dontamend.com

[Natoma]

Explain how the environment for promiscuity is unnatural and man made?

Well in two words: the pill.

But before you go and gore me on this also consider the wide range of other things we do to facilitate promiscuity. Sex education and denial of abstinence as a perfectly good alternative to condoms, pornography, damage control in the medical field wrt a wider and growing epidemic of STDs that are a direct result of promiscuity, a welfare system that facilitates single parenthood (not making a judgment wrt this here though I am merely stating a fact.) break down wrt social morals opposing divorce there are all sorts of man made environmental factors that create an environment in favor of promiscuity.

The greatest influential factor in all of the above though is the pill. Which is a man made contraceptive. This is the single largest reason we have such a break down in the traditional family and marriage. I don't know what to do about it all I can say is that the consequences of the introduction of it for mankind have yet to be fully realized.

You can see that indeed the environment is entirely contrived particularly after the advent of the pill. Before that point the natural family reigned supreme with low divorce rates and low levels of promiscuity as a result of the fact that women have a high likelihood of pregnancy when they engage in sex. In other words sex used to be taken much more seriously then it is today and the reason for that change in attitude is a direct result of mans intervention in normal reproductive activity.

Bah, I don't have any more time for this I have to find a job soon. [action]runs to hide from the mob of left wingers for bringing up the pill[/action]

Just saying.

So you're saying that promiscuity exploded only because of the pill and sex education? Uhm, you most not have studied up on your history.

American Brothels in the 19th century were rampant, as they were in Europe. The rates of syphillis and gonorrhea and clamydia were surpremely high in 14th - 17th century Europe mostly due to promiscuity. The levels dropped in the 18th and 19th centuries, but they were still far higher than they are today, due to the invention of penicillin in the 20th century.

Dare I bring up the Roman and Grecian empires? And lets not even talk about the Babylonians. Man did they know how to throw orgies.

 

[Natoma]

All something has to satisfy in order to be natural is that it exists in nature. Humans are part of nature, therefore if it exists in human beings, it is indeed natural.

Great, then as I said before everything is natural then?

But you just told me that Steel was not natural. But it is a product of human beings. Human beings are part of nature. How can something that we produce not be "natural"?

I never said steel isn't natural. I just said it's solely a man made creation. You made that supposition. Not I.

 

[Natoma]

That depends on the time of year would it not? In the heat of summer this would be true. In the cold of winter, you'd definitely want to keep all the heat in your body as possible, which would make white skin most certainly an evolutionary disadvantage.

Erm, sine we all wear clothes of some sort or another and have been for thousands of years, it's rather a moot point what colour your skin is for thermal absorption. Without clothes we would have died off long ago, either boiled in deserts in the day, frozen at night or frozen in snow elsewhere. Before that we probably had fur and the colour of fur is mostly about camaflouge. So, adaptation to your environment isn't an species disadvantage, take a point off the tally board for Natoma.

I didn't bring up the thermal absorption theory. Bigus Dickus did. I just addressed his reasoning. Take the point off the tally board for him and give mine back.

 

[Natoma]

Homosexuality is not a man made creation because it exists in man and other animal species.

No, Natoma....

At best, you can say that homosexuality in other animal species is not "man made" or "influenced by man".

That has no bearing on how human homsexuality.

I mean, "man" is the key difference between natural and unnatural, correct? Presumably because we have some intellect or "consciousness" that other "natural" things don't posess. So how can anything among man be considered natural at all?

Our intellect is merely an evolutionary adaptation. Just as the cheetah adapted to become far faster than anything else on land, we adapted to become far more intelligent than anything else in the world. But all animals possess some speed and some intelligence. Some simply have more than others.

Or at least, that's how we hold ourselves to be.

 

[Natoma]

Actually I do accept that Joe. I accept that you believe thus. I just see it as fundamentally flawed, due to the fact that what you choose to use as your definition for natural is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that it does not fit all criteria 100% of the time.

Sigh.

You can't accept my opinion as valid, and at the same time see the premise as fundamentally flawed. That's the entire point.

