• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should motorcycles be considered "natural"?

watsup said:
I already defined objectivity as the standard use of the word in context as shown by definition from a reliable source. If you want to hang your hat on “meaning different things to different people” without using some objective standard, then I will repeat the word that I used to define “debate” about it: Gobbledygook”. If that is how you want to debate, so be it, but it really has no more meaning than just making up definitions of a word without a true source.
Click to expand...

As I already explained, even if things are defined as natural in some dictionary, they are still the result of natural processes within the universe, even if they are man made.
 
tacomancer said:
As I already explained, even if things are defined as natural in some dictionary, they are still the result of natural processes within the universe, even if they are man made.
Click to expand...


Not really. That which is “made” in the universe does so without the input of pre-design. It “just happens” as long as it follows the physics, biology, and chemistry of said universe. No predesign.
That is quite different form when a human uses “intelligence” to design and build an item. Even if is uses “natural” products, and most designs do, it is still MANUFACTURED and thus loses the designation of being “natural”.per se. This explanation reflects the proper us of the word natural as defined by the objective source of a dictionary. You can’t just go out into an orchard and pick a motorcycle engine off of a tree..
Is you want to define it yourself, so be it,but it does not then lead to reasoned discussion. Anybody could define any word in any way that they want and we would not be able to talk to one another because it would be like talking to a Martian.
 
watsup said:
Not really. That which is “made” in the universe does so without the input of pre-design. It “just happens” as long as it follows the physics, biology, and chemistry of said universe. No predesign.
That is quite different form when a human uses “intelligence” to design and build an item. Even if is uses “natural” products, and most designs do, it is still MANUFACTURED and thus loses the designation of being “natural”.per se. This explanation reflects the proper us of the word natural as defined by the objective source of a dictionary. You can’t just go out into an orchard and pick a motorcycle engine off of a tree..
Is you want to define it yourself, so be it,but it does not then lead to reasoned discussion. Anybody could define any word in any way that they want and we would not be able to talk to one another because it would be like talking to a Martian.
Click to expand...

If this is the logic you want to go with, then the dictionary definition of man made is insufficient to use in argumentation. Food, species extinction, and climate change a great examples of something man made, given that definition, but without intelligence so much as a side effect of people being people. In both cases, these things just happened. The case of climate change or species extinction is obvious whereas a lot of human foods were force evolved through human interaction but were not understood until Mendel.

And that sort of thing is the problem of just using the oxford dictionary for this term, there are many edge cases and it relies on common sense assumptions about how natural vs manmade things work. So you are free to use that as a standard if you want, but its not an objective definition, but a social one because it relies on social convention that doesn't hold up if you look at it deeply.
 
tacomancer said:
If this is the logic you want to go with, then the dictionary definition of man made is insufficient to use in argumentation. Food, species extinction, and climate change a great examples of something man made, given that definition, but without intelligence so much as a side effect of people being people. In both cases, these things just happened. The case of climate change or species extinction is obvious whereas a lot of human foods were force evolved through human interaction but were not understood until Mendel.

And that sort of thing is the problem of just using the oxford dictionary for this term, there are many edge cases and it relies on common sense assumptions about how natural vs manmade things work. So you are free to use that as a standard if you want, but its not an objective definition, but a social one because it relies on social convention that doesn't hold up if you look at it deeply.
Click to expand...

nature
Pronunciation /ˈnāCHər/ /ˈneɪtʃər/

NOUN

1. The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.


The key is that none of those items that you mention would exist without the “intelligence”of man being the underlying cause of them, yes, as a side effect of human overpopulation as a result of being able to bend nature to their own demands and uses. A beaver can build a dam based on instinct and it will have a local effect of flooding a relatively small portion of the countryside, and that is perfectly natural. But beavers would normally be unable to overpopulate even that area because they would be kept in check by various natural predators.
Humans, on the other hand, can and will cut down every tree, slaughter every buffalo, and burn every rain forest if they think that it will benefit them in any way. That’s not nature. That’s the DESTRUCTION of nature by using bulldozers, refined gasoline, manufactured weapons, etc.
I analogize humans to rats because they will eat almost anything and soil their own nest without regard for long-term consequences. Unless, of course, other humans use THEIR intelligence try to stop them from doing so in the name of SAVING nature. Unfortunately, in the long term, it is the destroyers who seem to win out. “Nature” normally won’t stop them. Nature is relatively defenseless against the predations of humans if they set their mind to it. Those are just the unfortunate facts.
 
