(September 8, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Anima Wrote:(August 27, 2015 at 12:38 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: It's sort of like what Kant's Categorical Imperative might have been if Kant had been a complete fuckwit.
Very nice! It is indeed based on Kant's Categorical Imperative and is logically sound. Needless to say we see the argument if valid for the murderer, but just do not seem to want to see it for homosexuality. Bias? However, I am more than happy to hear your logical rebuttal as well as you argument in their favor. I wait with baited breath.
I'm not disposed toward deontological ethics, so I don't really care to play sophist with you on this point. For me, freedom for flesh and blood consenting adults trumps pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals, regardless of how logically rigorous they may be, any time.
And, um, it's "bated" breath. "Baited breath" might mean a lot of things but not what you seem to intend. For example, it could be taken as a sly way of you saying that you like to eat pussy, which would be in keeping with your transparent efforts to intellectualize an issue that is clearly visceral for you (bias?). But then I might suspect the lady doth protest too much.
