Perhaps I should ask what makes a humans life more valuable in the sense of necessity causing their worth to be greater than that of an animals?

For clarification: I am simply asking your point of view as to why you may think an animals life has a lesser worth than that of a humans.

The problem with your statement is your implicit assumption that the only entities that should have rights to life are those that are cognizant of the needs/preferences of others. This not only invokes a moral rationale, but also begs the question.

I would prefer you give a sound argument (inductive or otherwise) as to why an animals right to life should be not equivalent to that of a humans.

Given your statement I feel as though this will come to a moral argument - ha, and I'm sure we both do not wish to be encumbered with such a debacle.

You misquoted me. I did not say "the other three". I said "one of the 3", "one of the other of the 3", and "the third option". This one is all on you.

You just flat out lied.... I copied and pasted exactly what you wrote. If you edited your comment then that shows your dishonesty. I am entirely disappointed in you Cartman.

This act of dishonesty was enough for me to dismiss this bickering entirely as it shows your immaturity and your likelihood of trolling me right now. I wish you the best.

What does intelligence have to do with living rights?

Furthermore, you cannot compare intelligence of a chicken to that of a human as they are two entirely different intelligence complexes. What, they aren't intelligent because they cannot do calculus? Chimps share 98% of our DNA and yet, cannot do half of the things we can. The reason why is because although they are our cousins, they are still a different subspecies of apes. Therefore they function in a way different from us to best suit their environment.

False. I am using the one that is correct for this debate. According to your definition the debate premise is false and there is no debate. According to my definition the debate premise has a chance to be true and is open for debate. Therefore, you are using the wrong definition.

Homosexuality is natural, for it is produced by nature.... Humans are produced by nature, therefore anything that humans do is natural.

We are trying to determine if religion exists in nature, not if it is a natural thing for humans to do. In the context of this debate religion is unnatural like the debate creator suggests homosexuality is. Religion is not in nature because not all species have religion ... the premise of the debate.

First, a scientific claim is not always validated by the observation of another species.

Secondly, all we need is one species to practice religion for it to exist in nature as humans are natural.

Thirdly, the way the debate is contextualized in using naturalness does not coincide with its attempted meaning of natural which is why it is completely wrong. The debate is expressing nature as in something that occurs without conscious decision and I believe you are to; my point is the fact that this is conceptualized and practiced entails that it must be natural, even if one person was doing it, for logical reasons. Moreover, I could go even further how religion is conjured up no matter where you go in the world which hints towards a psycho-genetic component that may give rise to a system in which explains things we don't know.

Oh, and how come I am not justified in using my definition of natural if it is in the dictionary as well. You are being contradictory.

I never said you weren't justified in using your definition, you are the one who said I wasn't justified in using one of the definitions, you basically said my definition of natural doesn't work. I used a universal definition of natural- anything that is caused by nature; humans are cause by nature; therefore, anything that a human does is natural.

Don't speak for logicians. They would say you are wrong.

Even though my use of natural is logically sound...

Tell me, where am i wrong in saying: humans are produced by nature; therefore humans are natural; therefore anything that this natural entity (humans) does is natural; humans explain thing; therefore the act of explanation is natural.

I am glad that you have proven you are too dumb to be allowed in this debate. There are 3 choices. I told you that humans are not doing one of the 3, they are doing one of the other of the 3, and you claim my logic dictates that they are doing the third option. Clearly you have misrepresented what I have said.

Ah, i see you are incompetent in understanding how nuanced grammatical logic and lexical semantics are. You gave three options two of which can be interchangeable (supernatural and unnatural).

Secondly, this statement itself is logically unsound: "There are 3 choices. I told you that humans are not doing one of the 3, they are doing one of the other of the 3, and you claim my logic dictates that they are doing the third option." By this logic there are six choices, as you said "the other three". Lmao, you are actually misrepresenting yourself.

Not natural might be considered unnatural if you weren't an idiot and looked at the definition I told you about.

The word unnatural is self-described as not natural, obviously. My point is you cannot deduce that something natural can give rise to unnatural, unless, of course, we are talking about a fantasy realm.

Wow, I just showed there is no logic in it whatsoever, and that it was completely refutable. Congratulations.

You have not shown anything but complete ignorance in the field of logic.

That isn't a thing. You are using an alternate definition of unnatural that doesn't fit with this debate.

You only asked me to provide a context in which i would use the word unnatural. That is all i did; and my example was logically sound.

Perhaps I will make a debate about humans doing the 'unnatural'.

If someone says"Einstein thinks jeans are stupid so they must be" that is an appeal to authority. If someone says "Einstein agrees with my position concerning the nature of light", that would not be an appeal to authority.

You've created an entirely different fallacy, using a grossly different comparison to make his point seem better. Eisenstein's agreement of light (an objective element that can be scientifically tested) vs. a philosophers agreement on a subjective notion (morality, which requires human postulations) are entirely two different agreements. For him to note morality as being objective given a renowned philosophers 'says-so' is in fact appeal to authority, erroneous as it may be.

Natural- in conformity with the ordinary course of nature (usual).

Here is a context in which i would use unnatural- being inextricably interchangeable with unusual:

If my girlfriend wakes up at 5 whereas normally she would wake up at 8, i would say that is unnatural (basically interchange the word with unusual).

Changing the definition of natural does not make you logical.

There are 33 definitions of natural, you only choose to go by one, which makes you an incorrigible irrational nonconformist.

Your definition of unnatural is useless, that's why no one uses it.

I don't care who chooses not to use the dictionaries definition of natural, for as long as I am using a dictionaries definition of natural then I am justified in using it, simple.

No one but you considers what humans create to be natural.

Logicians do, know why? because the logical progression of naturalism entails that anything that a human does must be considered natural.

There is natural, unnatural, and supernatural. You eliminated one of those. Why?

By your context of unnaturalness humans must be doing something supernatural; how can a natural being give rise to actions unnatural? Unless of course that very being itself wasn't natural (i.e. supernatural). Now i don't mind going into the realm of super-naturalism, but the subject you are attempting to refute is logically sound and irrefutable.

Name the context for unnatural or STFU. Give me anything unnatural or STFU.

Very mature debating skills, Cartman. But as you insist, here is a context in which i would use unnatural- being inextricably interchangeable with unusual:

If my girlfriend wakes up at 5 whereas normally she would wake up at 8, i would say that is unnatural (basically interchange the word with unusual).

You're are completely incapable of interpreting logic coherently.

I believe i have waited my time talking to a brick wall. I call you a brick wall for making comments such as "And, according to your definition, religion is unnatural since it is only seen by one species." And, "Give me one thing that is unnatural. Do it."

Anything that exists inside and produced by the like of nature is NATURAL, the only example of something unnatural that I can give you something that is fantastical. Tis why i suggested that one must use unnaturalness in a certain context.

No it depends on the context in which one uses the word.