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?
I don’t have the energy for this cherry picking nonsense.
I have directly responded to almost all of your replies, line by line, if that’s what you consider cherry-picking your standards as significantly higher than mine.
i mean, if you’re going to pick a deflection to disengage because you have no responses at least pick one that isn’t easily disprovable by just looking at the chain.
Or you could just say you don’t want to continue, without an excuse, like an adult?
Are you capable of understanding paragraphs? Is your context window too narrow?
As with most of your responses you’re going to need to be a bit more specific if you want an actual answer, the vague deflections with no specifics can only get you so far.
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?
See , now this is better, no pretence of sense to counter, just straight up, entirely absent-of-context sentences. Not much i can do with that.
I mean, you still haven’t actually answered anything directly so far, but at this point It’s more impressive than anything.
It’s absolute garbage as rhetoric, but who says art has to conform to reason or expectations?
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?
I have directly responded to almost all of your replies, line by line, if that’s what you consider cherry-picking your standards as significantly higher than mine.
i mean, if you’re going to pick a deflection to disengage because you have no responses at least pick one that isn’t easily disprovable by just looking at the chain.
Or you could just say you don’t want to continue, without an excuse, like an adult?
As with most of your responses you’re going to need to be a bit more specific if you want an actual answer, the vague deflections with no specifics can only get you so far.
See , now this is better, no pretence of sense to counter, just straight up, entirely absent-of-context sentences. Not much i can do with that.
I mean, you still haven’t actually answered anything directly so far, but at this point It’s more impressive than anything.
It’s absolute garbage as rhetoric, but who says art has to conform to reason or expectations?