I don't think "natural" and "un-natural" are good terms to use. I think you have to be religious to use such terms, where you can have a supernatural determining what is un-natural.
edit - (we are products of nature therefore everything we create is natural.) edit2 - see how I contradicted myself?
I don't think "natural" and "un-natural" are good terms to use. I think you have to be religious to use such terms, where you can have a supernatural determining what is un-natural.
edit - (we are products of nature therefore everything we create is natural.) edit2 - see how I contradicted myself?
You get that atomic bomb, cloning and Mac Donald's become natural with this way of thinking, do you? I can explode the planet and finsh with all the organic life in it, is this a natural behavior?
You're using the word in it's generic sense, while i put it in it's evolutionary sense. Besides it's only a choice of words to express an idea, the words aren't important, the idea behind them that matter.
But being gay isn't man made like your examples above, it's instinctual, it's human behaviour, that's entirely natural. Do you then believe that those who are gay can change their sexual preference because homosexuality isn't natural and humans subconsciously strive for what's natural?
Edit: are you basically saying that on some level they have a choice?
@fighter_mage_thief It's for taking care of any children brought into that marriage. But I don't think it's right to deny homosexuals these breaks because gay people can adopt kids or have kids through a surrogate, just like barren straight people can. Therefore, that shouldn't be a reason to deny them tax breaks, any more than being unable to have kids biologically means that straight couples should be denied those same tax breaks. If being unable to conceive biological children means you don't get the tax breaks of a married couple, then it should be applied across the board to be truly fair and just. ie. to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
Well you're right, it's definitely complicated. Adoption is a special case, and I don't know what to think, especially considering the fact that paternity tests have become such a huge part of determining who really has legal responsibility.
A woman can have 10 guys lined up on Maury's, but all that seems to matter is who the 'real daddy' is. Nine men leave the set and Maurie says to the poor guy, 'it's time to step up and be a man, son.'
By the way, I realize that while it can be 10 guys lined up, it's also applicable to cheating men, or simply those men in general who deny that they slept with women or have children out there.
There's also the fact that if both parents want to give their child up for adoption, I know of nothing legally stopping them, but if one wants to raise the child, the other is legally obligated to pay child support, even if that person would have given the child up for adoption.
This is slightly of topic, but I'm trying to contrast marriage and divorce laws, and the role of legal responsibility.
@Jaxsbudgie you're openly manipulating what i told, you get my opinion before and i explained it a lot and very well, be free to take your conclusions, i can expose my views but i'm not able to control how biased others will see them unfortunally.
Interestingly, when terminally ill people live their lives on medication I don't see anyone argue that their survival is "unnatural". Applying the terms "natural" and "unnatural" to various positions in moral discussions serves no other purpose than to confuse everyone. Everybody has their own meanings and implications attached to those words, and without providing exact definitions miscommunication is bound to happen.
@Shandyr You have a point there, I think that saying something is 'unnatural' is pretty vaccuus.
Are we talking about something that can't occur within nature?
On some level, it seems as if unnatural means "something that either interrupts or departs from the 'natural order' of things," but this assumes such an order can be seen, or that the departure can be differentiated.
Other times, it seems to refer to the moral order of things, unnatural meaning "against what is good" or something like that. This may seem strange, but if, for example, the only distinction is truly natural and supernatural, then what is unnatural must be the work of something supernatural. In fact, I think this makes a lot of sense, considering many claim that homosexual urges are the work of the devil, i.e. unnatural (just a thought experiment, I'm not giving my actual point of view here, and certainly don't think gays I meet are in league with Satan LOL), but by that same token, so would be a man rising from dead with his body being fully restored and having a golden hue, i.e. the unnatural work of God or a god (although of course, with the technology, it might be possible to do without the assistance of a cleric LOL). (It also has place here because this is a fantasy board where supernatural agencies do exist, so I think that what I'm saying is conceivable, and maybe even part and parcel to a more supersticious, or more lightly, spiritual worldview)
@fighter_mage_thief You know everytime you edit a post where you mention somebody from the forum this someone will get a notification that he was mentioned in the post. Ive got like 7 notifications from your edits so far :P
LOL sorry, it's always a work in progress for me! ^^
@Talvrae your chart. On the left you have Conservatism, and in the middle you have Liberalism.
