Re: Hate Thread
I will post whatever it is that I feel like, thank you very much, nobody is forcing you to read or participate in that part of the conversation. I only brought up the term "classic liberal" to describe the actual definition of the word liberalism before it was claimed as a label, "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas" in other words you don't get sent to the oblivi-zone just because you said something somebody didn't like. That in and of itself wasn't "political" in the way you identify the word political, but as a matter of fact the way sites are run is an extremely political subject in the first case, I understand if you aren't interested in politics you might not know that, but as a matter of
another fact it is a rather large point of contention in certain political spheres.
Unnatural hmn.. What exactly is unnatural to you, because for me, we are a product of nature thus everything we do is based on nature. '
It's true that there are elements of nature present in our society, obviously. That we are derived from nature is so far an immutable fact, but I don't really think one could say that a test tube baby with custom designed genetics is really something that is natural, and that is a future that we could very possibly be heading towards.
The term "natural" and "unnatural" are man-made ideas to distinguish the effects of the cyclical stabilizing nature of nature itself, to the "nature" of mankind's very deliberate and occasionally planned out behaviour. I think it is pretty clear that while nature has within itself a great capacity for temporary self-destruction, and *eventually* more permanent expressions of destruction with the death of suns and planets, mankind easily has the capacity to completely boggle the regular rhythm of these events in ways both good and bad.
The term unnatural often gets brought up to criticize the negative effects of bungled decisions made by mankind that would not have likely been possible if not for their influence. The complete monopolization of almost every biome outside of the water to the point of annihilating literally most of everything else(Over 50%) above land is a good example. And we're arrogant enough to squibble over taking land from each other as if it's some high crime when it's done to us afterwards, standing atop the corpses of an innumerable amount of wildlife that was not only ended, but failed to make way for any new form of nature outside of "mankind" and a few species of insects and animals that are either our slaves or pests(In the case of dogs and cats, both) that we try to kill or relocate into crowded conditions. If we ever considered animals to have rights comparable to our own, it would be irreconcilable, people would come to look at us today the way that we look at slave owner's from the past in the future. A certain troll from Homestuck comes to mind.
Survival of the fittest still plays an active role in partner choices, as we select for a companions fitness primarly if male, social aptitude primarly if female. Unless you claim that the statement 'it's hard to get guys if you don't look good' is untrue you can't simply dismiss the concept as 'We're beyond our simple natures now!
Yes, elements of nature are present in our society, but they are not the primary vehicles through which we make decisions, they are just a piece of the puzzle now rather than being the whole picture. People can become couples over nothing other than a shared fetish or interest, and our courting system defies logical convention by any natural standard not just sometimes, but often. If you disagree, feel free to explain to me how tentacle porn fits into our evolutionary design, unless you think that porn addiction is nature's solution to overpopulation lol.
