Quote:
Originally Posted by Vance Stubbs
It's unnatural as a synonym for unhealthy or dysfunctional, not impossible.
Like if you bent your elbow backwards, it would be at an unnatural angle.
|
There are two ways to look at 'natural.'
As I've said, I used to use natural the way Hitler does. Then I was criticized by a fag I was arguing with who said 'if people do it, it's natural.' I thought about it, and I prefer his way of looking at it. The other way is too moralizing and simplistic. It is wrong, and better avoided, speaking about nature as though it has goals and intentions. It's conventional to do this, but it's not accurate.
Nature has laws, but they amount to: whatever goes, goes. If whites gain power and exterminate jews and blacks, nature is fine with that. If jews retain power and genocide whites by mongrelization, nature is fine with that too. So arguments ad naturam (or however it's spelled), arguments claiming in effect nature backs my side are wrong. They are exactly the same as arguing that God backs our plan for (racial integration) or (racial segregation). They feel good, but they mean nothing. So I don't use them. They're what I call Big Brother arguments. I can't beat you up, but my big brother (Nature, God, Peter "Asterisk of AIDS" Peerlessly Peer-Reviewed Picklepuffer-Piper) can!
As Mark Twain faultlessly and inimitably said:
I'll take 'n' bounce a rock off'n your head.
Well I will!