Conservatives argue that things should simply be kept the way they are, even stuff that isn't perfect. They're against the government meddling with things ... if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Liberals want to have the government intervene and change a bunch of things, for the greater equality of everyone. Basically stick their nose in everyone's affairs, for the eventual goal of equality.
See, if you look at it that way, then Liberals sound like the tyrants don't they? Because Conservatives are simply for keeping things the way the government was established (perfect or not), not for some radical church-state. Meanwhile, Liberals just want to make everything as good as possible, a noble goal. What I'm saying is, both sides can sound rather tyrannical depending on what way you put it, stop trying to paint one side as "the bad guys." That's just ridiculous.
@Quartz Personally i define myself as a Libertarian, fiscally Conservative, but for liberty, and freedom of choice of lifestyle for everyone
I'm mostly Libertarian as well. I wasn't trying to target you, sorry if it seemed that way. I was just saying I didn't like your chart at all, for logical reasons.
@fighter_mage_thief For me, natural means "appears in nature". Homosexuality is part of nature, ergo, it's natural. This doesn't say anything is a good or bad thing, merely that it's natural. I don't think homosexuality is bad in, say, the same way child infanticide, which also appears in nature, is bad. I don't think it's bad at all as long as both parties are adult and consent. In the same way, having sex with children or teens below the age of majority, is bad. It's coercive, and since they can't legally consent, it's the same as rape (also natural, also bad).
@LadyRhian what are some things that are unnatural in your view, or is there anything unnatural? I mean, to me, it's perfectly conceivable that there is nothing but nature, and thus all is natural. But if there is anything unnatural, it is either because nature moves towards something (not saying I could prove this), and thus what is unnatural departs from that direction, or that what is unnatural is supernatural in character (can't prove this either), and thus the product of something that exists outside of nature, a view which seems to imply that nature is a closed system with an "outside." Just a thought experiment, I'm not rigid on this stuff.
@fighter_mage_thief Mainly a lot of technological things. Computers, watches... spaceships and rockets. Anything living... no, that's all natural.
But what about rocks, or the sun. Say if they are not living. Don't you consider these things natural?
The thing all these things you listed have in common seems to be that they are created by humans (or more precisely, natural materials reshaped by humans--or thinking beings in general--and made into objects either for amusement or as tools or something like that). Are you saying that basically objects made by people are unnatural?
As I see it, if the human being is natural, if the mind is natural, how can a human creation be unnatural?
That being said, I think what you're saying is a pretty standard definition of unnatural, and what I expected, although it is an odd idea to me.
I don't play for the romance so I could care less. I wanna chunk something! I have no idea if that is an official term. I mean the hit that doesn't leave a body intact. You can have the kissy face, I want gnoll chunks.
I don't play for the romance so I could care less. I wanna chunk something! I have no idea if that is an official term. I mean the hit that doesn't leave a body intact. You can have the kissy face, I want gnoll chunks.
LOL. I remember my first chunk. I did it to one of those assassins in Candlekeep.
@fighter_mage_thief Part of our world yes. I would neither consider them unnatural or natural, since they are outside of what I think of as nature. Just like atoms are neither natural nor unnatural, even though they can make up rocks, the sun and people and animals.
@Shandyr ok, if in your solely conception of nature is everything that exist, and mix it's own meaning with "existence" then you're right i have my own conception of nature.
I base my conception on the restrict meaning of nature, you can read more about it here:
@fighter_mage_thief Part of our world yes. I would neither consider them unnatural or natural, since they are outside of what I think of as nature. Just like atoms are neither natural nor unnatural, even though they can make up rocks, the sun and people and animals.
