Your first block of post is worthless in relation to #2 of you previous response.
To the second block, I am endeavoring to show you that valuations based on plausibility are a bad idea. When you need to invoke the boogeyman to make a point, your point is probably not a good one to begin with. If it is a good one, it is not because you invoked the boogeyman.
To the third block. It was a different scenario. Following my recognition that it was a different scenario, I included it in your argument and pointed out that it is still a point that is wildly speculative. Basically, my response to the response you gave me was already found in my previous post.
Your final block of text is also largely irrelevant. A pandemic would be a terrible way to justify your case. Your case rests on a disproportionate amount of heterosexuals dying. If a pandemic occurred, and mainly heterosexuals were dying, then we would be truly lucky to have a population of homosexuals that are not dying off. One because it may mean we could depend on them to continue our existence, and two because we could learn about possible variations in their lifestyle that allow them to avoid contact with the disease.
Historical cases like disease all support having a diverse arrangement of lifestyles.
The thing is, there are dozens of ways of pointing out why your argument sucks. You just forced me to provide a different line of reasoning as to why it sucks. It's really not interesting to go through the laundry list of specific examples that show why it is a bad argument though.
To the second block, I am endeavoring to show you that valuations based on plausibility are a bad idea. When you need to invoke the boogeyman to make a point, your point is probably not a good one to begin with. If it is a good one, it is not because you invoked the boogeyman.
To the third block. It was a different scenario. Following my recognition that it was a different scenario, I included it in your argument and pointed out that it is still a point that is wildly speculative. Basically, my response to the response you gave me was already found in my previous post.
Your final block of text is also largely irrelevant. A pandemic would be a terrible way to justify your case. Your case rests on a disproportionate amount of heterosexuals dying. If a pandemic occurred, and mainly heterosexuals were dying, then we would be truly lucky to have a population of homosexuals that are not dying off. One because it may mean we could depend on them to continue our existence, and two because we could learn about possible variations in their lifestyle that allow them to avoid contact with the disease.
Historical cases like disease all support having a diverse arrangement of lifestyles.
The thing is, there are dozens of ways of pointing out why your argument sucks. You just forced me to provide a different line of reasoning as to why it sucks. It's really not interesting to go through the laundry list of specific examples that show why it is a bad argument though.