watsup said:
nature
Pronunciation /ˈnāCHər/ /ˈneɪtʃər/

NOUN

1. The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.


The key is that none of those items that you mention would exist without the “intelligence”of man being the underlying cause of them, yes, as a side effect of human overpopulation as a result of being able to bend nature to their own demands and uses. A beaver can build a dam based on instinct and it will have a local effect of flooding a relatively small portion of the countryside, and that is perfectly natural. But beavers would normally be unable to overpopulate even that area because they would be kept in check by various natural predators.
Humans, on the other hand, can and will cut down every tree, slaughter every buffalo, and burn every rain forest if they think that it will benefit them in any way. That’s not nature. That’s the DESTRUCTION of nature by using bulldozers, refined gasoline, manufactured weapons, etc.
I analogize humans to rats because they will eat almost anything and soil their own nest without regard for long-term consequences. Unless, of course, other humans use THEIR intelligence try to stop them from doing so in the name of SAVING nature. Unfortunately, in the long term, it is the destroyers who seem to win out. “Nature” normally won’t stop them. Nature is relatively defenseless against the predations of humans if they set their mind to it. Those are just the unfortunate facts.
Click to expand...


And for the religionists: God used to intervene quite regularly when humans were screwing up in Old Testament times. So why doesn’t he intervene now that rampant human overpopulation is and resultant climate change and other types of pollution are destroying the beautiful planet that he made? Is he asleep or maybe just too busy making other universes?
 
watsup said:
And for the religionists: God used to intervene quite regularly when humans were screwing up in Old Testament times. So why doesn’t he intervene now that rampant human overpopulation is and resultant climate change and other types of pollution are destroying the beautiful planet that he made? Is he asleep or maybe just too busy making other universes?
Click to expand...

If He did you would call Him a tyrant and a homicidal maniac the way you do when you talk about Sodom and Gamorrah.
 
watsup said:
And for the religionists: God used to intervene quite regularly when humans were screwing up in Old Testament times. So why doesn’t he intervene now that rampant human overpopulation is and resultant climate change and other types of pollution are destroying the beautiful planet that he made? Is he asleep or maybe just too busy making other universes?
Click to expand...
There was a distinct reason for that, as well as for the chosen nation...it was for the preserving of the seed that would lead to salvation...that task was completed some 2,000 years ago...
 
Elvira said:
There was a distinct reason for that, as well as for the chosen nation...it was for the preserving of the seed that would lead to salvation...that task was completed some 2,000 years ago...
Click to expand...



Whatever. *YAWN*
 
Elvira said:
There was a distinct reason for that, as well as for the chosen nation...it was for the preserving of the seed that would lead to salvation...that task was completed some 2,000 years ago...
Click to expand...

that is the claim. However, you have never provided tangible and objective evidence that was so, but instead relied on the Jehovah Witnesses interpretation of books you can not show to be true to begin with. Although you claim to have read it and made up your own mind, mimicking a cult's website is not showing intellectual independence., nor any kind of reasoning skills.
 
RAMOSS said:
that is the claim. However, you have never provided tangible and objective evidence that was so, but instead relied on the Jehovah Witnesses interpretation of books you can not show to be true to begin with. Although you claim to have read it and made up your own mind, mimicking a cult's website is not showing intellectual independence., nor any kind of reasoning skills.
Click to expand...
The Bible makes it clear, beginning with the 1st recorded prophecy...Genesis 3:15...of course it was that very nation which God favored who ended up denying Christ...
 
Elvira said:
The Bible makes it clear, beginning with the 1st recorded prophecy...Genesis 3:15...of course it was that very nation which God favored who ended up denying Christ...
Click to expand...

Of course, that is using the logical fallacy of 'ciruclar reasoning', and you can't show that the genesis is more than a teaching story. And, of course, Genesis has nothing to do with the Messiah. And of course, Genesis 3:15 was not a prophecy, it was an observation written into a teaching story. The entire JW cult does not understand that.
 
RAMOSS said:
Of course, that is using the logical fallacy of 'ciruclar reasoning', and you can't show that the genesis is more than a teaching story. And, of course, Genesis has nothing to do with the Messiah. And of course, Genesis 3:15 was not a prophecy, it was an observation written into a teaching story. The entire JW cult does not understand that.
Click to expand...
Of course, that was not your original argument...isn't that called moving the goal posts? Any Christian will tell you it is a prophecy... :rolleyes:
 
Elvira said:
Of course, that was not your original argument...isn't that called moving the goal posts? Any Christian will tell you it is a prophecy... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nope. Your misunderstanding of my position shows a lack of reading comprehension. You are also using diversonary tactics, and lying, because you are the one that brought up genesis 3:15. Why are you misrepresenting things and going off on tangents?

Geneisis is a story. It is not objective evidence.
 
RAMOSS said:
Nope. Your misunderstanding of my position shows a lack of reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
Nope, I understand your position loud and clear...
 
There are important distinctions between man made and natural but “it aint natural. This status quo is natural” is a ****in stupid argument.
 
All this time I thought Mopeds, were birthed by Harleys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom