I believe youāre responding to an argument I didnāt quite make.
I wasnāt saying āany external change = validation.ā I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or āpassā ā¦ thatās a much narrower category than general self-expression viaā¦
Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. arenāt comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. Iām talking about chronic physical changes to the body.
And even then, I didnāt claim external validation is the only reason, but just that itās a common psychological driver in some cases.
So no, the logic doesnāt expand to āeverything non-functional.ā Thatās a mischaracterization.
On the āGodās designā point, youāre also stretching it into areas I wasnāt talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. Thatās insane, IMO. Thatās jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
If you want to challenge the position, thatās fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.
I believe youāre responding to an argument I didnāt quite make.
I wasnāt saying āany external change = validation.ā I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or āpassā ā¦ thatās a much narrower category than general self-expression viaā¦
Ah, thatās my bad, i read it as all body mods are external validation driven.
Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. arenāt comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. Iām talking about chronic physical changes to the body.
Stakes are relative in this case, just because you care about the permanence or reversibility of a modification doesnāt mean others do.
but yeah, itās not an exact match.
And even then, I didnāt claim external validation is the only reason, but just that itās a common psychological driver in some cases. So no, the logic doesnāt expand to āeverything non-functional.ā Thatās a mischaracterization.
see above
On the āGodās designā point, youāre also stretching it into areas I wasnāt talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.
This weāll have to disagree on, unless you have a convincing way of explaining why we canāt improve on gods design with stylistic choices, but medical intervention is ok.
I realise how that sounds (to me at least) but your phrasing didnāt leave any leeway in that it didnāt really specify what about gods design could possibly be improved upon.
It also gets into conversation about what exactly constitutes harm, psychological harm exists and can be just as devastating as physical harm.
Not to mention that psychological harm can cause physical harm, i donāt mean self-harm (though thatās a thing also) i mean detrimental physiological changes brought about by negative psychological pressure.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. Thatās insane, IMO. Thatās jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
My answer to this would be contingent upon your answer to āwhat about godās design is possible for us to improve upon?ā.
If you want to challenge the position, thatās fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.
Thatās fair, though as i said your position was unclear in that the statement seems to be an absolute with no specification as to boundaries.
I did go back and adjust my statement to ask a question around boundaries in the original reply, Iām not sure if you replied before or after this.
If you donāt mind giving me some clarification on where those boundaries exist i can be more specific.
The āGodās designā line wasnāt meant as a literal argument! Lol. It was more rhetorical shorthand, and yeah, a bit tongue-in-cheek(Iām atheist).
The actual point I care about isnāt at all theological, itās about where we draw the line between restoring function and altering a healthy body for social or aesthetic reasons.
The āGodās designā line wasnāt meant as a literal argument! Lol.
Thatās a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.
And youāve managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didnāt actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.
So iāll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. Thatās insane, IMO. Thatās jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
I wasnāt comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because thatās a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.
I was using it as an example as to why āgodās designā is a poor argument.
As it seems āgodās designā wasnāt an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.
I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in itās many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).
Iām not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someoneās will, Iām saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.
In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.
As youāve stated youāre not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.
Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.
It just wasnāt meant literally. Again, itās rhetorical. Thatās still an argumentā¦
Itās not a great argument if taken literally but thatās also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isnāt relevant(Iām not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.
Iām essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.
Replace god with nature, basically.
If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess youāll have your reward? But itāll also be your undoing.
It just wasnāt meant literally. Again, itās rhetorical. Thatās still an argumentā¦
Not a good one, but sure, technically.
Itās not a great argument if taken literally but thatās also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isnāt relevant(Iām not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.
It does not, ambiguity over an already unclear position does not make for a strong argument.
It took us 3 back and forths for you to actually explain what you meant.
You used a small phrase with no supporting context to imply it wasnāt meant to be taken literally.
Iām essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.
Thatās also a poor argument in itās ambiguity , āembrace their natureā is almost as hand-wavy as āgods designā, though it falls down for a different reason.
Replace god with nature, basically.
Youād have to work hard to pick a more subjective benchmark than ānatureā, there are tribes and cultures who think/thought foot binding was natural, human sacrifice, tribal marking, scarification, FGM, MGM (circumcision), head binding and basically any other cultural practice youād care to mention.
If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess youāll have your reward? But itāll also be your undoing.
That makes even less sense than ānaturalā.
It also addresses none of the points raised.
Honestly i think this is on me at this point, you did say right at the beginning you worked from a āgut feelingā itās my bad for trying to get you to formalise that.
You have your boundaries, they seem arbitrary and nonsensical to me, but they donāt have to make sense to me because Iām not using them.
