 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) That's not how you phrased the point, initially. You presented these actions in the context of a baby's actions, and that's how I addressed them. If you wish to change the question at this time, then you must either address or cede the (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) This brings up an idea that has been through my head on several occasions - if you use the definition "part of nature" for natural, then what can be defined as unnatural? After all, everything on this earth has been created by nature, either (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Well, everything that exists operates within the laws of nature, that doesn't mean it was created through natural processes. The natural ingredients and know-how that create a chemical concoction are natural, but the concoction itself isn't (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Natural (was: Why...)
|
|
(...) Well, that's how I was leaning too, ie natural = occurs without human intervention. However, I have often heard the argument Dave used above, which seems to contradict that, or at least not fit it exactly. And I don't think I've ever seen a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) The term has invested with the connotation that I don't think it should have, honestly. In practice, the word tends to mean "altered by human intervention," but this definition is valid only if we declare that humans are not part of nature, or (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) I think your definition makes a lot of sense but the problem is that it doesn't give a distinguishing metric. (I've used that to great advantage when arguing against those that argue against "artificial flavours" for example). That said, what (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) I may be misunderstanding you, but are you identifying the lack of a point of distinction (between natural and unnatural or natural and artificial) as the problem? I'm not clear on this objection, I'm afraid. (...) Yeah, I guess it's a matter (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) This is sort of how I feel. Of course it does seem to make unnatural a less useful term. Even supernatural is a difficult term, though it's use to separate God from God's creation (assuming you accept the existence of a creator god, or a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | It's only natural (Was Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) A problem for the other side, I guess, but yes, a problem. I know what the organic crowd is trying to get at, they'd rather not see manufactured banana flavourings in their milkshakes for example, and I know what the "homosexuality isn't (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: It's only natural (Was Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Well the only musical reference that comes to mind is the song "It's Only Natural" by Crowded House. Did they have an album of that name too? ROSCO FUT: .o-t.fun (20 years ago, 29-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: It's only natural (Was Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Which is on the album "Woodface" IIRC. ROSCO (20 years ago, 29-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
