How can banning a natural act be logical?

[Gjallarhorn]

Leeches were created by Nature to feed on blood. Therefore they ought to feed on blood, human or otherwise. HIV was created by Nature to kill the immune system and thereby kill humans, therefore we ought to be killed by HIV. They complement each other. We are all connected. Try to think a bit longer (if not deeper) before you try making more naturalistic fallacies again.

By the way, you have yet to respond to this, nnmartin.

 

[averageJOE]

I said 16 in the OP to try and avoid this thread degenerating into an argument over consent issues.

But, according to Nature, then any age is acceptable.

Why would God allow a 10year old to give birth if He thought it to be wrong?

I bet your a fan of "Toddlers and Tiaras".

 

[Polymorphic Grass]

not it not is killing natral no it not of nature internet not nature

Killing is completely natural, as is lying, the internet, language, bicycles, etc.

Anything brought about by natural law is by definition "natural".

 

[Gjallarhorn]

not it not is killing natral no it not of nature internet not nature

Why not? Other animals kill all the time and we think nothing of it. Viruses kill. Stars kill and are killed.

The internet is the product of the natural inclination of humans towards communication/society and tool creation. It is wholly natural in both the physical and biological spheres.

 

[nnmartin]

By the way, you have yet to respond to this, nnmartin.

I've already responded to this idea of yours.

yes, leeches should be able to consume blood.

but saying that we ought to be killed by HIV, just because it exists, is not the same as saying man and woman ought not to be able to procreate because they are unmarried.

 

[nnmartin]

I bet your a fan of "Toddlers and Tiaras".

let me in on the gag then........what is toddlers and tiaras??

 

[nnmartin]

Why not? Other animals kill all the time and we think nothing of it. Viruses kill. Stars kill and are killed.

The internet is the product of the natural inclination of humans towards communication/society and tool creation. It is wholly natural in both the physical and biological spheres.

by natural, I mean 'naturally occurring'

I am sure you can see the difference here.

 

[blackout]

How can banning a natural act be logical?

It is naturally occurring that a significant number of people feel the need to ban everything they personally don't like or agree with.

Logically, In the end, no one will be allowed to do anything that anyone else doesn't want them to do.
Which pretty much means that everything will be banned, and no one will be allowed to do anything.

Except maybe poop and pee,
which can't be helped--
assuming we're still allowed to eat.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I've already responded to this idea of yours.

yes, leeches should be able to consume blood.

but saying that we ought to be killed by HIV, just because it exists, is not the same as saying man and woman ought not to be able to procreate because they are unmarried.

Of course it is. It follows your argument completely. Man and woman have the capacity to have children, therefore they ought to have children, regardless of law. HIV has the capacity to kill humans, therefore it ought to kill humans without interference of the law.

by natural, I mean 'naturally occurring'

I am sure you can see the difference here.

And how is the internet not "naturally occurring"? Did we create it via magic? Did a god come down and touch the wires, infusing them with holy digital power? Did fairies dance on the component pieces, and elves piece them together into the first computer?

 

[nnmartin]

And how is the internet not "naturally occurring"? Did we create it via magic? Did a god come down and touch the wires, infusing them with holy digital power? Did fairies dance on the component pieces, and elves piece them together into the first computer?

well, I've never stumbled across a computer that sprang up out of the ground, or came from a tree.

man manipulating items to create something else does not mean it is naturally occurring.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

well, I've never stumbled across a computer that sprang up out of the ground, or came from a tree.

man manipulating items to create something else does not mean it is naturally occurring.

Is dirt natural?

 

[nnmartin]

yes, I'd say it is.

It's all about order of manipulation.

something made by the hand of man, with natural products can be said to be naturally occurring, but once we start interfering with things too much, they lose their power of nature.

it can be hard to distinguish, but commonsense should be a good enough guide.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

yes, I'd say it is.

It's all about order of manipulation.

something made by the hand of man, with natural products can be said to be naturally occurring, but once we start interfering with things too much, they lose their power of nature.

it can be hard to distinguish, but commonsense should be a good enough guide.

Dirt is created by worms. It is not natural. If you believe man is a special case, why? We are simply a more refined tool maker than most animals. Birds have nests, we have houses with wifi. Same thing.

 

[idav]

Leeches were created by Nature to feed on blood. Therefore they ought to feed on blood, human or otherwise. HIV was created by Nature to kill the immune system and thereby kill humans, therefore we ought to be killed by HIV. They complement each other. We are all connected.

I think we need to do more banning of dangerous viruses.