Maybe read up on Spinoza and Taoism, like the Tao Te Ching. Iām a pantheist. So god=nature=universe, and weāre part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!
By nature I donāt just mean me. I mean seeing the whole world as an interconnected and interdependent organism. All is one and one is all.
I can further explain, I suppose. I donāt really care for excessive vanity. People and their main character syndromes. They become so obsessed, as you say, with fitting in. Being a member to some sort of click or grasping onto things (ideologies) for the sake of identityā¦ Which is almost always paired with some kind of intense disdain for some particular out group(like jocks v. Nerds, whites v. Immigrants, Catholic v. Protestant v. Atheist, left v right, etc). People that just constantly regurgitate sayings from pop culture (or even the Bible) are often insufferable.
Hive mind mentalities. People that arenāt really finding themselves, nor their people. Theyāre just conforming to something comfortable, I suppose. Anything preferable to loneliness?
Great examples: maralago face, most religious people, clicks, Reddit, tbf most social media, etc.
Uh. None of those rituals are natural. That shit is as natural as a clown or circus. Thatās mostly just animal(human) abuseā¦ Like a Barnum & Bailey circus!
Pave Paradise is reference to a songā¦ Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. Itās similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.
I do get it, you have your opinions, i understand what you mean by them , Iām just saying theyāre inconsistent, arbitrary and unnecessarily rigid to me.
for example:
So god=nature=universe, and weāre part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!
and
Uh. None of those rituals are natural.
Are contradictory.
If we are part of nature, anything we do is natural, as reprehensible as it can be, itās still a part of nature because we are a part of nature.
To be clear Iām not stating a position on the objective morality/ethics of those rituals (i do have opinions, they just arenāt part of my argument) , i was using them as an example of why the term ānatureā is ambiguous and useless as a baseline because of itās subjective interpretation.
Yes, cliques and cults(religions) and subjectively malicious groups exist, but itās a false dichotomy to suggest itās either complete self sufficiency or cult membership, nuance exists.
If you donāt think itās possible to have a tattoo or piercing because of a personal decision, thatās your call, to me that sounds like a small distance from fundamentalism but as long as you arenāt forcing it on others , you do you.
Pave Paradise is reference to a songā¦ Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. Itās similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.
I understand the reference, i was saying that whole sentence didnāt make any sense as an argument in this context.
You also still havenāt addressed the harm reduction conversation.
based on an inherent sense of right and wrong; natural justice. 2. a : being in accordance with or determined by nature; natural impulses.3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical.
Itās funny you claim a limited, special definition thatās more semantics than substance. Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue. And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.
Sounds like a merry go round.
Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like youāre made in Godās image nonsense but I genuinely donāt believe that. Iām more a deist than any kind of theist.
Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think thatās a good look into harm reduction.
I believe youāre responding to an argument I didnāt quite make.
I wasnāt saying āany external change = validation.ā I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or āpassā ā¦ thatās a much narrower category than general self-expression viaā¦
Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. arenāt comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. Iām talking about chronic physical changes to the body.
And even then, I didnāt claim external validation is the only reason, but just that itās a common psychological driver in some cases. So no, the logic doesnāt expand to āeverything non-functional.ā Thatās a mischaracterization.
On the āGodās designā point, youāre also stretching it into areas I wasnāt talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. Thatās insane, IMO. Thatās jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
If you want to challenge the position, thatās fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.
Ah, thatās my bad, i read it as all body mods are external validation driven.
Stakes are relative in this case, just because you care about the permanence or reversibility of a modification doesnāt mean others do.
but yeah, itās not an exact match.
see above
This weāll have to disagree on, unless you have a convincing way of explaining why we canāt improve on gods design with stylistic choices, but medical intervention is ok.
I realise how that sounds (to me at least) but your phrasing didnāt leave any leeway in that it didnāt really specify what about gods design could possibly be improved upon.
It also gets into conversation about what exactly constitutes harm, psychological harm exists and can be just as devastating as physical harm.
Not to mention that psychological harm can cause physical harm, i donāt mean self-harm (though thatās a thing also) i mean detrimental physiological changes brought about by negative psychological pressure.
My answer to this would be contingent upon your answer to āwhat about godās design is possible for us to improve upon?ā.
Thatās fair, though as i said your position was unclear in that the statement seems to be an absolute with no specification as to boundaries.
I did go back and adjust my statement to ask a question around boundaries in the original reply, Iām not sure if you replied before or after this.
If you donāt mind giving me some clarification on where those boundaries exist i can be more specific.
The āGodās designā line wasnāt meant as a literal argument! Lol. It was more rhetorical shorthand, and yeah, a bit tongue-in-cheek(Iām atheist). The actual point I care about isnāt at all theological, itās about where we draw the line between restoring function and altering a healthy body for social or aesthetic reasons.
