Quote:
|
But since we're not looking at a future in which everyone will rely on this method, this is irrelevant to the discussion. It's rather like being against the use of trucks because "there would be nothing but traffic jams if every vehicle on the road was a truck".
|
So, wait - we are to avoid any and all discussion of points refutting your own arguments now?
Was it not you that said this:
Quote:
|
Appeal to nature. Logical fallacy.
|
...and despite the fact that you never reasoned why nature should actually be a logical falliacy, considering that nature is the fundament of all logic, we should take that at face value, we should also avoid the logic that changing the natural, species-inherent method of procreation should also be no-win?
What exactly is an argument you feel qualified to argue against without one-liner sarcasm? Science? Nature?
Or are we all supposed to just rely upon your premise as self-supporting and abandon the discussion because the conclusion is predetermined on the basis that you "said so"?
I do apologize for my directness in this matter as I am far closer to your position than you likely think - however, my contrarian, independent nature only allows me to accept actual logic as logic, rather than circular arguments that supposedly justify themselves regardless of independant logic or data.