You did. That's the logical conclusion from your argument that there is a way nature and humans are supposed to be. You understand logic don't you? It's a simple logical exercise. If you think humans are supposed to have two arms and a human is born with no arms then you're saying nature didn't do what it was supposed to do. No? It's the same as saying nature fucked up. That nature was wrong to do what it did.
No you objectively invented things in your head, or have weird hang ups going on.
Nature isn’t a god. Deviations and deformities objectively happen. A person without an arm objectively wants the arm they’re objectively missing. If they had it, it would objectively increase their function to an objectively normal level.
Sure. I made up you saying that there was a way humans were supposed to be.
If a human is born without arms then their objective genetic design is one without arms. Norm in this context means average, not a wrongness. The blunder continues to be yours.
Wants are subjective. That's obvious isn't it? A person born without arms might want arms, wish they had arms but objectively they don't have arms because for one reason or another their blueprint, i.e. their DNA, didn't code for arms.
Statistics speak on averages. Not what is supposed to be but what is likely to be. Maybe you need to retake that statistics class. You sure you weren't sitting in a philosophy class instead?
Dude, you are off the reservation.. just wowSure. I made up you saying that there was a way humans were supposed to be.
If a human is born without arms then their objective genetic design is one without arms. Norm in this context means average, not a wrongness. The blunder continues to be yours.
No. No boom. Humans born without arms are still objectively human.
Wants are subjective. That's obvious isn't it? A person born without arms might want arms, wish they had arms but objectively they don't have arms because for one reason or another their blueprint, i.e. their DNA, didn't code for arms.
Statistics speak on averages. Not what is supposed to be but what is likely to be. Maybe you need to retake that statistics class. You sure you weren't sitting in a philosophy class instead?
Sure. Nice counter point....
People can be anything they want to be. Its their life to live.
Can you be a cat?
You’ve bored me to the limit now. I hope one day you can figure out all the confusion you have over sex/gender.Sure. Nice counter point....
Can nature create things it's not supposed to?
I'm not bored by your inability to make rational arguments.
Thats a simplistic question. Life is more complicatedd than you think.
I was probably right when I mentioned "madness". Let us try our best to think in terms of sympathy.
I think it is, yes.
THIS is the A to Z of the whole thing. There's been a lot of that going on.
And unfortunately, you are obliging him.
If humans are supposed to have two arms and a human is born without arms, isn't this poster arguing nature didn't do what it was supposed to do? That nature made an error? If you two can't see the line of reasoning in that and are satisfied with your answers and arguments then I am too. I'm happy to leave it here on this bit of Bingo logic.
The ONLY victory you can rightfully claim is that you've succeeded in soliciting this response, thus enjoying the attention "one more time".
I didn't make up Mr. Friscus arguing that there was a way humans are supposed to be. That's an actual argument he made. Here it is.
If humans are supposed to have two arms and a human is born without arms, isn't this poster arguing nature didn't do what it was supposed to do? That nature made an error? If you two can't see the line of reasoning in that and are satisfied with your answers and arguments then I am too. I'm happy to leave it here on this bit of Bingo logic.
The victory is obvious. You two both claim not to want to waste any more time with me but here you are and it isn't to address my argument because you can't. Arguing that there is a way humans are supposed to be is the same as saying some humans aren't as they are supposed to be. That some humans nature got wrong. And that's clearly a moral and emotional argument, rather than an objective one.
