Talk:DNA Delusion/@comment-87.178.173.29-20201222221422/@comment-38414962-20210115084043

Ultimately:

All conclusions have an inherent "who, what, when, where, why, how" to them. So to simply state any given conclusion to people -- without including all those requirements -- automatically creates a space they may fill with their own personal chaos. That is all.

So overall, this is the only part that's remotely tricky: The tricky part is not the fact everyone is incapable of refuting the fundamentals of 'life is an absolute hazard, a pointless hazard, and designed by a non-god, with a non-objective'. That is all starkly obvious. even to those who try to take that same challenge.

The tricky part is this:

1. These failed detractors will instead try to 'refute opposition of DNA, since they cannot leverage a proposition for DNA'.

2. And if there is any absence of "who, what, when, where, why, how --- that gives failed detractors free range to commit logical fraud & 'fill those blanks as they wish:

For example, the recent results of Antinatalism itself, attempting to divorce itself from the case against DNA. We already see the drivel and fallacy in that equation: 1. Natalism is supplication of DNA evolution 2. Efilism is denunciation of DNA evolution 3. Anti-Efilism+Anti-Natalism is a golden mean fallacy that seeks to oppose both but solves neither, and successfully opposes neither

And as an ending caution, beyond the detractors' patently obvious fraud of both logic and sense, here is what to keep in mind:

Even if the Pro-DNA and Anti-DNA conclusions are mutually disqualified, it still renders the '''absence of DNA. '''

Because Antinatalism doesn't require anything except natalism's void:

QED #1: Even if you mutually void antinatalism and natalism, the consequence is still life's absence. QED #2: The absolute absence of all antinatalists and natalists, still constitutes absolute absence of all life. QED #3: This is because natalism is the one that began the presupposition that life should be, so they bear all burden of veracity and therefore natalism is on the defense: not the offense.

They still lose, on all possible accounts...