You are still missing the point. When you use one example of extinction to justify your position, all I need to do is use another example of extinction to justify mine. This is very basic. Your original point was based on the principle of the matter, and not on the utility of it. If you want to change your argument that is fine. But we need to drop this ridiculous notion that potential extinction is a viable reason to undermine the social utility of an entire group of people, and recognize instead that a number of factors are at work.
The IVF argument and the under population argument are in fact different. I am not accusing you solely of committing a fallacy of composition, I am accusing you of presenting a false narrative. The IVF argument is also not a fallacy of composition argument.
The IVF argument and the under population argument are in fact different. I am not accusing you solely of committing a fallacy of composition, I am accusing you of presenting a false narrative. The IVF argument is also not a fallacy of composition argument.
