Naturalistic Fallacies

I discern five ways in which the phrase naturalistic fallacy is thrown around, often without being defined and often in a pseudo profound manner:

1. The origins fallacy, also known as the genetic fallacy, a type of irrelevance: This is a legitimate fallacy type but calling it the naturalistic fallacy sows confusion. Six examples of the origins fallacy: X is artificial. X is unnatural. Y is natural. Americans have not believed X for years. Y is the American way. X comes from the word for W.
2. The idea that you cannot find the truth value of most prescriptive claims (ethical and other value claims) with 100 percent accuracy using formal or informal logic or any other method. Big deal. Some value claim conclusions are 58 percent likely to be true, others 99.9999 percent likely, others somewhere else between zero and 100 percent likely. Whether a prescriptive conclusion is 99.9999 percent likely to be true or 100 percent likely should have little affect on our willingness to act based on expected values and other moral arguments. You should avoid being eaten by flesh eating bacteria, no matter whether a tiny probability exists that flesh eating bacteria might be good. The truth value of most real world empirical claims (is claims) cannot be found with 100 percent accuracy either.
3. The fact-value rubbish: the assertion that empirical claims can be facts while value claims cannot. In other words, the idea that the moon is made of cheese is somehow capable of becoming a fact, even though it isn't a fact, simply because it is an empirical claim. But "You shouldn't walk in front of that bus," is incapable of being a fact because it is a value claim. Facts are any claims that have good arguments supporting them, whether value claims or empirical claims. In other words, facts have a high probability of being accurate because they have sufficient evidence supporting them.
4. The belief that a value claim conclusion requires a value claim premise. More rubbish. For example, "Don't eat that box of poison. Doing so has a 99.92 percent likelihood of killing you," contains a value claim conclusion followed an empirical claim premise. It doesn't need a value claim premise.
5. The assertion that value claims are worthless or meaningless. Self-contradictory rubbish. If value claims are worthless or meaningless, then the claim "value claims are worthless or meaningless" is not worth anything or does not mean anything.

We should not help whites "to preserve our race," because that is a genetic fallacy. We should do so to make our race better. We should do so to prevent the mass destruction that cultural Marxism brings, especially the increasing mass destruction the young and future generations will face. We should want our children to have better genes and environments than ourselves. We should want to reach their ethical potentials.

And by better, I don't mean more exciting toys. Children of wealthy, high achievers often turn out bad, despite high investments by their parents because these children have worse environments than their parents. Consumer items consumed their children. Their peers, in prestigious schools, devote themselves to hedonism and other bad causes, which these children dutifully follow. These kids never develop chips on their shoulders to find ethical facts and fight for them. Instead, they believe what makes them feel good, and hating nonwealthy whites makes them feel real good about themselves. (For most humans, hate is a feel-good emotion. Wealthy whites, apparently, almost never feel any cognitive dissonance for hating nonwealthy white over spurious reasons.)

Thus, nearly all wealthy whites practice egoism mixed with militarism and cultural Marxism. What little noblesse oblige once existed toward fellow whites is almost gone.