You accused her of assuming it has goals because she made claims about what our anatomy evolved to produce, even though, as you note, "evolved to produce" does not imply goals. That was the self-contradiction.
The assumptions ABOUT what we evolved to produce, as in assumptions "around", as in the essentialism that she imposes constantly as to what is "around" the egg.
That's word salad. Hint: if you have a thought you want to express, try including a main verb in your sentence.
The fact that mammals and our anatomy evolved (reproduced and mutated over generations) without any intent in no way supports your claim that "every intersex person" who produces both gametes evolved to produce both gametes
Yes it does. That is what evolution is.
No. Evolution is statistical changes in a population's gene pool over generations. An individual person didn't evolve. Nobody evolved to do anything. You're committing the "fallacy of division".
To say that is not is to impute intent on evolution, the idea that it totally "intended" one or the other and not the example of "both".
Saying that over and over doesn't make it true. When a branch of the tree of life shares a common feature which evolved over many generations, whether an individual gene or a shared physiological pattern, that feature evolved for a specific reason. Sometimes the reason was dumb luck; sometimes the reason was that the feature was adaptive. The shared pattern of producing one gamete or the other but not both evolved because it was adaptive. Pointing this out is not imputing intent to evolution, and you don't have a reason to think it is.
Emily deduces that the existence of some situation implies that we should leave that situation as it was without further intervention.
Jarhyn deduces that the existence of an opponent saying ((P and Q and R) implies Z) implies that Jarhyn is legitimately paraphrasing when Jarhyn claims Jarhyn's opponent deduces (Q implies Z).
You are not going to be able to divorce her statement's ties to the Naturalistic Fallacy, because they stand on the naturalistic Fallacy.
Show your work.
I didn't say it informs ethics; I said it created ethics
Social darwinism is not ethics, not for anything more capable of communication than inflected grunts.
Why do you do that? Why do you make up some stupid nonsense that has nothing to do with anything the other person said and impute it to him? I didn't advocate social darwinism; I didn't imply it was correct; I didn't say a bloody thing about it. When somebody expresses a concept you find difficult to understand because your cognitive prejudices didn't prepare you for it, ask for further clarification. Don't thrash around blindly until you recall some other random concept you're better prepared for and then make believe that's what he said.
If you think sexual reproduction creates ethics, you are fairly well lost.
That's not an argument; it's just an ad hominem attack. Sexual reproduction created brains, lungs, immune systems, everything more complicated than bacteria. If you think sexual reproduction didn't create ethics, show me a bacterium with ethics. Evolving high levels of complexity requires sexual reproduction -- deleterious mutations accumulate too quickly in asexual reproduction for the information in a large genome to persist. Sexual reproduction makes it possible for copying errors in one parent's contribution to be replaced by unaltered data from the other parent.
I get that this offends your creationist sensibilities -- that you prefer to think of ethics as springing forth fully formed like Athena from the brow of your philosophical axioms. If it helps with the negative emotions, I'm not saying sexual reproduction
directly created ethics; I'm saying sexual reproduction created embryological development, and embryological development created animal brains, and animal brains created ethics.
The point is that if your ethical claim -- that unilateral actions which create goal conflicts are unethical -- were believed, then ethical people would have only one child while unethical people would go on having two children on average, and since we are a sexually reproducing species, this would cause the human inclination to care about being ethical to die out. You claim to be a "Game Theoretic Ethicist". Well, apply game theory to your ethics.
Why does the concept stop at a point of consent?
Because at that point, people are getting what they want.
If you are about violating people's consent, you belong in jail.
You are at this point wholesale endorsing the very core of what people call "evil".
It's nice that you took the mask off so we can all see it, and now you can focus on how everyone who sees it will counter you at every step in winning the meme reproduction game.
I didn't endorse a bloody thing besides "Show your work." Are you some kind of cult-leader wannabe, a new John Calvin or Ayatollah Khomeini but with fewer followers, that you'd define me as evil and an appropriate target for government violence simply because I blasphemously asked for an explanation for why anyone should believe the source of ethics is whatever some self-appointed authority says it is?
J: You make a stunning and foolish declaration that means/ends logic fails to ever become a statement of ethics in any framework wherein there is a methodology for reducing the set of all goals to the set of ethical goals.
B: Um, reducing the set of all goals to the set of ethical goals necessarily involves identifying some goal as unethical. To identify a goal as unethical is to determine that it's a goal an agent ought not to have. But according to your theory, "oughts" depend on goals. Your theory has an infinite regress problem.
J: There is no such infinite regress as you claim because the concept stops at a point of consent but again, that's a M&P topic, not a PD topic.
B: Why does the concept stop at a point of consent? Because you have a goal of avoiding nonconsent?
Feel free to justify your claim that there's no infinite regress with an actual argument instead of by impugning the character of whoever is uppity enough to follow the chain of regress one step further than you want him to.
"Satan comes to every one of you and says, 'Who created this and that?' Till he questions: Who created your Lord? When he comes to that, one should seek refuge in Allah and keep away from such evil thoughts." - Muhammad