Oh ok. I would say that atoms are natural. When I use the term nature or natural world, I'm usually thinking of the material that makes up the universe. When I say the 'natural world' it's in the sense of the universe as either 'the creation' that may possess an outside or as an all-encompassing totality without an outside.
But there is also another meaning of the term "nature" which has to do with trees and grass, outdoors and stuff like that, animals, waterfalls, and rocky streams or rivers, and so on. Jaheira uses it in this sense.
@Shandyr ok, if in your solely conception of nature is everything that exist, and mix it's own meaning with "existence" then you're right i have my own conception of nature.
I base my conception on the restrict meaning of nature, you can read more about it here:
Granting that there are various definitions for the word, I suspect you can see the problematic usage in this thread when dealing with an emotional subject, though.
You recognize that many people intentionally use the word "unnatural" as an insult and that many perceive it as an insult, right?
I agree that you can make different arguments, it just seems like using that label detracts from your actual point more than it advances it. Replacing the word "unnatural" with the more precise description might avoid some of the that confusion and emotional reaction.
With respect to your link, I actually don't follow it. The word "restrict" doesn't appear on that page.
The more limited definition of nature in the beginning is:
This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or synthetic.
I'm not sure how those apply. A young person doesn't become gay because that state is brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind so that distiction doesn't seem useful. The second phrase doesn't seem anymore helpful either. Supernatural and synthetic clearly don't apply. Natural as distinguished from unnatural without more definition doesn't advance the discussion either. That is the only time the word "unnatural" appears so there is no refining of that concept on the sited page either.
Sorry if I am being thick, but I don't understand what I am supposed to glean from the link.
Dude, what i see is a group of persons, with a reactionary and complexed behavior lately, that at any cost want to proof to me that my comments are prejudiced. And all the phrases start with "i don't understand... i'm curious...clarify for me...explain this..."
People asked my opinion before and the only issue that i have about gay content in terms of isonomy with straight content is a concept of natural/unnatural classification.
@Trinit itself already saw that i don't have any prejudice about the theme, the fight to just share my opinion was at least finshed when people understand my position here:
Then @Shandyr started to question my concept... yes my concept as i stated before... and now again i'm the intolerant monster.
For people that defend freedom of expression and the end of intolerance, more than anyone you shoud understand my position.
In the end we're back at the begin of this thread, or i support 100% any gay statement, not because it's coherent, fair or inteligent, but because there is gay wrote on the argument or i'm labeled as a prejudicer.
Yes, it's my opinion, it's stated from the start this fact. I tried to gave an justify to my personal opinion (what i don't have to) and instead of agreement i get another word war in my hands...
I'm not a hater, i gave proof of it more than one time, neither am i a prejudicer, as the only point that i raise as different is an nature concept (my natuyre concept if you feel better). I have my own perception of this issue as you can se, so now lemme ask this pretty clear and simple:
Am i entitled to have my own opinion, or i must pass it to judgment on this forum? Everything else i already stated on the link i put above.
@Bjjorick Do you also then think that heterosexuals who can't have children (due to barrenness, vasectomies, etc.) lose those tax breaks? What about those who choose not to have children?
a very small precentage of straight marriages won't be able/choose not to have children.
a very small percentage of gay relationships would produce a child one way or another.
Yeah, you're right @ladyrhian, that's the exact same thing.
If people want this to happen, the first thing they have to accept is that it's not the same as a hetro marriage. saying that it is only makes people angry because even a child can see that it's not the same.
@Shandyr I do understand what you're saying, and just to clarify, the male elf rouge in da 1 and every char in da2 was handled badly in my opinion. That is a huge concern for me because i don't like stereotypes. I try to to research as much as i can, but let me say it like this instead. The male elf rouge and every char in DA 2 was slutty. This bothers me more then anything else because i'm a firm believer that anything worth having is worth fighting for/working for/earning. If it comes easy, it usually isn't worth it. Also, I think relationships should be concrete. As i stated, they handled liliana well, and except for the 3some you could have if you 'harden' her, which i didn't know about until someone told me, i liked the way she was handled.