Thatās my boundary.
Thatās a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.
And youāve managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didnāt actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.
So iāll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.
I wasnāt comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because thatās a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.
I was using it as an example as to why āgodās designā is a poor argument.
As it seems āgodās designā wasnāt an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.
I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in itās many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).
Iām not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someoneās will, Iām saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.
In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.
As youāve stated youāre not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.
Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.
It just wasnāt meant literally. Again, itās rhetorical. Thatās still an argumentā¦
Itās not a great argument if taken literally but thatās also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isnāt relevant(Iām not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.
Iām essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.
Replace god with nature, basically.
If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess youāll have your reward? But itāll also be your undoing.
Not a good one, but sure, technically.
It does not, ambiguity over an already unclear position does not make for a strong argument.
It took us 3 back and forths for you to actually explain what you meant.
You used a small phrase with no supporting context to imply it wasnāt meant to be taken literally.
Thatās also a poor argument in itās ambiguity , āembrace their natureā is almost as hand-wavy as āgods designā, though it falls down for a different reason.
Youād have to work hard to pick a more subjective benchmark than ānatureā, there are tribes and cultures who think/thought foot binding was natural, human sacrifice, tribal marking, scarification, FGM, MGM (circumcision), head binding and basically any other cultural practice youād care to mention.
That makes even less sense than ānaturalā.
It also addresses none of the points raised.
Honestly i think this is on me at this point, you did say right at the beginning you worked from a āgut feelingā itās my bad for trying to get you to formalise that.
You have your boundaries, they seem arbitrary and nonsensical to me, but they donāt have to make sense to me because Iām not using them.
Thanks for the back and forth anyway.
Maybe read up on Spinoza and Taoism, like the Tao Te Ching. Iām a pantheist. So god=nature=universe, and weāre part of it. Like an apple tree apples, this planet peoples!
By nature I donāt just mean me. I mean seeing the whole world as an interconnected and interdependent organism. All is one and one is all.
I can further explain, I suppose. I donāt really care for excessive vanity. People and their main character syndromes. They become so obsessed, as you say, with fitting in. Being a member to some sort of click or grasping onto things (ideologies) for the sake of identityā¦ Which is almost always paired with some kind of intense disdain for some particular out group(like jocks v. Nerds, whites v. Immigrants, Catholic v. Protestant v. Atheist, left v right, etc). People that just constantly regurgitate sayings from pop culture (or even the Bible) are often insufferable.
Hive mind mentalities. People that arenāt really finding themselves, nor their people. Theyāre just conforming to something comfortable, I suppose. Anything preferable to loneliness?
Great examples: maralago face, most religious people, clicks, Reddit, tbf most social media, etc.
Uh. None of those rituals are natural. That shit is as natural as a clown or circus. Thatās mostly just animal(human) abuseā¦ Like a Barnum & Bailey circus!
Pave Paradise is reference to a songā¦ Originally by Joni Mitchell titled Big Yellow Taxi. Perhaps the lyrics will make my point more comprehensible? Give it a listen and tell me whatcha think. Itās similar to Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds in sentiment.
I do get it, you have your opinions, i understand what you mean by them , Iām just saying theyāre inconsistent, arbitrary and unnecessarily rigid to me.
for example:
and
Are contradictory.
If we are part of nature, anything we do is natural, as reprehensible as it can be, itās still a part of nature because we are a part of nature.
To be clear Iām not stating a position on the objective morality/ethics of those rituals (i do have opinions, they just arenāt part of my argument) , i was using them as an example of why the term ānatureā is ambiguous and useless as a baseline because of itās subjective interpretation.
Yes, cliques and cults(religions) and subjectively malicious groups exist, but itās a false dichotomy to suggest itās either complete self sufficiency or cult membership, nuance exists.
If you donāt think itās possible to have a tattoo or piercing because of a personal decision, thatās your call, to me that sounds like a small distance from fundamentalism but as long as you arenāt forcing it on others , you do you.
I understand the reference, i was saying that whole sentence didnāt make any sense as an argument in this context.
You also still havenāt addressed the harm reduction conversation.
Sigh. From the dictionary:
Itās funny you claim a limited, special definition thatās more semantics than substance. Yet then still claim ambiguity is an issue. And state the problem is a subjective (limited, special) interpretation.
Sounds like a merry go round.
Fundamentalism? No. Not really. I was certainly tempted to just reply with something like youāre made in Godās image nonsense but I genuinely donāt believe that. Iām more a deist than any kind of theist.
Have you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I think thatās a good look into harm reduction.