quote:
No. You have an arbitrary stopping point.

Your logic is this:
2 male lions = natural, therefore
2 dudes = natural but

1 dude and 1 male lion = unnatural? Your only point is that an action can happen, therefore it's natural.

You have pinned Displaced’s argument to the wall as a prize specimen of logical prevarication yet he has such a insect sized intellect, I don’t even think he realizes it.

After being unable to defend his original proposition, Displaced pivoted to another position: “I’m only arguing we use definitions correctly….”

The entire progression of Displaced’s “argument” in this thread is a textbook example of what Philosopher Nicholas Shackel has deemed the motte-and-bailey doctrine:

A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.

An entire doctrine or theory may be a Motte and Bailey Doctrine just by virtue of having a central core of defensible but not terribly interesting or original doctrines surrounded by a region of exciting but only lightly defensible doctrines. Just as the medieval Motte was often constructed by the stonemasons art from stone in the surrounding land, the Motte of dull but defensible doctrines is often constructed by the use of the sophists art from the desired but indefensible doctrines lying within the ditch.

Diagnosis of a philosophical doctrine as being a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is invariably fatal. Once made it is relatively obvious to those familiar with the doctrine that the doctrine’s survival required a systematic vacillation between exploiting the desired territory and retreating to the Motte when pressed.