You can certinaly disagree with my opinion, even if you accept that the premise is fundamentally sound. I just don't think you're getting it.

I accept that your opinion is valid as your opinion. But I also accept that it is fundamentally flawed because of the reasons I've stated before.

I seriously don't know why you're upset over this.

I'm not upset over it. I'm simply reiterating how intolerant you are. You have to live with it not me.

And as I told you before. If I were intolerant I would not be enduring this conversation. I would merely ignore you and write you off.

I accept your opinion as valid within the confines of it being your opinion. I accept that your argument based on that opinion is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that if we change the opinion, but leave the same premise, i.e. the definition you choose to use as natural, then your argument falls to pieces.

This is simply unprovable because we are dealing with opinions.

(Applause).

At the same time, Natoma, we can't prove that our opinions are wrong. Understand? And yet time and time again, you claim how "fundamentally flawed" my premise is (therefore, nullifying any opinion based on it.)

I never said we can prove opinions are wrong. I said your argument based on that opinion is fundamentally flawed. Separate issue.

Thus, your opinion is no longer valid, because we have knowledge to the contrary.

Really? We have positive knowledge that says homosexual acts are right or wrong?

No we have positive knowledge that says that homosexual acts are natural, because they exist in nature. Right and wrong are opinions, and I've said that much. You trying to build an argument on that opinion is flawed because if you take my opinion from the same premise, your argument falls apart.

Wrong.

Menopause is not a biological safeguard against producing flawed children. Women are born with roughly 400 Eggs. A finite supply. The female body cannot produce anymore than 400 Eggs it is born with. 400 eggs released at a rate of 1 per month lasts exactly 33 years 4 months. Once that supply is exhausted, menopause sets in. Puberty begins roughly 12-14 years of age in females. 33 years 4 months later, you're looking at 45 - 47 years of age, i.e. the average onset of menopause.

Menopause is not essential to healthy reproduction. It is the result of the lack of reproductive capability left in that body.

(I'll disregard your misunderstanding of physical aspects of menopause in and of itself...Menopause does not set in due to the release of the "final egg", nor is the female only born with 400 or so eggs...)

My mistake in not fully qualifying my statement. 400 reproductively capable eggs.

You just proved my case, regardless.

Not at all.

Why are there only roughly 400 eggs released? Why not 800?

Why does a male release only 250 Million sperm with each ejaculation? Why not 500 Million? Why not 1 Billion? There are most certainly enough sperm in the testes to do this.

Because as the eggs age, they become less and less viable and more prone to genetic problems.

The lack of reproductive capability / onset of menopause is an inherent safeguard against the production of problem offspring.

Really. So why is this the male capable of reproduction throughout his life? Sperm experience the same degradations that female eggs do. A 60 year old male having a child will have a far higher chance of that child having down's syndrome than a 30 year old male.

Shouldn't nature put a stop to this as well?

Therefore, by your definition, since human reproduction wholly excludes post menopausal sex, then it is unnatural to you, by definition.

See above. The onset of menopause is the inherent way to safeguard against "problem" offspring, due to eggs that are "too old."

See above. That doesn't work because the same doesn't occur for males.

My line of argumentation does not. You can have your line of argumentation and you can fight for your opinion through that line of argumentation, but the fact of the matter remains that it is flawed because of its failures under a different perspective.

The fact of the matter is you are intolerant of other points of view, and therefore see it as flawed.

I said your line of argumentation, based on your opinion, is flawed. I never said your opinion is. If you see me as being intolerant because I think how you're choosing to argue is flawed then so be it.

If I were intolerant of your viewpoint I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. I would simply ignore you.

Now, there's some sound logic.

If the KKK were actually intolerant of blacks, they would just ignore them.

Actually the intolerance of the KKK extends to the ignoring of blacks by the wish for segregation and racial purity. If you segregate, you are by proxy ignoring everyone else.

 

[Silent_One]

Really. So why is this the male capable of reproduction throughout his life? Sperm experience the same degradations that female eggs do. A 60 year old male having a child will have a far higher chance of that child having down's syndrome than a 30 year old male.

Shouldn't nature put a stop to this as well?

