^ Do you or do you not personally approve of infanticide and cannibalism among humans?
I don’t approve of those things, but then there are other things I don’t approve of, but society is all for it.
What about theft? Animals regularly steal the food caught by other animals.
In nature, there is no theft per se, if an animal makes a kill and cannot protect it, in nature they lose. Same as if they cannot protect their young, their offspring ends up on the buffet table.
Animals definitely engage in homosexual acts.
I invited the collective to come up with divinative proof of that, I looked and could not find it, I am still waiting. There has been behavior scientist or zoologist attribute to homosexual behavior but that is filtered through finding what you wish to find, have have found none to go on record to say there are gay animals in this species or that, which reject their natural proclivity to mate and procrate with the opposite sex, and be only with those of the same sex exclusively. If you have something concrete bring it on, I would love to examin it.
Sexual promiscuity is also common in the animal kingdom. Does that mean that you personally recommend such behavior among humans?
With the greater animal kingdom there is a method to that, with humans there isn’t. I don’t have to recoment it, they do it anyhow, and often to disastrous affect. I am sure you do more than I because I am sure you are not staunchly in the one woman-one man until death in an official established unit camp, are did I get that wrong?
You can’t cherry pick the lessons that you like from nature. If you are going to defend acts simply because they occur naturally, you have to accept all of them.
The ”cherry picking” is done by those who want to live under nature or just trandom occurance, infanticide being one of the glaring choose as you wish issues. To say ridding the little nipper one minute past birth is wrong or worse than ridding of it three months before birth or simply trying to redefine it other than what nature says because it makes it more palatable to do as one wishes is the same none the less. People try to equate fairness in it as to the host who by her actions affilitated the action which nature has always used as a catalyst for a new life to be created. In actuality one living being had no say and was wiped out to suit another for their overall convenience. People want to justify state sanctioned murder as necessary or to attone for some taking of life. A life is taken taking the life of the person who did it willnot unring the bell. People want to cherry pick that and call it justice or fairness in evening the score in some strange way. Those under nature use cherry picking, I don’t life under nature, nature is just a part of the process for aniumals but not for humans, that is why a lot of things that are OK with animals are not with humans.