Idiocy, Compulsion, Gratitude, Nobility or Deception?

KUMAR5 said:
But unnatural is real and existing term. Whatever which is not in its natural form i. e as it exist in nature is unnatural. May it be extracted or mixed fruit juice.
Click to expand...
Humans are in our "natural" form. We are as nature "created" us. We can only do what nature allows us to do.
 
KUMAR5 said:
But unnatural is real and existing term. Whatever which is not in its natural form i. e as it exist in nature is unnatural.
Click to expand...
It is not a scientifically-defined term. It is ambiguous - as we are seeing right here in this thread.
Thus, it is useless as a measure of anything.

You'll have to define what you mean by unnatural. Sometimes the definition is simply 'anything that is man-made', but that too is arbitrary.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Farming for killing should not be mutualistic relationship. Both group should benefit in it.
Click to expand...
We're going to eat them.

The Kzinti are a cat-like race that eat humans. If you were a human on their planet, what benefit would you ask from the Kzinti that would make you feel you were in a mutual relationship with them?

What benefit could a sentient pig possibly ask of the pig-eating human that would make the pig feel it is in a mutually beneficial relationship?
 
Last edited:
gmilam said:
Humans are in our "natural" form. We are as nature "created" us. We can only do what nature allows us to do.
Click to expand...
It is not necessary that children always behave according to their parents who created them. We are also influenced by social environment.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It is not a scientifically-defined term. It is ambiguous - as we are seeing right here in this thread.
Thus, it is useless as a measure of anything.

You'll have to define what you mean by unnatural. Sometimes the definition is simply 'anything that is man-made', but that too is arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Natural
"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
What is wrong in above dict. definition?
 
DaveC426913 said:
We're going to eat them.

The Kzinti are a cat-like race that eat humans. If you were a human on their planet, what benefit would you ask from the Kzinti that would make you feel you were in a mutual relationship with them?

What benefit could a sentient pig possibly ask of the pig-eating human that would make the pig feel it is in a mutually beneficial relationship?
Click to expand...
These are abnormal or exceptional examples. I quote snip from your last post:
" Sometimesthe definition is simply 'anything thatis man-made', but that too isarbitrary."
 
KUMAR5 said:
Natural
"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
What is wrong in above dict. definition?
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't help your case.
The definition uses 'human' as its criterion, so it's useless for you arguing how humans should change.

Your argument degenerates to simply: Humans should behave less human-like and should be more animal-like.
 
KUMAR5 said:
These are abnormal or exceptional examples.
Click to expand...
The pig example is not exceptional.

You argue that the pig should have a beneficial relationship with the farmer.
But the farmer is going to slaughter and eat the pig.
How could that possibly ever be a beneficial relationship for the pig?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Because it doesn't help your case.
The definition uses 'human' as its criterion, so it's useless for you arguing how humans should change.

Your argument degenerates to simply: Humans should behave less human-like and should be more animal-like.
Click to expand...
Yes, behaving unnaturally should only be the property of humans. We just need to check, if it is created by nature or not.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The pig example is not exceptional.

You argue that the pig should have a beneficial relationship with the farmer.
But the farmer is going to slaughter and eat the pig.
How could that possibly ever be a beneficial relationship for the pig?
Click to expand...
Yes this or any other farming is not a mutualistic relationship. It is just one sided or parasitic relationship. Human's claim that they also provide benefits i. E breed, buy, nurse, protect those beings meant to kill can not be justified
 
KUMAR5 said:
Yes this or any other farming is not a mutualistic relationship. It is just one sided or parasitic relationship. Human's claim that they also provide benefits i. E breed, buy, nurse, protect those beings meant to kill can not be justified
Click to expand...

OK. Going back to your earlier statement for moment:
KUMAR5 said:
Farming for killing should not be mutualistic relationship. Both group should benefit in it.
Click to expand...
How does a pig benefit from being farmed?
Why would a farmer keep a pig that he's not going to eat?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top