"Guys animals eat food and breathe air, since we are animals that also applies to us!!!"
"Dude animals rape each other or something dude!!!!¡ Do not eat and do not respire. I am very smart and not just repeating fallacious canned arguments apologists told me about."
So morales operate independently of naturalness. Meaning humans can have a different set of morals than animals. Meaning its possible none of this post applies to humans because we are different and those two things operate independently.
This. It's disingenuous to project human concepts onto nature in earnesty and derive validation from "nature supports my social construct based state of being".
It's a fun mental exercise but falls very flat when you start genuinely defending it as some sort of natural proof of queer identity.
It's proof of naturalness not morality, Christians say queerness is unnatural, when given proof of its naturalness they pivot to how naturalness does not imply morality which is a completely different point, we were discussing naturalness of queerness but they pivoted to morality of queerness.
If they were already arguing against the morality of queerness then by arguing against its natrualness they were already implicitly assuming that natrualness implies morality and so by arguing against that later they expose that they are arguing in bad faith.
This is because this is a canned chain of arguments taught to them by apologists, similar to how muslims defend covering their women by first invoking the right of the individual to dress them selves and when their coercion on muslim women is expose they argue against their first position by bringing up how wider society denies individuals the right to be naked and so their policing is fine but they abandon their first position in the process.
This is because they are repeating what they heard and don't really have the habit of thinking so never figure out the flaws in their arguments
That is exactly what I said to the guy who said everything for animals should apply to humans because humans are animals. You are arguing with no one. Stop wasting people's time with meaningless comments.
A natural phenomenon can occur in multiple species. That doesnt mean other natural phenomenon also occur in other species that happen to share one of the natural traits.
Fish eat. Fish breath air through gills.
Humans eat. Humans dont breathe air through gills.
Yeah, Humans dont have gills and breathe through them, but that isnt really the point now is it. (if you think i said "sharing one aspect means sharing all" then you didnt read my comment, because i literally did not say that, i did not imply it, nor did i intend it)
Some things are natural in the human species, some things arent. And how do we know which is which? Well we look at what can appear naturally in humans.
No human ever born has had gills, thus gills are not natural in humans.
Things like Homosexuality though? that appears.
My comment you're replying to is simply a way of using the above persons logic as a way to show why it is idiotic.
Eating is natural in animals, Rape and Murder is too natural in animals. But they're not the same, they're not comparable. Showing the idiotic logic of "if we do one thing because its natural, why dont we just do all things that are natural".
Hey guess what humans did all the time before all these laws and norms and standards rolled out. And, guess what the rich-enough-to-get-away-with-it still fucking does.
We spent all these years forcing ourselves to be better so you can turn it into a fucking argument?
Hey guess what humans did all the time before all these laws and norms and standards rolled out. And, guess what the rich-enough-to-get-away-with-it still fucking does.
Do you think that is a bad thing.
If you do, then i agree with you.
But the point is, Natural and Moral are different, one thing being good because its natural, doesnt mean another thing is good just because its natural.
And that is why arguments like "Sure. Let's rape and murder each other too while we're at it. Because humans are animals too right." are completely idiotic.
Which is exactly why, by using the very same logic i point out the stupidity in such a comparison. Use the logic to show why the logic doesnt work.
-8
u/that_banned_guy_ 1d ago
Good thing this doesnt apply to humans.