/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

>>42101645
>those comparisons are not in good faith.
Of course. When you get down to the core of the argument, it's a fallacy based on intentionally ambiguous or overly broad definitions. See pic related. Literally everything that exists is, by definition, natural. There's nothing inherently good or bad about any of it, only common or uncommon within nature. "Uncommon within nature" is sometimes what people mean when they say Unnatural (a popular one being that "homosexuality is bad because it's unnatural"), but that's not the definition being used by people making the argument that something is okay because it occurs in nature. In fact, such a person will use the much more broad definition specifically to justify homosexuality as acceptable or even desirable. IE, homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it's fine for humans to do it.

Because of this definitional problem, one can assume that any argument about morality or ethics predicated on what is or is not natural is inherently either made in bad faith or ignorance. The logic of "It's good/okay because it's natural" is to say that all things which exist are good or okay. You then immediately run into another definitional problem where this implies that anything that does not already exist is likely not okay, or is evil. More simply put, "Existence = OK, Nonexistence = Not (Necessarily) OK." Therefore, you have to take one of two stances.
>1. Anything which does not already exist, especially within the realm of biology, is possible evil/not okay, and the existence of new things should be avoided.
This is obviously false on its face, and if followed to its logical conclusion would immediately halt any and all technological development, and arguably retroactively undo all technological progress.
>2. Anything which is made to exist was evil/not okay before its existence, but is now good/okay because it exists.
This too is obviously false on its face, and creates a meaningless definition, where all things are considered good. If a definition encompasses everything, it's a useless definition for anything except the concept of Everything.

When someone makes such an argument, they're hoping that you don't notice the definitional sleight of hand, which eventually boils down to "you must permit everything, or you are opposed to nature itself." That's why this argument is generally made when someone is in favor of something, but that same person won't accept this same standard when arguing against something else. It's an argument for universal inclusion, based on a fallacy of universal inclusion. So the next time someone makes such an argument, remind them that your opposition to whatever they're advocating for is just as much a part of nature as that thing.