Author Topic: pride month 6 thread  (Read 27092 times)

ngl biphobes are pretty cringe 😳

the argument is that homoloveuality is unnatural. the natural counter argument is 100% valid because homoloveuality is found commonly in nature, therefore it factually cannot be deemed unnatural.

rape is bad, yes. however it is objectively bad especially when it presents itself in a human society. homoloveuality is subjectively bad because people think it's unnatural when in reality they are just ignorant. and this isn't really a rhetorical question directed at you, but just a general idea: other animals can freely explore their loveuality but humans can't explore their own via consensual and safe means because of this ancient-founded notion that it's unnatural?
no i'm not saying being gay is bad

im saying an appeal to nature is a bad argument

saying:
That which is natural, is good.
N is natural.
Therefore, N is good or right.


is the equivalent to saying

That which is unnatural, is bad or wrong.
U is unnatural.
Therefore, U is bad or wrong.


both are wrong.

deus ex was arguing that it was wrong because it's "its natures response to overpopulation" whatever that means

and the other guys counter-argument was it's right because it's seen in nature. I see where you are coming from in that the logical counter-argument to "it's unnatural therefore it's wrong" would be "here's examples of it in nature" but that's implying that "what is natural is right" which is not necessarily true.

both "it's unnatural therefore it's wrong" and "here's examples of it in nature, therefore it's right" appeal to nature which is not a sound argument on it's own, there are other waaaaay more convincing arguments for homoloveuality.

now if the argument is "homoloveuality is unnatural" then you open up a whole other can of worms and I agree with you that a counterexample to disprove this would be "here's homoloveuality in nature" but this conversation includes nothing about whether homoloveuality is morally right or wrong, which was the point of the conversation in the first place. Proving homoloveuality can be seen in nature brings nothing to the table in terms of proving it's ethical or not or if it should be allowed or not and it's a stuffty argument.

it isn't a naturalism fallacy though?
you're right I confused it with an appeal to nature
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 06:59:27 PM by Aide33 »

except they weren't saying "it's in nature therefore it's right" they were giving counterexamples to the ridiculous claim that cavemen didn't engage in homoloveual behavior. don't be dumb

except they weren't saying "it's in nature therefore it's right" they were giving counterexamples to the ridiculous claim that cavemen didn't engage in homoloveual behavior. don't be dumb
whatever, I may have interpreted it wrong, but you get my point

also the claim that animals participate and participated in homoloveual behavior doesn't prove the claim that cavemen didn't do it. a better argument would be to literally point towards cave paintings and really old art about it (which exists to my knowledge). like how Romans and Greeks engaged in it but they were far from overpopulated.

maybe I'm taking deus exe's stuffty posts way too seriously though
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 07:32:52 PM by Aide33 »

maybe I'm taking deus exe's stuffty posts way too seriously though

deus.exe

maybe I'm taking deus exe's stuffty posts way too seriously though

yes you are

any1 wanna get forgeted. not in the ass though i'll just kick your dog

There were no homoloveual cavemen is all I'm sayin'
I don't actually know this and I certainly can't prove it, but they can't prove me wrong either so as long as I say it first I automatically win the argument

what the forget are you talking about

did you read his post



what the forget are you talking about
bitch get off my page

need I even remind yall.......... forget terfs

don't act like yall don't already know