Social Justice Warriors Thread

[Speaker to Animals]

She's not using the word natural to abuse anything. She is trying to rob the word of meaning to justify a lot of unnatural behavior and a crackpot ideology (feminism).

She knows her ideology defies human nature. That's why she is trying to make that word meaningless.

[BjornP]

She's not using the word natural to abuse anything. She is trying to rob the word of meaning to justify a lot of unnatural behavior and a crackpot ideology (feminism).

She knows her ideology defies human nature. That's why she is trying to make that word meaningless.

The word has been meaningless for millenia. It didn't gain any inherent, non-subjective meaning untill the emergence of the application of the scientific method to the fields of natural science, biology and medicine. Colloquially, "natural" is still mostly synoymous with "normal", "good", "values I/we agree with". Unnatural meaning simply the opposite.

Both you and the woman in the vid compete on who's "more natural". You're using it to virtue signal and nothing more. "Natural" in the sense you and the woman's using it, does not refer to the natural world, to nature, to any sort of universal, objective, verifiable, set of observations people who do not share your or her ideology would arrive independently at. It's all feels and petulant insistence of the entitled that their own shitty opinions are really something more, and something greater, than just their own shitty opinions.

The worthlessness, idiocy and even potential destructiveness of this woman, or your own, ideology neither makes either of your ideologies more, or less, "natural" than the other. Say some nutter SJW male straight out of a Monthy Python sketch insists that everyone should allow him the right to bear children, no matter if he's biologically incapable or not, then the SJW community isn't defying nature. Because no matter his beliefs or insistance, that's not going to happen. It is impossible to "defy" nature.

[heydaralon]

She's not using the word natural to abuse anything. She is trying to rob the word of meaning to justify a lot of unnatural behavior and a crackpot ideology (feminism).

She knows her ideology defies human nature. That's why she is trying to make that word meaningless.

The word has been meaningless for millenia. It didn't gain any inherent, non-subjective meaning untill the emergence of the application of the scientific method to the fields of natural science, biology and medicine. Colloquially, "natural" is still mostly synoymous with "normal", "good", "values I/we agree with". Unnatural meaning simply the opposite.

Both you and the woman in the vid compete on who's "more natural". You're using it to virtue signal and nothing more. "Natural" in the sense you and the woman's using it, does not refer to the natural world, to nature, to any sort of universal, objective, verifiable, set of observations people who do not share your or her ideology would arrive independently at. It's all feels and petulant insistence of the entitled that their own shitty opinions are really something more, and something greater, than just their own shitty opinions.

The worthlessness, idiocy and even potential destructiveness of this woman, or your own, ideology neither makes either of your ideologies more, or less, "natural" than the other. Say some nutter SJW male straight out of a Monthy Python sketch insists that everyone should allow him the right to bear children, no matter if he's biologically incapable or not, then the SJW community isn't defying nature. Because no matter his beliefs or insistance, that's not going to happen. It is impossible to "defy" nature.

This might turn into an endless semantic battle, but do you consider humans to be a part of nature, as in another animal or as something apart from Nature? I realize that biologically we come from the same process as every other organism, but we like to categorize ourselves as separate. When you discuss nature, do you make this distinction?

[Speaker to Animals]

LMFAO.

Bjorn is just like her, trying to obfuscate the meaning of the word.

adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2.
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

[Fife]

You boys have put me in the mood to go al fresco later this afternoon.

[BjornP]

This might turn into an endless semantic battle, but do you consider humans to be a part of nature, as in another animal or as something apart from Nature? I realize that biologically we come from the same process as every other organism, but we like to categorize ourselves as separate. When you discuss nature, do you make this distinction?

I don't make any distinction, no. Humans are part of nature.

[BjornP]

LMFAO.

Bjorn is just like her, trying to obfuscate the meaning of the word.

adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2.
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

And you're trying to weasal your way of being caught in hypocricy. If you want to do that, you have to delete your earlier post (and accuse me of misquoting you), though.

Not made by or caused by equals "defying"? You honestly believe people are going to fall for your spin, StA? As I said, and even consistent with your dictionary definition, no one can defy nature. She certainly is completely ignoring biological reality, being a dumbass, and being that Monty Python caricature from Life of Brian, but she's not defying anything. The reason? You cannot "defy" that which has no will.

And if I found newest definition of "racist" and/or any number of other modern terms that I know that you would reject as "Marxism", you would accept the validity of the post-modern definition of racist as valid? If it was written in the Oxford English dictionary? You would, for example, accept that criticising Islam means that someone is "racist", because a dictionary says so? I know that you won't, so you don't have to bother answering that.

I do reject that first definition in your quote because "existing in or caused by nature", assumes that humankind is not of nature and thus presents nature as in opposition things caused by or made by humankind. So would you, if you applied some common sense and reason.

All of that still does not the change the fact that you and that woman are using the word "natural" the same way. Using it as a way to beat someone over the head with, rather as word meaning "existing in or caused by nature". You don't use a term like "defying nature" if you were definition number 1.

Still... Nice try, StA.

[Speaker to Animals]

LMFAO.

Bjorn is just like her, trying to obfuscate the meaning of the word.

adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2.
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

And you're trying to weasal your way of being caught in hypocricy. If you want to do that, you have to delete your earlier post (and accuse me of misquoting you), though.

Not made by or caused by equals "defying"? You honestly believe people are going to fall for your spin, StA? As I said, and even consistent with your dictionary definition, no one can defy nature. She certainly is completely ignoring biological reality, being a dumbass, and being that Monty Python caricature from Life of Brian, but she's not defying anything. The reason? You cannot "defy" that which has no will.

And if I found newest definition of "racist" and/or any number of other modern terms that I know that you would reject as "Marxism", you would accept the validity of the post-modern definition of racist as valid? If it was written in the Oxford English dictionary? You would, for example, accept that criticising Islam means that someone is "racist", because a dictionary says so? I know that you won't, so you don't have to bother answering that.

I do reject that first definition in your quote because "existing in or caused by nature", assumes that humankind is not of nature and thus presents nature as in opposition things caused by or made by humankind. So would you, if you applied some common sense and reason.

All of that still does not the change the fact that you and that woman are using the word "natural" the same way. Using it as a way to beat someone over the head with, rather as word meaning "existing in or caused by nature". You don't use a term like "defying nature" if you were definition number 1.

Still... Nice try, StA.

LOL

Hypocrisy how? How is lambasting people like you who refuse to acknowledge the common definition of words because it runs counter to your political ideology hypocrisy?

If I don't agree with the common usage of a word, I will admit that upfront. I won't argue on and on as if everybody works off my definition of the word.

You are hilarious.




It's natural for a woman to breastfeed. it's unnatural to manufacture formula in some factory that you then feed the baby via a bottle. Being unnatural doesn't make something wrong unless we are talking about a moral act. Indeed, if a woman can't for some reason breastfeed regularly, then depriving her baby of formula sure as shit can rise to the level of immoral if the baby suffers nutritionally.

[Fife]

Are eyeglasses natural?

Leather footwear, I'm pretty sure, is natural, and manly.

[Speaker to Animals]

Let's just change the meanings of words as we go along, guys. Then we don't really have to argue about anything. Everybody has to acknowledge our subjective lexical identities or they are bigots.