Detecting design or intent in nature

[The Grand Nudger]

I never called nipples a female characteristic, neither did I imply they were.

The statement is implicit when using them as an example of something purposeless in the manner that you have. Are they purposeless on a female?

I merely stated in my argument they have no purpose on men.

There we have it.

Besides nipples, are there any other patently female parts that are not male parts in the development of a foetus before sex prediction can be 100%? If so what?

No clue, I was lucky to have remembered that much about nipples from all the boring ass maternity bullshit I had to wade through everytime my wives' monkey hotels had no vacancy. Now, you want to talk about shit without a purpose......

It is flawed reasoning to classify a body part to one sex because it serves no purpose in another. Do you think that nipples are insignificant? I think that's your issue. If so I see where you're coming from.

Again, it's implicit in the summary of their uselessness to males. This is not my position, it is your own. I think that nipples are part of a process that is very significant to human beings, in that it is the process which manufactures us. A more complete description of their significance -to us- than as part of the process which -generates us- is difficult to conceive of. If nature did have a purpose, and if nipples do have a purpose...does it need to be anything more than this? Nevertheless, I'm not so careless as to state that this somehow shows that nipples do have purpose, or that nature does have purpose...and I don't think that either statement is true in any case. The trick here is that it doesn't lead any more competently to the opposing statement either, ala "Nipples/nature do/does not have a purpose". Something else entirely is required. This is an invocation of necessary and sufficient condition...the basis of some forms of valid logical operators (and nearly all forms commonly used in discussion). If you're going to use it, you have to know it. I'm a hardliner, give me something I can blind, transpose to a floating variable, feed into a machine to eliminate bias and ambiguity in language, and reach a conclusion mechanically equivalent to the statement contained within our conclusion. -Or- don't claim to be able to prove something, or to be in possession of a sound argument. If I did that with your claim I would not get the yield we want - because the operations are actually being performed on unspoken and unaddressed assumptions which would not be recognized or picked up on by tumblers in a lock. Rationalizing, not reasoning.

On it's own, my argument appears weak. But I could strengthen my position if I formulated more such arguments. This is the similar to reductio ad absurdum. This is argument by negation.

-and that does nothing to change the fallacious nature of that argument, which I outlined in my last post.

By the way your 747 analogy doesn't work because the seats still perform their function. The seats are an analogy for nipples on men which do not perform their function. This is a false analogy.

I used it as an analogy to describe why such reasoning is fallacious, not to show that 747 seats and nipples are the same thing. I could have just said "fallacy of composition" but how explanatory would that have been? In case you missed it, those itemized comments were elaborations of common logical fallacies - see if you can reread my post set aside your thread and spot which ones, eh?

Oh and I can decide to define things the way I want. My definition for nature is perfectly fine. An important part during debates and discussions is defining key terms. If you don't like the definition you can always walk. Perheps you can fault me on not defining nature in my original argument. I thought my use of it was how most use it.

It's not your definition that I took issue with, it was the unspoken assumptions behind it and the use of sloppy language which would -invariably- lead to misapprehension...combined with fallacious reasoning, you've essentially scorched the ground around your entire appraisal. Again, I share your conclusion - that nature is purposeless....but it;s important to get it right for the right reasons, otherwise it becomes difficult to know when we've gotten it right at all.

Your argument doesn't "appear weak" it is invalid...from the floor to the ceiling. You failed to satisfy condition, you operated on unstated assumptions, you leveraged the fallacy of composition - and then.....even -if- you still got to the conclusion that both of us would consider "true". Do you understand my opposition now?