[vasco]

Using "strange" instead of "bad" to me indicates someone has enough maturity to recognize that human nature is part of nature, which is gnarly and creates bad things like humans setting up incentives without having to necessarily classify humans or the universe as bad.

Is it bad when a lion kills another animal? In a way yes, it's extra death that could be preventable, in another way it's what it is. Is it strange or bad if a human is born dumber than average? What about if a human is born more narcissistic than average and does bad things?

It leaves open the possibility of you the writer also being wrong, so it comes across as humbly sharing an opinion.

[almostgotcaught]

> has enough maturity to recognize that human nature is part of nature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

[vasco]

I literally didnt define it as good. Maybe read again. I said it isnt good or bad, its nature, its what it is. Ironic that while explaining why using "bad" to qualify nature is not appropriate you think im saying its good.

[almostgotcaught]

i'm sorry that you don't have the patience to read a wikipedia article

> Some people use the phrase, naturalistic fallacy or appeal to nature, in a different sense, to characterize inferences of the form "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable"

[vasco]

Again, it is what it is, there's no moral attachment to my comment. I give up, you just want me to be wrong. It's just frustrating you don't recognize that was the argument I was making.

[almostgotcaught]

what exactly do you think the difference is between

> Again, it is what it is, there's no moral attachment to my comment.

and

> "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable"

[frutiger]

> Is it strange or bad if a human is born dumber than average?

And by definition, 50% of babies are.