>Are you implying that black slavery was justified?
That's the exact opposite of the statement. Xw's point is there isn't one, there never was one. A group of people decided and made is so and continued to believe it until they no longer could.
That's the exact opposite of the statement. Xw's point is there isn't one, there never was one. A group of people decided and made is so and continued to believe it until they no longer could.
Xwdv is simply stating his own will: "[I want it to be the case that] biological is just better than artificial. [I want that to be] a natural law.", but I'm not interested in hearing individual's will without reasoning, at least here, on an internet forum. I think nobody is. I'm interested in hearing reasoning on the ethics of such question.
Then what exactly is being said?
"Biological is better than digital" is a qualitative statement, and all qualitative statements require reasoning. In xwdv's case, the reasoning is "it's a natural law", but that's just circular reasoning (or a logical fallacy known as "begging the question"). "It is because it is".
In other words, "I want it to be that way".