[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"