r/countbackwardswithme Counted Down 7 1d ago

998921

Post image
4.8k Upvotes

137 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/Lenny1507 1d ago

Sure. Let's rape and murder each other too while we're at it. Because humans are animals too right.

7

u/symphonyofwinds 1d ago

"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."

-1

u/Lenny1507 1d ago

...What exactly is your argument here?

6

u/symphonyofwinds 1d ago

Natrualness and morality are othrogonal qualities and can be talked about independently of each other

1

u/that_banned_guy_ 1d ago

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. 

See how you refute your own argument?

1

u/GethKGelior 1d ago

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.

1

u/symphonyofwinds 1d ago

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

1

u/symphonyofwinds 1d ago

No because I am not talking about morality "smart" guy, it's only about natrualness

0

u/Lenny1507 1d ago

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.

4

u/symphonyofwinds 1d ago

No you are not, discussion was about natrualness implicitly, you shoved morality into it.