I don't want to see 'romance' in games degrade to 'wow, you're cute, i'm going to sleep with you and so is everyone else'. Part of it is that it's WAY too easy. I played through a female char because i liked alister's personality and i wanted to see what his romance would be like. I typically don't play females in games, and this forced me to do something different. I like games that do that. I think it's important to get your out of your comfort zone.
And as far as bullies, i can also tell you that racism is still a major issue, on both sides of the playing field. But most people i know understand that it's a small minority of people who act like that and don't treat everyone as racists, because honestly, even though i'm white, i've been the target of racism before. Majorly. The LGT community will have to be more accepting of people in order to gain support. That's my theory at least, and if i'm wrong, i'm wrong. But when hate breeds hate, the problem is never fixed and it turns into a war, kinda like what we're seeing now.
Sorry for the rant, as always. Hope some of this made sense.
Comments
edit - (we are products of nature therefore everything we create is natural.)
edit2 - see how I contradicted myself?
I can explode the planet and finsh with all the organic life in it, is this a natural behavior?
You're using the word in it's generic sense, while i put it in it's evolutionary sense. Besides it's only a choice of words to express an idea, the words aren't important, the idea behind them that matter.
Edit: are you basically saying that on some level they have a choice?
A woman can have 10 guys lined up on Maury's, but all that seems to matter is who the 'real daddy' is. Nine men leave the set and Maurie says to the poor guy, 'it's time to step up and be a man, son.'
By the way, I realize that while it can be 10 guys lined up, it's also applicable to cheating men, or simply those men in general who deny that they slept with women or have children out there.
There's also the fact that if both parents want to give their child up for adoption, I know of nothing legally stopping them, but if one wants to raise the child, the other is legally obligated to pay child support, even if that person would have given the child up for adoption.
This is slightly of topic, but I'm trying to contrast marriage and divorce laws, and the role of legal responsibility.
Are we talking about something that can't occur within nature?
On some level, it seems as if unnatural means "something that either interrupts or departs from the 'natural order' of things," but this assumes such an order can be seen, or that the departure can be differentiated.
Other times, it seems to refer to the moral order of things, unnatural meaning "against what is good" or something like that. This may seem strange, but if, for example, the only distinction is truly natural and supernatural, then what is unnatural must be the work of something supernatural. In fact, I think this makes a lot of sense, considering many claim that homosexual urges are the work of the devil, i.e. unnatural (just a thought experiment, I'm not giving my actual point of view here, and certainly don't think gays I meet are in league with Satan LOL), but by that same token, so would be a man rising from dead with his body being fully restored and having a golden hue, i.e. the unnatural work of God or a god (although of course, with the technology, it might be possible to do without the assistance of a cleric LOL). (It also has place here because this is a fantasy board where supernatural agencies do exist, so I think that what I'm saying is conceivable, and maybe even part and parcel to a more supersticious, or more lightly, spiritual worldview)
It's definitely a loaded term.
AHEM!
http://i1248.photobucket.com/albums/hh493/fighter_mage_thief/FMT meets Black Blade of Disaster/f504fdfc.jpg
The thing all these things you listed have in common seems to be that they are created by humans (or more precisely, natural materials reshaped by humans--or thinking beings in general--and made into objects either for amusement or as tools or something like that). Are you saying that basically objects made by people are unnatural?
As I see it, if the human being is natural, if the mind is natural, how can a human creation be unnatural?
That being said, I think what you're saying is a pretty standard definition of unnatural, and what I expected, although it is an odd idea to me.
I base my conception on the restrict meaning of nature, you can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature
But there is also another meaning of the term "nature" which has to do with trees and grass, outdoors and stuff like that, animals, waterfalls, and rocky streams or rivers, and so on. Jaheira uses it in this sense.
Just out of curiosity, what are humans and artifacts/tools in this sense? Are they natural, or unnatural, or both but in different senses?
Is the Carsomyr enough weapon to chunk Oprah?
