Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:07:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2503 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
| |
If humans do it, then it’s natural. Nothing humans can do or conceive of
doing is unnatural. Certain humans may find objectionable the actions of
certain other humans, but that doesn’t make those actions unnatural.
|
Another opinion. Do not make the mistake of stating opinion as fact.
State it as opinion. Until you do, it is very difficult to take seriously
any argument you make.
|
You seem to be missing the point. Humans are part of nature, are they not?
If you disagree, then please articulate your argument. But if you agree,
then you must cede that anything that humans (who are subsets of the group
Nature) do is natural (i.e., part of nature).
|
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 directly or indirectly, hasn’t it? Even the most amazing
chemical concoction has been made, in the end, from natural ingredients and
know-how. Is anything unnatural?
ROSCO
|
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 natural, as it doesn’t occur naturally (without human
intervention). But, the concoction itself is subject to nature’s laws.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
