Cherry-picking means making specific exceptions, and since the majority of killing tends to be murder, you've got that wrong. What I'm saying is that if you say you're against murder, you can't ever condone it; that defeats the point of saying you're against it. You could condone other forms of killing, such as during war or in self-defense, but not when it comes to illegally taking the life of another human being.Secondhand Revenant said:
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by 'die in our mid-twenties'? This is the first time I have heard something like that as I've always had the assumption our most 'natural' goal is survival (whether it be for ourselves, a group or a legacy). That aside, eating, fighting and fucking are necessary to survive but it can also (in my eyes at least) become unnatural if not done in moderation. Fighting can be a natural act as it can be seen as an outlet for certain emotions, competition and a method of self-defense, however I would hardly call a killing spree with no purpose aside from 'shits and giggles' to be natural. You say that 'every action that goes outside of those actions is "unnatural"', but that should not be seen as the case if you see expressing emotions or try to contribute to society with a method which you feel may benefit society as a whole. I guess I should amend my previous statement by saying I see a 'natural' act is more something that serves a purpose to an individual's or group's well-being without going as far as being unnecessary while an 'unnatural' act is more one that relies on opinion that makes no logical sense or necessity (i.e. make all forms of nudity taboo because society tells us it is taboo with no other apparent rhyme or reason)DerangedHobo said:
You are correct, needlessly clinging to something is counter-intuitive but straying too far from our roots is also counter-intuitive. We have made society much more needless than it has to be and as a result we are creating a world in which destroys habitats for the toilet paper you wipe your ass with. That isn't to say we need to blow up our buildings and replace them with trees. It is 'natural' to advance our knowledge in certain fields to advance ourselves but destroying forests for your ass to feel soft does not seem very 'natural' in the least.DerangedHobo said:
We have become a species that is shaping our environment but I would not say for the better. We are destroying life left, right and center for hardly any reason. If we were advancing while trying to minimalise the damage we are doing to this world, I might agree with that statement but we are advancing, in my opinion, in a wrong and unnatural way. We have evolved into a much more aware state and as such a noblesse oblige way of thinking would be far more 'natural' than our greed today.DerangedHobo said:
This is more based on the idea that 'nature' is a template. A method of 'this is how it can be done' rather than 'this is how it should be done', if you will. Our ways of survival that have kept us alive thus far certainly have their merits and should not be discarded but as you have said, they have lead to our darkest hours as a species. This is the result of using these methods to unnecessary or excessive means. A good example is war, it is not pretty and it is not always used in the right way but we cannot deny that in some cases a revolution is needed.DerangedHobo said:
You have it wrong by assuming it is an exception. It would be if he said 'all murder is wrong'. He did notIOwnTheSpire said:
