Yes, done on purpose. IMO when discussing morality, we should consistently applying it, a litmus test for whether it holds up or not. I am arguing that your ca

Yes, done on purpose. IMO when discussing morality, we should consistently applying it, a litmus test for whether it holds up or not. I am arguing that your case is fundamentally flawed, irrational, corrupt, inconsistent and dangerous. Edit: I can't respond to your slippery slope fallacy but you started with an extremely broad stance "Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability." I am responding in kind with an extremely broad implications. I guess we're busy debating which fallacy falls in whose arm with not addressing what I countered your argument with. First came the victimization, then a strawman card, then a slippery slope fallacy card. But you never considered responding to what happens when we take your ideas and consistently apply them. I still don't understand why you feel like you're being accused. I am arguing about the points you raised. No one is accussing you of anything.