That being said, it couldn't chunk Demogorgon, so things don't look promising
Btw, I hear roasted pitfiend tastes like chicken. JUST SAYING
You made me grin on that one. Oprah = Demogorgon. I never thought of that.
You recognize that many people intentionally use the word "unnatural" as an insult and that many perceive it as an insult, right?
I agree that you can make different arguments, it just seems like using that label detracts from your actual point more than it advances it. Replacing the word "unnatural" with the more precise description might avoid some of the that confusion and emotional reaction.
With respect to your link, I actually don't follow it. The word "restrict" doesn't appear on that page.
The more limited definition of nature in the beginning is:
This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or synthetic.
I'm not sure how those apply. A young person doesn't become gay because that state is brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind so that distiction doesn't seem useful. The second phrase doesn't seem anymore helpful either. Supernatural and synthetic clearly don't apply. Natural as distinguished from unnatural without more definition doesn't advance the discussion either. That is the only time the word "unnatural" appears so there is no refining of that concept on the sited page either.
Sorry if I am being thick, but I don't understand what I am supposed to glean from the link.
People asked my opinion before and the only issue that i have about gay content in terms of isonomy with straight content is a concept of natural/unnatural classification.
@Trinit itself already saw that i don't have any prejudice about the theme, the fight to just share my opinion was at least finshed when people understand my position here:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/86362/#Comment_86362
Then @Shandyr started to question my concept... yes my concept as i stated before... and now again i'm the intolerant monster.
For people that defend freedom of expression and the end of intolerance, more than anyone you shoud understand my position.
In the end we're back at the begin of this thread, or i support 100% any gay statement, not because it's coherent, fair or inteligent, but because there is gay wrote on the argument or i'm labeled as a prejudicer.
Yes, it's my opinion, it's stated from the start this fact. I tried to gave an justify to my personal opinion (what i don't have to) and instead of agreement i get another word war in my hands...
I'm not a hater, i gave proof of it more than one time, neither am i a prejudicer, as the only point that i raise as different is an nature concept (my natuyre concept if you feel better). I have my own perception of this issue as you can se, so now lemme ask this pretty clear and simple:
Am i entitled to have my own opinion, or i must pass it to judgment on this forum? Everything else i already stated on the link i put above.
a very small percentage of gay relationships would produce a child one way or another.
Yeah, you're right @ladyrhian, that's the exact same thing.
If people want this to happen, the first thing they have to accept is that it's not the same as a hetro marriage. saying that it is only makes people angry because even a child can see that it's not the same.
@Shandyr
I do understand what you're saying, and just to clarify, the male elf rouge in da 1 and every char in da2 was handled badly in my opinion. That is a huge concern for me because i don't like stereotypes. I try to to research as much as i can, but let me say it like this instead. The male elf rouge and every char in DA 2 was slutty. This bothers me more then anything else because i'm a firm believer that anything worth having is worth fighting for/working for/earning. If it comes easy, it usually isn't worth it. Also, I think relationships should be concrete. As i stated, they handled liliana well, and except for the 3some you could have if you 'harden' her, which i didn't know about until someone told me, i liked the way she was handled.
I don't want to see 'romance' in games degrade to 'wow, you're cute, i'm going to sleep with you and so is everyone else'. Part of it is that it's WAY too easy. I played through a female char because i liked alister's personality and i wanted to see what his romance would be like. I typically don't play females in games, and this forced me to do something different. I like games that do that. I think it's important to get your out of your comfort zone.
And as far as bullies, i can also tell you that racism is still a major issue, on both sides of the playing field. But most people i know understand that it's a small minority of people who act like that and don't treat everyone as racists, because honestly, even though i'm white, i've been the target of racism before. Majorly. The LGT community will have to be more accepting of people in order to gain support. That's my theory at least, and if i'm wrong, i'm wrong. But when hate breeds hate, the problem is never fixed and it turns into a war, kinda like what we're seeing now.
Sorry for the rant, as always. Hope some of this made sense.