Social Justice Warriors Thread

[de officiis]

It's the Reign of Subjective Emotion that I can't agree with. Everyone and everything, including the dictionary definition of "natural," must bend to its will. It's BS.

[Ph64]

It's the Reign of Subjective Emotion that I can't agree with. Everyone and everything, including the dictionary definition of "natural," must bend to its will. It's BS.

I'm "triggered" and "offended" by you making sense... You need to stop.

Rational thinking must be outlawed or the word redefined...

[BjornP]

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?

Your earlier use of the word natural does not correspond merely to the "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" definition you cited earlier. It is clearly not the one you're using when you're claiming that someone "defies" nature. Does "Nature" have a will that you can defy, StA? Did the definition of nature as "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" cited earlier anywhere liken nature to an intelligence, StA? No. Then your usage of the term is also not consistent with the one you yourself cited, is it?

As for "my political ideology"? Nothing as organized as that when it comes to my views on people's usage of the word "natural". All ideologies claim that status for themselves, after all. My pov concerning the usage of the word "natural" and "unnatural" is not part of any ideology. All of the major ideologies have claimed their views represented something "natural". I simply reject a distinction and reject its use as fundamentally pointless. Marx called religion and capitalism unnatural and rejected evolution, too. Not my kind of company, regardless of convenient strawmen.

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.

I made claims to being right, not having my perspective on the use of the word being the universally accepted one. I didn't cite any dictionary definition because I knew that people would be operating with the common definition of "natural". It would be obvious that I disagreed with that common definition after I posted why I did.

Oh, and are you going to admit you're weren't using the dictionary definition of "natural" earlier, then? When you said she was outright "defying" nature? I eagerly wait for you to admit that. Because that's not consistent with the common definition of "existing in or caused by nature", either.

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.

If you're now using definition no. 1 of "natural", as quoted by you earlier, then formula is unnatural (meaning manmade), yes.

[Speaker to Animals]

Use whatever definitions of words make you happy, Bjorn. I am not playing sophistry games with you. Just do your thing.

[BjornP]

Use whatever definitions of words make you happy, Bjorn. I am not playing sophistry games with you. Just do your thing.

If anyone's playing sophistry games here, it's you. You accused me of trying to redefine terms when you clearly weren't using any sort of normal definition of "natural" yourself in the post I originally replied to. Again, "defying" nature is not something one can do even using the definition of nature you quoted to me. That's the part you keep ignoring and avoiding because you realized you got caught.

You can play your strawman game to cover that up, if you like. That's your thing, after all. Or you can simply argue why male lactation woman isn't simply being ignorant of what nature is (we agree on that), but how and why she is also defying nature. And how that definition of nature, one that can be "defied", is consistent with this definition of natural:

existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

[Speaker to Animals]

Use whatever definitions of words make you happy, Bjorn. I am not playing sophistry games with you. Just do your thing.

If anyone's playing sophistry games here, it's you. You accused me of trying to redefine terms when you clearly weren't using any sort of normal definition of "natural" yourself in the post I originally replied to. Again, "defying" nature is not something one can do even using the definition of nature you quoted to me. That's the part you keep ignoring and avoiding because you realized you got caught.

You can play your strawman game to cover that up, if you like. That's your thing, after all. Or you can simply argue why male lactation woman isn't simply being ignorant of what nature is (we agree on that), but how and why she is also defying nature. And how that definition of nature, one that can be "defied", is consistent with this definition of natural:

existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Uh.. what the fuck now?

I am the one pointing to the dictionary. Do you need me to quote the dictionary again, Bjorn?

[Okeefenokee]

Do we need to settle this with a poll?

Breastfeeding is natural.

Yay or nay?

[BjornP]

Use whatever definitions of words make you happy, Bjorn. I am not playing sophistry games with you. Just do your thing.

If anyone's playing sophistry games here, it's you. You accused me of trying to redefine terms when you clearly weren't using any sort of normal definition of "natural" yourself in the post I originally replied to. Again, "defying" nature is not something one can do even using the definition of nature you quoted to me. That's the part you keep ignoring and avoiding because you realized you got caught.

You can play your strawman game to cover that up, if you like. That's your thing, after all. Or you can simply argue why male lactation woman isn't simply being ignorant of what nature is (we agree on that), but how and why she is also defying nature. And how that definition of nature, one that can be "defied", is consistent with this definition of natural:

existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Uh.. what the fuck now?

I am the one pointing to the dictionary. Do you need me to quote the dictionary again, Bjorn?

Is your memory that poor? It's only a page back. You replied to me:

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.

So. How does her ideology defy human nature? Again, as stated before, we can agree that she is ignorant, and making a nonsensical point about men feeding children, that she does not understand nature or that we have natural limitations. But it can't be a defiance of our nature. She can't will her ideology into rearranging human biology, after all. Or do you mean something different by "defiance", StA?

[BjornP]

Do we need to settle this with a poll?

Breastfeeding is natural.

Yay or nay?

A poll here? No one here so far has claimed that it's not natural, so unless we're expecting hordes of post-modernists on acid to barge into the forums, probably not much use.

[Speaker to Animals]

If anyone's playing sophistry games here, it's you. You accused me of trying to redefine terms when you clearly weren't using any sort of normal definition of "natural" yourself in the post I originally replied to. Again, "defying" nature is not something one can do even using the definition of nature you quoted to me. That's the part you keep ignoring and avoiding because you realized you got caught.

You can play your strawman game to cover that up, if you like. That's your thing, after all. Or you can simply argue why male lactation woman isn't simply being ignorant of what nature is (we agree on that), but how and why she is also defying nature. And how that definition of nature, one that can be "defied", is consistent with this definition of natural:

Uh.. what the fuck now?

I am the one pointing to the dictionary. Do you need me to quote the dictionary again, Bjorn?

Is your memory that poor? It's only a page back. You replied to me:

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.

So. How does her ideology defy human nature? Again, as stated before, we can agree that she is ignorant, and making a nonsensical point about men feeding children, that she does not understand nature or that we have natural limitations. But it can't be a defiance of our nature. She can't will her ideology into rearranging human biology, after all. Or do you mean something different by "defiance", StA?

Uh.. yeah..

She believes women are not meant to bear children. She espouses feminism which expresses the idea that women are our equals (or they can do anything we can do, which is demonstrably false).