and why is this inherently good in all circumstances?

Because nothing is more pure than the nature

I mean natural is an obtuse but specific term, to act in accordance with nature means to not go outside of mans specific nature as he is born with inhis perfect non pathological state.

as obtuse as these terms are its gaslighting and begging the question to pretend to not understand what these mean in the common sense.

An example is either mental illness or physical disability, natural man is good because he is not corrupted and acts irrationally against his nature (mental illness) and he is complete i all his parts (not disabled)

in order to even beg the question of natural being good in most or even some sircumstances brushes against morality and its objectivity. Hence ultimately its not that we arent defining terms its that we are using a proxy topic instead of discussin morality directly. In which case if your opponent is subjectivist the discussion really just ends there.

hence why I mentioned that in most contexts of society, acceptance, etc. it wil ultimately boil down to morality subjective vs objecive and what is good and bad if toe exist at all. If we argue objectivism then there is something to be discussed otherwise there is nothing to be discussed since its jsut talking past each other

thats not what "mental illness" is

thats not how its defined lmao

are you trying to tell me that disabilities are not natural?

what is the alternative?

if something isnt natural then what is it?

artificial?

Nice strawman

thats not a strawman...

its a question

please learn what a strawman is

Im not defining mental illness though. And disabilities go beyond the perfect nature of man as he is meant to be, ought to be. They can occur naturally, however they are not part of the whole of man, there is something defficient or wrong.

if we cannot distinguish between what man ought to be, and what he is, then we really cannot call anything pathological. Hence we all know what a healthy (perfect) man is, and can distinguish when he is imperfect.

He never defined mental illness, you made it about definition, hence strawman'

oof seeing what I wrote up there I need to rewrite some parts oof, either way im hopping out and deleting discord for the day kek. gotta study woo.

i got class so

bye

lole

A strawman is debating a caricature of the point you are arguing

Instead of the point

A strawman is a point you fabricate to attack instead of attacking the argument. Taking a whole paragraph of points which doesn't have a single definition and going "But that's not what the definition is" is fabricating a point

Yes

Said better

Agree

@Deleted User are you ready to clarify

how about you tell me

what a "healthy society" is

Are we really doing this?

Do you really not know what healthy means?

Do you really not know what natural is?

What the argument about?

Some people are trying to define „degeneracy“

I see

That would be easy if everyone was Aristotelian, as we could appeal to final causes of man, but obviously we can't right now

So using some gay nihilistic secular worldview there is no degeneracy, go free pedophiles

Ok so we played this game for hours

@Deleted User its vague

@Eoppa nobody thinks that. You are just being a dumbass

we have morals which are derived from our biology