Sperm do not experence the same degradations that female eggs do. Females are born with all the eggs they will ever have. Males produce sperm cells throughout their adult life. Generally, of the millions of sperm cells that are ejaculated only the strongest, healthest cell will reach and fertilize the egg. This is basic biology. You of all people should know this.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I never said steel isn't natural. I just said it's solely a man made creation. You made that supposition. Not I.

Excuse me. I made that assumption because that's the only way that you bringing it up has any logic whatsoever.

I'm not very skilled in dealing with illogical and irrelevant points. (I just tend to go "huh?").

Let's review, shall we?

Homosexuality cannot be a man made creation as it exists in other animal species. It is therefore natural.

Logical translation: Things that can not be man made, are therefore natural.

Steel is solely a man made creation. No other animal can create steel.

Homosexuality is not a man made creation because it exists in man and other animal species.

So, you go out of your way to point out the "difference" between Steel and Homosexuality (in your point of view). You also ague that Homosexuality is natural.

So, um, the point, if not to say that steel is unnatural, is what then?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Our intellect is merely an evolutionary adaptation. Just as the cheetah adapted to become far faster than anything else on land, we adapted to become far more intelligent than anything else in the world. But all animals possess some speed and some intelligence. Some simply have more than others.

Just answer a simple question then.

What on this earth, is not natural?

 

[Natoma]

Really. So why is this the male capable of reproduction throughout his life? Sperm experience the same degradations that female eggs do. A 60 year old male having a child will have a far higher chance of that child having down's syndrome than a 30 year old male.

Shouldn't nature put a stop to this as well?

Sperm do not experence the same degradations that female eggs do. Females are born with all the eggs they will ever have. Males produce sperm cells throughout their adult life. Generally, of the millions of sperm cells that are ejaculated only the strongest, healthest cell will reach and fertilize the egg. This is basic biology. You of all people should know this.

We also produce skin cells throughout our adult life. They degrade as well, despite the fact that they are "new" do they not?

There are significant and palpable differences between a 60 year old's sperm and a 30 year old's sperm. The far higher incidence of genetic disorders such as Down Syndrome are one such case. Not to mention significantly decreased motility.

So my question to you again is thus. Why doesn't nature put a stop to this? Sperm viability drops off significantly after ~ 40. In fact, men do have a biological clock wrt optimal reproduction, and that is while we are in our 20s. After that our biological reproductive effectiveness drops off about as quickly as women. It's just that our bodies continue to produce sperm while women's bodies cease to ovulate.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Wow,

Kinda interesting how threads go way off track, not that it is a big deal just a bit amusing. =)

I am not really interested in the whole nature/natural debate, but I do have a few questions regarding Natoma's original post. Well, not really as he was just informing people of the petition, but they are kinda related.


To get a better idea of what you think personally about the morality of homosexual acts:

1] Do you think homosexual acts are morally right or wrong?

2] Why did you answer question number 1 as you did?


To find out if you think that your moral views should be reflected in your government because some people's moral beliefs and what they feel that government's laws should be can be quite different:

3] Do you think your government's laws should reflect your personal moral view of homosexual acts?

4] Why did you answer question number 3 as you did?

To see where you stand on homosexual marriages:

5] Specifically, do you think your government should recognize marriage between homosexuals in the same way they recognize heterosexual marriages?

6] Why did you answer question number 5 as you did?

The heart of the matter of laws and morality:

7] Do you think your government's laws should reflect your personal moral views?

8] Why did you answer question number 7 as you did?


I find that question 1 is not that interesting to talk about, at least in my case. I feel one way, and you won't be able to change it. Question 5 is very specific and directed at the topic that Naomi brought up. The most interesting question I think, is number 7. How much of our personal moral beliefs should be interwoven into our government's laws? That is the question I find most hard to answer.

Well, I asked them, let me try and answer them. Let me say that I respect other's opinions and beliefs even though they may be quite different than mine. =)

1] Do you think homosexual acts are morally right or wrong?
- yes

2] Why did you answer question number 1 as you did?
- My Christian faith.

