• 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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
34,475
Reaction score
14,659
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Sorry for starting so many threads, but sometimes the topic in another thread gets so diffused that there are many different conversations going on and a specific focus on a particular one is often needed.

In this case, the chatter basically made the statement that "since humans are a PART OF NATURE, then everything that they do should be considered as "natural". For instance, said chatter claimed that building a motorcycle should be considered as "natural".

I disagree, of course, but it seems like it's worth a discussion.
 
Motorcycles are man made, from natural materials...:2razz:
 
Sorry for starting so many threads, but sometimes the topic in another thread gets so diffused that there are many different conversations going on and a specific focus on a particular one is often needed.

In this case, the chatter basically made the statement that "since humans are a PART OF NATURE, then everything that they do should be considered as "natural". For instance, said chatter claimed that building a motorcycle should be considered as "natural".

I disagree, of course, but it seems like it's worth a discussion.

It's a matter of semantics. I look at things in three categories. 1) Nature. 2) Artificial..constructs that use the natural properties to manufacture something (even beaver dams and bird nests), and 3) supernaturlal .. beyond natural. The third has no evidence for it.
 
You didn’t read the title of the thread?

I gave my answer to that...there was no question in your post...:roll:
 
I gave my answer to that...there was no question in your post...:roll:


I asked whether they were considered "natural". I did not ask whether they were made from "natural materials". And they're not, anyway. You can go out and dig up steel or a motor. Those are MANUFACTURED materials, not "natural" materials. There is a big difference.
 
I asked whether they were considered "natural". I did not ask whether they were made from "natural materials". And they're not, anyway. You can go out and dig up steel or a motor. Those are MANUFACTURED materials, not "natural" materials. There is a big difference.

So i am correct...got it...:2razz:
 
Maybe you should look up the definition of correct...;)


Okay, then don’t look up the definition of natural. Just continue to make incorrect statements based on your lack of knowledge. No skin off my back.
 
Sorry for starting so many threads, but sometimes the topic in another thread gets so diffused that there are many different conversations going on and a specific focus on a particular one is often needed.

In this case, the chatter basically made the statement that "since humans are a PART OF NATURE, then everything that they do should be considered as "natural". For instance, said chatter claimed that building a motorcycle should be considered as "natural".

I disagree, of course, but it seems like it's worth a discussion.

To suppose a motorcycle is unnatural would mean that tools are unnatural, but given that human intelligence and ability are part of nature, then their results should be as well.
 
To suppose a motorcycle is unnatural would mean that tools are unnatural, but given that human intelligence and ability are part of nature, then their results should be as well.


Simply not true. There is a difference between "natural" and "manufactured". The former occurs on its own with only the "laws" of physics and biology and chemistry in the universe as its "guide". Manufactured involves the INTELLIGENCE of homo sapiens to take those natural occurrences and use them for purposes of manufacture of items that could not have occurred without additional assistance.

Same as with Elvira: look up the definition of natural.
 
"This is America - and here, right matters."

- Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council

Go Col Vindman!
 
Simply not true. There is a difference between "natural" and "manufactured". The former occurs on its own with only the "laws" of physics and biology and chemistry in the universe as its "guide". Manufactured involves the INTELLIGENCE of homo sapiens to take those natural occurrences and use them for purposes of manufacture of items that could not have occurred without additional assistance.

Same as with Elvira: look up the definition of natural.

Natural is simply a different type of manufacturing. In the case of what arises without man's intervention, that natural tends to be a construct made of nanobots (or just mechanical or nuclear processes) whereas the type of manufacturing that tends to have man's intervention uses other methods.

The factor of intelligence is not really that important because even natural selection displays a form of preference (survival and reproduction)as a process, just like human intelligence.
 
It's a matter of semantics. I look at things in three categories. 1) Nature. 2) Artificial..constructs that use the natural properties to manufacture something (even beaver dams and bird nests), and 3) supernaturlal .. beyond natural. The third has no evidence for it.
Or — whenever you see, read or hear of something that would or could be supernatural you assume there must be a natural cause and refuse to believe there is a supernatural one whether man ever finds out or not. In other words, you have merely decided that there is no evidence for it.
 
Or — whenever you see, read or hear of something that would or could be supernatural you assume there must be a natural cause and refuse to believe there is a supernatural one whether man ever finds out or not. In other words, you have merely decided that there is no evidence for it.

Or, it doesn't exist. People made lots of claims, but when asked to give objective evidence, never have been able to do so.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
Motorcycles — building motorcycles
Building something that allows a man to travel faster is natural

A motorcycle, by common sense, is not considered natural.
 
Natural is simply a different type of manufacturing. In the case of what arises without man's intervention, that natural tends to be a construct made of nanobots (or just mechanical or nuclear processes) whereas the type of manufacturing that tends to have man's intervention uses other methods.

The factor of intelligence is not really that important because even natural selection displays a form of preference (survival and reproduction)as a process, just like human intelligence.


Again, not true. See item #2 of this thread for the correct definition of natural.
 
Sorry for starting so many threads, but sometimes the topic in another thread gets so diffused that there are many different conversations going on and a specific focus on a particular one is often needed.

In this case, the chatter basically made the statement that "since humans are a PART OF NATURE, then everything that they do should be considered as "natural". For instance, said chatter claimed that building a motorcycle should be considered as "natural".

I disagree, of course, but it seems like it's worth a discussion.

Only natural if it is a motaur.
 
Only natural if it is a motaur.

progressive-new-mascot-page-2019.png
 
To suppose a motorcycle is unnatural would mean that tools are unnatural, but given that human intelligence and ability are part of nature, then their results should be as well.

Ok, let's go with your theory. Is anything not "natural"? If so, what and why?
 
Back
Top Bottom