> You misunderstood. I'm just saying that you cannot make good conclusions from bad assumptions. That's not a utilitarian mindset, that's just basic logic. No,

> You misunderstood. I'm just saying that you cannot make good conclusions from bad assumptions. That's not a utilitarian mindset, that's just basic logic. No, I understood you just fine. What you're saying is a form of the utilitarian view, "if the assumptions were good..." (or "this was bad because the assumptions were bad"), and I'm contradicting you: the assumptions don't matter, because genocide is always wrong. Argue all you want about logic, but genocide is always wrong. > That makes no sense [blah blah] > That makes no logical sense. "Let all humans die, because we cannot follow this abhorrent path" is to trade genocide for extinction. Which is the same as trading 1 genocide against ALL genocides at the same time. Extinction is not the same as genocide. The rest of your argument falls apart, but it was never all that solid or logical to begin with. Best not proceed down this road: I find your attempts at "logic" silly, and this will inevitably devolve into a flamewar (I'm already witnessing some of your debate tactics, and I can't say I'm impressed). Let's stop here.