3] Do you think your government's laws should reflect your personal moral view of homosexual acts?
- No

4] Why did you answer question number 3 as you did?
- Here I am torn. I feel it is wrong, but I favor government's that let people do what they wish as long as they do not interfere with others. I therefore would say, no my personal beliefs, my morality of homosexual acts should not be seen in my government's laws. Are their any social consequences of not imposing my moral beliefs in the law that could harm others, not that I know of.

5] Specifically, do you think your government should recognize marriage between homosexuals in the same way they recognize heterosexual marriages?
- Undecided

6] Why did you answer question number 5 as you did?
- I don't know much really about the specifics of such a law. I don't really know the pros and cons as seen by both sides. I hope to be enlightened a bit on these boards though. =)

7] Do you think your government's laws should reflect your personal moral views?
- Yes, most defiantly when my morals protect people from getting harmed in some way by others. Undecided, when my morals dictate that said action is wrong, but it might or might not have a harmful social impact. No, when my morals dictate that said action is wrong, but it is very well accepted to not cause any harmful social impact.

8] Why did you answer question number 7 as you did?
- I have my own belief system. I wish to exercise them as I see fit. I do not wish others to dictate my morals to me. I therefore do not want to dictate my morals onto others, unless there is a harmful social impact.

Please, before you nit pick and split hairs I am not as eloquent as DemoCoder. If you would like some clarification, cool just ask. The statements I made are general statements please read them as such. =)

Love to hear from ya,
Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Natoma]

Homosexuality cannot be a man made creation as it exists in other animal species. It is therefore natural.

Logical translation: Things that can not be man made, are therefore natural.

Homosexuality exists in man and animal. It exists everywhere in nature. It is natural. That is a statement by itself, as you've quoted.

Steel is solely a man made creation. No other animal can create steel.

Homosexuality is not a man made creation because it exists in man and other animal species.

So, you go out of your way to point out the "difference" between Steel and Homosexuality (in your point of view). You also ague that Homosexuality is natural.

I merely pointed out the differences between man made and natural in that Steel is man made because no other creature can create steel. But that doesn't preclude it from being natural. You tried to state that man made cannot be natural, when they are completely separate issues.

Homosexuality is most certainly not man made because it exists in other species as well.

For instance, many people think that man invented chemical warfare when we did not. Many species practice chemical warfare, even before we existed on this planet as a species.

 

[Natoma]

Our intellect is merely an evolutionary adaptation. Just as the cheetah adapted to become far faster than anything else on land, we adapted to become far more intelligent than anything else in the world. But all animals possess some speed and some intelligence. Some simply have more than others.

Just answer a simple question then.

What on this earth, is not natural?

Nothing on this earth is unnatural. The individual/sociological/governmental interpretation of right or wrong can certainly be applied to it however.

 

[Natoma]

Dr. Freeze

You do of course realize that every single one of those questions can spawn a thread in and of itself right?

We're talking responses of mammoth proportions, just to discuss each individual one. Trust me I know. I've seen each one fleshed out in various threads.

Possible to narrow the scope a little?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I accept that your opinion is valid as your opinion. But I also accept that it is fundamentally flawed because of the reasons I've stated before.

OK, so my opinion is both valid and invlaid.

And as I told you before. If I were intolerant I would not be enduring this conversation. I would merely ignore you and write you off.

And as I told you before, if the KKK were actually intolerant of blacks, they would merely ignore them too, right?

I accept your opinion as valid within the confines of it being your opinion.

How big of you.

I accept that your argument based on that opinion is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that if we change the opinion, but leave the same premise, i.e. the definition you choose to use as natural, then your argument falls to pieces.

Keep repeating that Natoma...

I never said we can prove opinions are wrong. I said your argument based on that opinion is fundamentally flawed. Separate issue.

Only for the hopelessly illogical.

If a premise is fundamentally flawed, then it follows that the opinion upon which it is based has no merit.

No we have positive knowledge that says that homosexual acts are natural, because they exist in nature.

Wrong.

We have positive knowledge that homosexual acts between non humans is natural. You have yet to clearly define what "natural" is. Thus far, you have indicated that "Natural" includes everything. Well duh, if natural includes everything on this earth that goes in between animals and among men, then that's just trivial.

