Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
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.
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"