” is ambiguous and useless as a baseline because of it’s subjective interpretation.
Yes, cliques and cults(religions) and subjectively malicious groups exist, but it’s a false dichotomy to suggest it’s either complete self sufficiency or cult membership, nuance exists.
If you don’t think it’s possible to have a tattoo or piercing because of a personal decision, that’s your call, to me that sounds like a small distance from fundamentalism but as long as you aren’t forcing it on others , you do you.
Pave Paradise is reference to a song… Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. It’s similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.
I understand the reference, i was saying that whole sentence didn’t make any sense as an argument in this context.
You also still haven’t addressed the harm reduction conversation.
based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.
It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance. Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue. And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.
Sounds like a merry go round.
Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.
Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.
oh damn, we can sigh? i didn’t realise that was on the table, i’ve been missing a trick this whole time.
ok, here i go.
based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.
I’m glad you agree, none of those definitions imply an objective “natural” exists, so having them quoted helps, thanks.
It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance.
definition of what ? citation ?
Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue.
Yes and i stated my reasons why.
And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.
I do, again, my reasons are stated.
but seeing as were are doing definitions now:
3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.
sigh (this is fun) , so let me get this straight, you considered replying with a straight up lie ?
For any particular reason…or ?
I’ll quote myself :
Also i didn’t mean religious fundamentalism, though it is on me that i didn’t specify.
Thanks though, the definitions thing is super useful:
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.
I will have a read, does it outright reject the idea that psychological harm exists?
I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.
Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?
Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?
The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol. It was more rhetorical shorthand, and yeah, a bit tongue-in-cheek(I’m atheist). The actual point I care about isn’t at all theological, it’s about where we draw the line between restoring function and altering a healthy body for social or aesthetic reasons.
That’s my boundary.
That’s a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.
And you’ve managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didn’t actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.
So i’ll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.
I wasn’t comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because that’s a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.
I was using it as an example as to why “god’s design” is a poor argument.
As it seems “god’s design” wasn’t an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.
I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in it’s many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).
I’m not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someone’s will, I’m saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.
In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.
As you’ve stated you’re not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.
Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.
It just wasn’t meant literally. Again, it’s rhetorical. That’s still an argument…
It’s not a great argument if taken literally but that’s also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isn’t relevant(I’m not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.
I’m essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.
Replace god with nature, basically.
If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess you’ll have your reward? But it’ll also be your undoing.
Not a good one, but sure, technically.
It does not, ambiguity over an already unclear position does not make for a strong argument.
It took us 3 back and forths for you to actually explain what you meant.
You used a small phrase with no supporting context to imply it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.
That’s also a poor argument in it’s ambiguity , “embrace their nature” is almost as hand-wavy as “gods design”, though it falls down for a different reason.
You’d have to work hard to pick a more subjective benchmark than “nature”, there are tribes and cultures who think/thought foot binding was natural, human sacrifice, tribal marking, scarification, FGM, MGM (circumcision), head binding and basically any other cultural practice you’d care to mention.
That makes even less sense than “natural”.
It also addresses none of the points raised.
Honestly i think this is on me at this point, you did say right at the beginning you worked from a “gut feeling” it’s my bad for trying to get you to formalise that.
You have your boundaries, they seem arbitrary and nonsensical to me, but they don’t have to make sense to me because I’m not using them.
Thanks for the back and forth anyway.
Maybe read up on Spinoza and Taoism, like the Tao Te Ching. I’m a pantheist. So god=nature=universe, and we’re part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!
By nature I don’t just mean me. I mean seeing the whole world as an interconnected and interdependent organism. All is one and one is all.
I can further explain, I suppose. I don’t really care for excessive vanity. People and their main character syndromes. They become so obsessed, as you say, with fitting in. Being a member to some sort of click or grasping onto things (ideologies) for the sake of identity… Which is almost always paired with some kind of intense disdain for some particular out group(like jocks v. Nerds, whites v. Immigrants, Catholic v. Protestant v. Atheist, left v right, etc). People that just constantly regurgitate sayings from pop culture (or even the Bible) are often insufferable.
Hive mind mentalities. People that aren’t really finding themselves, nor their people. They’re just conforming to something comfortable, I suppose. Anything preferable to loneliness?
Great examples: maralago face, most religious people, clicks, Reddit, tbf most social media, etc.
Uh. None of those rituals are natural. That shit is as natural as a clown or circus. That’s mostly just animal(human) abuse… Like a Barnum & Bailey circus!
Pave Paradise is reference to a song… Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. It’s similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.
I do get it, you have your opinions, i understand what you mean by them , I’m just saying they’re inconsistent, arbitrary and unnecessarily rigid to me.
for example:
and
Are contradictory.
If we are part of nature, anything we do is natural, as reprehensible as it can be, it’s still a part of nature because we are a part of nature.
To be clear I’m not stating a position on the objective morality/ethics of those rituals (i do have opinions, they just aren’t part of my argument) , i was using them as an example of why the term “nature” is ambiguous and useless as a baseline because of it’s subjective interpretation.
Yes, cliques and cults(religions) and subjectively malicious groups exist, but it’s a false dichotomy to suggest it’s either complete self sufficiency or cult membership, nuance exists.
If you don’t think it’s possible to have a tattoo or piercing because of a personal decision, that’s your call, to me that sounds like a small distance from fundamentalism but as long as you aren’t forcing it on others , you do you.
I understand the reference, i was saying that whole sentence didn’t make any sense as an argument in this context.
You also still haven’t addressed the harm reduction conversation.
Sigh. From the dictionary:
It’s funny you claim a limited, special definition that’s more semantics than substance. Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue. And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.
Sounds like a merry go round.
Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like you’re made in God’s image nonsense but I genuinely don’t believe that. I’m more a deist than any kind of theist.
Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think that’s a good look into harm reduction.
oh damn, we can sigh? i didn’t realise that was on the table, i’ve been missing a trick this whole time.
ok, here i go.
I’m glad you agree, none of those definitions imply an objective “natural” exists, so having them quoted helps, thanks.
definition of what ? citation ?
Yes and i stated my reasons why.
I do, again, my reasons are stated.
but seeing as were are doing definitions now:
sigh (this is fun) , so let me get this straight, you considered replying with a straight up lie ?
For any particular reason…or ?
I’ll quote myself :
Also i didn’t mean religious fundamentalism, though it is on me that i didn’t specify.
Thanks though, the definitions thing is super useful:
I will have a read, does it outright reject the idea that psychological harm exists?
I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.
Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?
Sigh. A lie? Oh sigh. Not really a lie but you wouldn’t understand why. They say the angels fly because they take themselves so lightly. What more then the father of all angels?