Some reoccurring problems in arguments on TSR which I hate Watch

Rorschach II
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Some reoccurring argumentative fallacies:
- using "natural" and "normal" almost interchangeably.
Ffs stop doing this; "natural" means "occurring without human interference" and "normal" is often something which is dictated by majority. There are correlations, but they have distinct differences.

- there's a biological purpose; I understand why people might think this, but after having it explained to them, it shouldn't be a problem (this may pardon religious believers.) There is no purpose in biology, purpose (in this context) implies design & intent. There's no intentionality in evolution.

On top of this, the penis & vagina are NOT made for each other, they are COMPLEMENTARY to each other.
There's no biological purpose to reproduce ffs.

- I also hate it when people say/abuse/overuse the phrase "ad hominem" because what the people may deem as an insult actually expresses the person's viewpoint a lof of the time, worthwhile viewpoints.

Just to get this off my chest.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
+1

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
localblackguy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I mostly agree with you, but just one thing.

(Original post by XcitingStuart)
Some reoccurring argumentative fallacies:
- using "natural" and "normal" almost interchangeably.
Ffs stop doing this; "natural" means "occurring without human interference" and "normal" is often something which is dictated by majority. There are correlations, but they have distinct differences.

- there's a biological purpose; I understand why people might think this, but after having it explained to them, it shouldn't be a problem (this may pardon religious believers.) There is no purpose in biology, purpose (in this context) implies design & intent. There's no intentionality in evolution.

On top of this, the penis & vagina are NOT made for each other, they are COMPLEMENTARY to each other.
There's no biological purpose to reproduce ffs.

- I also hate it when people say/abuse/overuse the phrase "ad hominem" because what the people may deem as an insult actually expresses the person's viewpoint a lof of the time, worthwhile viewpoints.

Just to get this off my chest.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Please, enlighten me on how our species and several others wouldn't be extinct by now if this was the case.
0
reply
callum_law
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
I find myself agreeing with you more and more, OP.
0
reply
Rorschach II
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by localblackguy)
I mostly agree with you, but just one thing.



Please, enlighten me on how our species and several others wouldn't be extinct by now if this was the case.
That's not the point; that has nothing to do with it.

We survived, because we reproduced.
Not we reproduced, to survive.

(Well that's how I see it by the theory of evolution; those who didn't reproduce died)

Unless biological purpose is used in the context of "maltase" is used to digest "maltose" as you can't really explain it any other way; that's what it does.

But it hasn't been made for that purpose; it's evolved causing it to do that.

Another thing is, there's no intentionality in evolution, so no purpose.

And purpose implies design, but I'm not religious, hence you can't justify you're answer unless you believe you were designed by a deity, which then excuses you.
0
reply
Moonstruck16
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by XcitingStuart)
That's not the point; that has nothing to do with it.

We survived, because we reproduced.
Not we reproduced, to survive.

(Well that's how I see it by the theory of evolution; those who didn't reproduce died)

Unless biological purpose is used in the context of "maltase" is used to digest "maltose" as you can't really explain it any other way; that's what it does.

But it hasn't been made for that purpose; it's evolved causing it to do that.

Another thing is, there's no intentionality in evolution, so no purpose.

And purpose implies design, but I'm not religious, hence you can't justify you're answer unless you believe you were designed by a deity, which then excuses you.
Not only do I agree with what you say but I also like the way you presented and backed up your argument. Makes a change from the pre-pubescent drama queens on here whose sole aim is to initiate badly founded 'debates' or just because they like seein hissy fits.
1
reply
Rorschach II
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Moonstruck16)
Not only do I agree with what you say but I also like the way you presented and backed up your argument. Makes a change from the pre-pubescent drama queens on here whose sole aim is to initiate badly founded 'debates' or just because they like seein hissy fits.
Thanks; that's a real confidence booster.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (228)
67.66%
No (109)
32.34%

Watched Threads

View All