Right and wrong are opinions, and I've said that much. You trying to build an argument on that opinion is flawed because if you take my opinion from the same premise, your argument falls apart.

It does not fall apart any more than your own.

Why does a male release only 250 Million sperm with each ejaculation? Why not 500 Million? Why not 1 Billion? There are most certainly enough sperm in the testes to do this.

Um, to increase the chances of fertilization. And the "perilous journey" ensures that only the "fittest" survive it to possible fertilize an egg.

Really. So why is this the male capable of reproduction throughout his life?

Um, because sperm are continuously regenerated, whereas eggs are not. Learn your biology. The female is born WITH all of the potential eggs she's ever going to have. A 40 year old woman has 40 year old eggs.

A 90 year old man has maybe 1-2 month (IIRC) old sperm. Just like a 17 year old.

It just amazes me how you have no fear of talking aout of your ass about things which you have no clue about, and perpetuate them as fact.

Sperm experience the same degradations that female eggs do. A 60 year old male having a child will have a far higher chance of that child having down's syndrome than a 30 year old male.

Shouldn't nature put a stop to this as well?

No, sperm certainly do NOT experience the same degredations that female eggs do. Read-up.

See above. That doesn't work because the same doesn't occur for males.

Read above. Of course the same doesn't occur for males, because it doesn't have to.

Actually the intolerance of the KKK extends to the ignoring of blacks by the wish for segregation and racial purity. If you segregate, you are by proxy ignoring everyone else.

By proxy nothing.

If hang a black man or put a buring cross on his front lawn in hopes of "scaring them" into self-segregation (leaving town), that's not "ignoring" anything.

Where do you come up with this stuff...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Nothing on this earth is unnatural.

Well now that's interesting.

Because I think you'll have a whole lot of people who would disagree with your self-proclaimed "bullet-proof" definition of Natural.

Hey, here's an idea...let's claim that my line of argumentation is rock-solid and doesn't fail in any case....by making the definitions all inclusive of everything!

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

This is the most interesting to me, but it helps to understand where someone is comming from.

] Do you think your government's laws should reflect your personal moral views?
- Yes, most defiantly when my morals protect people from getting harmed in some way by others. Undecided, when my morals dictate that said action is wrong, but it might or might not have a harmful social impact. No, when my morals dictate that said action is wrong, but it is very well accepted to not cause any harmful social impact.

8] Why did you answer question number 7 as you did?
- I have my own belief system. I wish to exercise them as I see fit. I do not wish others to dictate my morals to me. I therefore do not want to dictate my morals onto others, unless there is a harmful social impact.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Natoma]

I never said we can prove opinions are wrong. I said your argument based on that opinion is fundamentally flawed. Separate issue.

Only for the hopelessly illogical.

If a premise is fundamentally flawed, then it follows that the opinion upon which it is based has no merit.

The definition of natural as "what is inherently right or wrong" is not flawed. Neither is your opinion that homosexuality wrong. However, your argument that homosexuality is not natural because it is wrong is flawed because if you give that same definition to me, homosexuality is indeed natural because it is right.

There's a difference between believing your line of argumentation is flawed and not accepting your right to your opinion.

No we have positive knowledge that says that homosexual acts are natural, because they exist in nature.

Wrong.

We have positive knowledge that homosexual acts between non humans is natural. You have yet to clearly define what "natural" is. Thus far, you have indicated that "Natural" includes everything. Well duh, if natural includes everything on this earth that goes in between animals and among men, then that's just trivial.

Nature: The material world and its phenomena.

Humans are part of nature. Homosexuality is natural because it occurs in humans.

Whether you think it's trivial or not for that to be is only because you are adding in a qualifier that natural == right when that is most certainly not the case. Cancer is natural. Does that mean it is "right" for us? No. The "inherently right or wrong" definition fails there. But it certainly works under the "what is found in nature" definition.

Right and wrong are opinions, and I've said that much. You trying to build an argument on that opinion is flawed because if you take my opinion from the same premise, your argument falls apart.

It does not fall apart any more than your own.

You've not shown this.

Why does a male release only 250 Million sperm with each ejaculation? Why not 500 Million? Why not 1 Billion? There are most certainly enough sperm in the testes to do this.

Um, to increase the chances of fertilization. And the "perilous journey" ensures that only the "fittest" survive it to possible fertilize an egg.

Then why not 500 Million? Why not 1 Billion? Why not 2 Billion? The more the merrier right? The male body is capable of releasing that much sperm in an ejaculation. Why not that many?

Really. So why is this the male capable of reproduction throughout his life?

Um, because sperm are continuously regenerated, whereas eggs are not. Learn your biology. The female is born WITH all of the potential eggs she's ever going to have. A 40 year old woman has 40 year old eggs.

A 90 year old man has maybe 1-2 month (IIRC) old sperm. Just like a 17 year old.

And yet that sperm from the 90 year old man has serious genetic degradations that do not show up in a 17 year old. A 90 year old man's DNA has far more errors in it than a 17 year old's DNA, which gets into the sperm and significantly lowers not only its own motility but the ability to produce viable offspring.

Why do you think aging occurs, and all its side effects? If the replication process of DNA were perfect, we would never experience aging once we reached sexual maturity because the DNA would replicate perfectly each time. But we know this is not the case, and that is why aging occurs.

DNA gets damaged by sunlight. DNA gets damaged because the protective casing surrounding the edges, called Telomeres, become shorter and shorter with each replication, thus making it more difficult for the DNA strands to stay together.

That same DNA is built into the sperm. You could easily think of sperm as viruses as they are basically genetic packages surrounded by proteins and sugars. So if your DNA is full of errors, so will your sperm be full of those same errors.

 

[Natoma]

Nothing on this earth is unnatural.

Well now that's interesting.

Because I think you'll have a whole lot of people who would disagree with your self-proclaimed "bullet-proof" definition of Natural.

Hey, here's an idea...let's claim that my line of argumentation is rock-solid and doesn't fail in any case....by making the definitions all inclusive of everything!

You don't make definitions for english canon. Talk to Webster if you have any issues with the definitions they create and/or perpetuate. I didn't create the circular definition of natural. I just use it.

I mean, c'mon. Black means the absence of light. What is the absence of all light? Black. Not really helpful is it? Circular isn't it? But that's our language. Don't get mad at me or at me because of the vagaries of the english language.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma,

This is the most interesting to me, but it helps to understand where someone is comming from.

] Do you think your government's laws should reflect your personal moral views?
- Yes, most defiantly when my morals protect people from getting harmed in some way by others. Undecided, when my morals dictate that said action is wrong, but it might or might not have a harmful social impact. No, when my morals dictate that said action is wrong, but it is very well accepted to not cause any harmful social impact.

8] Why did you answer question number 7 as you did?
- I have my own belief system. I wish to exercise them as I see fit. I do not wish others to dictate my morals to me. I therefore do not want to dictate my morals onto others, unless there is a harmful social impact.

Dr. Ffreeze

Thanks.

I pretty much agree with your assessment on the matter for #7 and #8.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You don't make definitions for english canon. Talk to Webster if you have any issues with the definitions they create and/or perpetuate. I didn't create the circular definition of natural. I just use it.

??

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?natural

Natural: 1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong

You don't make definitions for english canon, Natoma. Talk to Webster if you have any issues with the definitions they create and/or perpetuate. I didn't create the circular definition of natural. I just use it.

I mean, c'mon. Black means the absence of light. What is the absence of all light? Black. Not really helpful is it? Circular isn't it? But that's our language.

I mean, "natural" is that which is based on an inherent sense of right and wrong. What's wrong? That which isn't natural. Not really helpful, is it? Circular, isn't it?

But that's our language.

Don't get mad at me or at me because of the vagaries of the english language.

This is precisely my point, Natoma. I'm don't because of the vagaries of the English language. I ACCEPT THIS. I have been preaching this to you for the past dozen pages for cryin out loud.

I because you only seem to accept the "vagaries of the english language" when it comes to your own personal arguments...and reject it when it applies to others.