Oh and what about my question to you in the last paragraph? I once again challenged you to show that Rta does't lead to the naturalistic fallacy, this time using exactly your definition of it. And this time you just choose to ignore the whole thing that you have been harping upon. That's the only point of interest for which I began this whole conversation, and upon being shown wrong you just ignore it? I expected you to be more sincere than that. If you don't have any reply to that then don't bother commenting further, to anything that I have said.