Satenza

Descartes only ever proved that he existed to himself. Like i can only prove I exist. He never proved we all exist.

Not true, we have the "loler cat" thread for you to post in. ...You're calling a 'lolcat' thread pretentious, and requiring deep thought? Well, what ever way you want to fucntion... Erm no, there isn't a "wave of pretentious" and I was calling it the opposite. It's a place where you can avoid these questions by looking at pictures of cats with captions under their names. Seriously though why do you even care. I personally dont find the thread about which way to cut your sandwhich interesting or as said that cat thing. Different people like different things, accept it don't try and ridicule them for posting what they like and others for discussing it.

That does not make sense, mystical things like ghosts are supernatural beliefs. A supernatural belief can't be explained logically by definition. Supernatural means that it's not something that naturally occurs and that it 'goes against the laws of nature'. Logic is derived and exists because of those laws of nature. So how can you logically explain something that is illogical?

Moopy <3 Anyway, i appreciate the technical ability many death metal bands have. I just don't ever seem to be in the right mood to listen to it. When your mad! :P When I'm mad a like to calm down though :P

Not true, we have the "loler cat" thread for you to post in.

Descartes didn't realistically doubt he existed. He went over this particular dicourse in his book Meditations. His aim was to find what parts of his knowledge were truth and which were not, and this was part of his method of doubt. Ulitmatley and objectively his method of doubt failed because of this question (although he himself thought he succeeded). In my eyes he only acomplished the phrase "cogito ergo sum" but that phrase came in his later book Discourse On The Method. The orginal phrase is simply "I am, I exist".

Good job, still this section has a long way to go though. You at least showed it proper consideration.

Moopy <3 Anyway, i appreciate the technical ability many death metal bands have. I just don't ever seem to be in the right mood to listen to it.

Pft, whitemen can't jump. And canadians can't bully. I never really got bullied, mainly just friendly banter. The funny thing is here in England that after highschool (ends at 16) you go to a seperate college for 2 years (before university) so most of my friends stayed on there and we remained friends with a few new people. The bullies who stayed and went to college were often isolated since they had barley any friends and those they did have mostly dropped out. With the amount of freetime in the middle of the day they were pretty much alone the whole time. That was true karma.

Most doctors for the last 30+ years in America have not classified it as a "mental-disorder" since the 73' declassification from the APA. Why when study has shown it to be caused by both biolgical and enviromental causes would you say its unnatural. The element that is biological is a product of nature, and therefore is natural. I don't know what you mean by nature when you reject that - so please clarify what "nature" means to you. Is being left-handed "natural" when the majority is right-handed? . It's not a disorder. I do not know where you get this infomation. And if he gets feelings for him after speaking to him and getting to know him? Your argument here is against lust not homosexuality.

I do not understand where you people get your definitions of "natural" from, or is this made up definition of natural just the next token word to provide a little objective justification to move personal distaste to declaring something as "wrong"?

Im quite sure they attribute evil to the fall of men, not to nature. Which is why the "evil" argument would work maybe if homosexualiy was 100% enviromental or a choice. Thats the reason religious types like to argue against scientific study that it's down to the person not nature.

Thats because you probably live somewhere where it seldom rains :P

It's not about personal views. According to many religions homosexuality isn't natural. To many religion is seen as the truth and science is just the devil's word. What you see as nature can be seen as trickery to someone, and what they see as nature can be seen as foolishness to you. Most religions involve God creating all that is natural, therefore nature itself and governing those laws of nature. I don't see how anyone religious or not could see nature as evil. Nature just is nature its neither good nor bad. We don't look at the natural disasters in the world and attribute them to works of evil.

Most people would agree that it takes a mixture of both biological and enviromental causes. Those biological causes come about entirley through nature (and if they were not there, neither would homosexuality be here), so how can you possibly call something that is derived from nature "unnatural". Nature isn't a man made construct, it governs the laws of everything that surrounds us. You can't simply say something is unnatural because it goes against your personal view of an action you find to be distasteful and an attraction you deem as "disgraceful". I think you need to understand what nature is, and the diversity it holds before you can use that term.

Its not natural. Heres what I honestly think. Gay people feel friendship around guys(they think it is romantic love) and they feel love for women,(but they think it is just friendship) I honestly do not think anyone is naturally gay, I think it is just a misconception (to them) of thier feelings, and they "become" gay. Have you ever been in love? I doubt, because it feels A LOT different than friendship. I have. Honestly I can't think of another way to try to explain it, because its just unnatural and wrong :-# Unnatural, disgraceful, and to me flat out disturbing. Please say why you think these things beyond personal distaste. At the moment you're coming across as someone who is condemning an action with no reasonable explanation. Edit: And I'd like to point out the science friendly forum posters have already pointed out that homosexuality occurs in many animals. It's not strictly just human.

Then why feel sexually attracted to the same sex if really it's just a casual "mistake". Honestly thats one of the most ignorant and egocentric "beleifs" we have come across on this thread.

The funniest part of it has to be: Next bullet point. This is probably the worst article i have ever read in terms of stupidity and prejudice.

I'm sure a link from the Catholic Apolgetics Society is going to be completley impartial when discussing things which they already beleive is - by divine word - wrong.

No what the hell are you talking about. How can you relate something like "killing a few people" and low scale homosexuality. Killing people - damage and harm done, being gay - no damage and harm done. Stop using this analogy because it makes no sense. Oh look, my posts was deleted, inspite the fact that every other rude individual gets to keep theres. Its not suprise to me tho. I'm done talking with kids, have a nice day Satenza because you always miss the point. Enjoy your little talks here. ~Defender~ Im afraid you didn't make an analogy that made sense. Attack the argument not the person Defender, I have not insulted you in this thread. I'd like it if you treated me with that respect in the future.

Pre-Imperial Rome disagrees with you. As does ancient Sparta. Neither of which however were democracy as we know it today. Ancient Sparta/Greece is probably the closest mankind will ever get to true democracy in the history of this planet's lifespan, and they also had a thriving free market that was open to local & foreign citizens. Even common men and slaves had a say in the running of things locally and on a bigger level. No it definatley was not. Slaves, women and foreign people were not able to have a say in any political decision. The only people who could vote were athenian men which made up a small amount of the population.

Pre-Imperial Rome disagrees with you. As does ancient Sparta. Neither of which however were democracy as we know it today.

No what the hell are you talking about. How can you relate something like "killing a few people" and low scale homosexuality. Killing people - damage and harm done, being gay - no damage and harm done. Stop using this analogy because it makes no sense.

Your analogy makes no sense - here i'll break it down for you. Homosexuality on a small scale - Humans don't become extinct. Throwing a grenade - Damage done. I can only assume that you're comparing damage done to human extinction which does not mean anything in this case since there is nothing to compare small scale damage to. Unless you want to explain it a little more.

So why is doing it on small scale not okay then. Please stop jumping from one thing to another without explaining it because it has made no sense.