You raise a good point. As I sit here trying to defend my statement, I find I can not define what I mean by "natural".
All change is to some degree natural. I tend to accept differences as welcome, and shifts to include the differences I would regard as natural. But shifts made to resist change by means of law, genocide, and war I regard as unnatural.
All arguments of this sort circle round to how to define "good" and "evil".
evil = to force unnecessary pain onto other human beings
i agree, entropy rises with time. But please first betwenn regional borders (so first mix German with Polish, Spanish with Portugues, etc) and let culture grow slow and not force into a non functioning tower of babylon within decades if not even years. Mass migration after 2015 TO Europa is definetaly NOT natural (empowered by media, man mad wars, etc.)
Thank you for this conversation.
I agree about the definition of evil, except that now we need to define "pain". In the US right now, we have a very large movement to include "hurt feelings" as pain that should be illegal, specifically legislation is pending against hate speech. I consider any laws passed that would make hate speech illegal an unnatural action, but laws that make bodily or property harm illegal as natural.
What do you think? Where should the line that forces a type of behavior be drawn?
hatespeech is a form of censorship in my opinion or at least a sign of massive childishness within a society. Nobody can really define what hatespeech really is. If the love of my life rejects me, this is going to hurt me hard. Should she be forced by the state to finally marry me, if i win the hatespeech lawsuit? I think not.
I think every society should define their values on their own, but i think hatespeech doesn't foster a good dwelling of a community.