What is natural? Is doing something because is "natural"

>>1752907
>If someone says something is bad because it is "unnatural", how do I debunk them?
This isn't about finding out the true meaning of a word. It's about dominance, isn't it?

>>1752916
The entire point of debate and argument isn't to convince the other person, but to win a battle of intellect and wit. So yes, dominance.

>>1752907
hello gorillaposter
I just finished a philosophy exam so I'll help you out
"natural = good/bad" is not an argument on its own, but you can say that become something is "natural" it is the predictable course of an agent's behavior. ex. a dog barks and pisses on things. trying to stop a dog from doing these things is "unnatural" and probably disadvantageous to the dog, like trying to push the hands of a clock in the opposite direction, because it's native mechanism makes it do these things.

for humans the same principle applies, but humans "naturally" create and innovate things and live in complex social orders. "unnatural" behavior is, more aptly, suppressing the *unique* tasks carried out by men. it's okay to suppress sex, eating, shitting, sleeping, hygiene, etc because other animals do these and they're subordinate to social creativity, the prime function of man.

>>1752943
>"unnatural" behavior is, more aptly, suppressing the *unique* tasks carried out by men
I do not understand this idea. Isn't the act of suppressing a unique task natural, since we are born with the ability and drive to do so?

>>1753020
Technically anything an organism ever does is "natural", even when it's pathological and damages the organism or its group. Realistically speaking, natural/unnatural are value judgements on the evolutionary trajectory of a species from its values, this should be kept in mind to avoid descending into semantics.

Homicide, child-rape, shitting in your spaghetti, those kinds of antisocial activities are "natural" but pathological, condemning them as "unnatural" is shorthand for saying "I think this is counterintuitive noting our unique qualities as a species and would prefer that you not do them"

Telephones aren't natural. Basically any argument a Luddite would use, since insisting what is natural is good is Luddite thinking anyhow

>>1753047
>" I think this is counterintuitive noting our unique qualities as a species and would prefer that you not do them"

So basically a socially acceptable way to enforce feels, or an agenda that has no legitimate basis?

File: AAAA.jpg (118KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 560x560px

>>1753072
All human agendas are feeling-based on some level, we're not a purely rational species and never have been.

>>1753072
>>1753085

That being said, trying to preserve/advance the human capability for rational action is pretty solid as feelsy agendas go. Do you want to end up like imperial zebras?

>diverge from proto-zebra population ~1 million years ago
>get geographically isolated in kenya
>predation and environmental change decimate sex ratio, have 11 males for every 1 female
>start reproducing by gang-rape because of it, only most vicious, brutal, virile zebras manage to pass on their genes
>skip to present day, their skeletons are deformed, are unable to herd, need unrealistic amounts of land to graze
>selection atrophied their already tiny horse brains in favor of their testicles, can't be trained or taught to pull carts etc
>basically damned to extinction as a husk of horseyness

That's basically what would happen if you let murderers, child rapists, etc have free reign over society, it wouldn't be great.

>>1753130
>basically damned to extinction as a husk of horseyness
I lol'd

>brutal zebra gang rape
Then I came

>>1753130
>what would happen if you let murderers, child rapists, etc have free reign over society

Or if you allow certain individuals of a certain melanin content to procreate with those of another melanin content. Well said friend

>>1752935 (Mega ass-faggott

File: download (2).jpg (6KB, 160x315px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 160x315px

>>1752907
>What is natural?
everything

>Is doing something because is "natural" good??
No, unless you're a fascist or a hippy (aka a retard)

>What's the line between nature and not-nature?
Pick your own arbitrary line that suits you. It's what everyone else does.

>If man can do something within his natural ability like engineer skyscrapers, video games, are all of those things a product of nature, man, or both?
both.