tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7380461816610971084..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Byrne on why sex is binaryEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59228667159274976272021-06-20T09:18:38.526-07:002021-06-20T09:18:38.526-07:00Good to know that truth bothers you. Look at this ...Good to know that truth bothers you. Look at this very stubborn 'natural selection' lady. She has been teleologically working for literally billions of years.<br /> <br />Sorry that you are terrified of it!UncommonDescenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01889661912118191190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18303789061568869852019-03-16T16:41:24.502-07:002019-03-16T16:41:24.502-07:00Sadly I'm very late to this discussion, but an...Sadly I'm very late to this discussion, but anyway: To be fair to Brandon, vigorous and rigorous argumentation is a beautiful and rare thing, really the appropriate remedy to stupidity/sophistry, as Brandon ably describes.<br /><br />Anonymous (Peter) wrote:<br />"But what if the medical researcher was investigating the potential for semen to contribute to a cure for, let’s say…a specific form of blindness. A strictly teleological morality would prohibit this, as it would be considered a perversion of the natural function of the gamete." <br />If a claim like that is the result of 30 years of reading natural law theory, abandon all hope! The perverted faculty argument is about the intelligent, voluntary use of a faculty, use, therefore, by a rational agent. Gametes are not rational agents, so they don't have any kind of pervertible-in-use faculties in any sense relevant to natural law reasoning.<br /><br />"Similarly, the process by which samples of said gamete were produced for purposes of medical research would be considered a perversion of the natural function of that process."<br />Possibly, and if so ends don't justify means.<br /><br />"Now it just so happens that the process of producing males gametes produces a range of other goods, quite spontaneously, particularly when done in cooperation with someone else. Pleasure being the most obvious one."<br />Sure, but pleasure isn't intrinsically good. Disordered pleasure (e.g., sadistic pleasure, lying for the fun of deceiving others, 'cooperative' masturbation) is evil.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9083965693900299742018-11-29T21:33:18.601-08:002018-11-29T21:33:18.601-08:00Throwing this in since no one is mentioning it...
...Throwing this in since no one is mentioning it...<br /><br />The perversion of "faculties" is only morally wrong (contrary to natural law) when they are directed to the common good and their "perversion" does harm to the common good. Curionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47571916639955302122018-11-27T01:45:56.271-08:002018-11-27T01:45:56.271-08:00To be fair to Brandon, whilst AM seems polite enou...To be fair to Brandon, whilst AM seems polite enough and isn't too arrogant, he clearly doesn't have a good handle on these issues, nor argument structures, and is too confident by half, considering that. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85202926182071111592018-11-27T00:44:33.806-08:002018-11-27T00:44:33.806-08:00So yeah what's the deal Brandon? Do you know a...So yeah what's the deal Brandon? Do you know anything about this Angra guy that we don't that would warrant the intolerance? His personal blog seems like it smacks of contrarian gnu cringe, but, other than that, like other here, I really don't see the need for the hostility.Kalimerehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05344332188618596149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71475961933046211852018-11-27T00:31:21.995-08:002018-11-27T00:31:21.995-08:00Brandon,
As it happened in our previous exchange...Brandon, <br /><br />As it happened in our previous exchange ( http://www.philosophyetc.net/2015/11/self-undermining-skepticisms.html ), you not only are wrong about my arguments, but make claims against me that are both unwarranted and false. However, I have considerably less available time than I had then, and I'm not planning to spend it on long posts written in self-defense. Instead, I will leave this place, and when I have more time, I will write a detailed reply to Feser's perverted faculty argument - something that I was not trying to do in these comboxes, of course, and that I was not planning to do - and post it on my blog. Not many people will read that, sure, but at least, anyone interested who reads this will be able to do so, and that's good enough for me. <br /><br />Readers can assess your claims about me and about my posts on the basis of what is written in this exchange, and - if they are interested - take a look at the previous exchange I just provided a link to as well, in order to assess more of your accusations against me - in that case, with detailed replies. Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76843883632961864112018-11-26T17:43:56.965-08:002018-11-26T17:43:56.965-08:00I guess I missed where there is a single argument ...I guess I missed where there is a single argument for anything in Sally's little meandering in the aftermath of her first statement claiming that she doesn't even know what concepts are.<br /><br />Just feel your lust to scold people, Sally, and don't worry about those justificatory hobgoblins, prior standards, etc. Critical thinking skills and the writing of essays are probably just a hangover from The Dark Ages of Modernism. To even think of the past is just buying into the patriarchy.<br /><br />Beware of Schopenhauer.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4360211299082634632018-11-26T13:04:29.964-08:002018-11-26T13:04:29.964-08:00The thing is that I think that Peterson and Feser ...The thing is that I think that Peterson and Feser somewhat compliment each other. Their views are close. Also they can bring evidence for their views from different directions.,Avraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6510311482953642512018-11-26T09:50:06.717-08:002018-11-26T09:50:06.717-08:00Well based on his writings. AM certainly isn't...Well based on his writings. AM certainly isn't inexperienced in philosophical argumentation. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56071600390365687932018-11-26T09:07:48.468-08:002018-11-26T09:07:48.468-08:00Brandon, I'm digging the content of your comme...Brandon, I'm digging the content of your comments, but I will second that I'm wincing a bit reading them through. <br />I think Angra Mainyu is wrong, but especially to guys who aren't as experienced in this as you (into which category AM - an I myself for sure - might very well fall), it doesn't seem so obviously wrong as to merit the scorn. ccmnxcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83374127975831438762018-11-26T07:33:49.096-08:002018-11-26T07:33:49.096-08:00Mr.Brandon can you please be more polite and respe...Mr.Brandon can you please be more polite and respectful?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91987959500381371682018-11-26T06:43:30.003-08:002018-11-26T06:43:30.003-08:00Angra Mainyu,
Since your arguments repeatedly sho...Angra Mainyu,<br /><br />Since your arguments repeatedly show your inability to analyze arguments even at the basic level, and have preferred to jibber-jabber rather than rectify your incompetence, I will simply point out some of the obvious evidences of this for bystanders who have less experience than I do with attempts to pass off intellectual incompetence as informed opinion.<br /><br /><i>Normally, masticating does cause pleasure, even if it is due to the taste of the food that is being chewed (or the sugar-free gum for that matter). </i><br /><br />This is explicitly addressed in the very argument from which you are explicitly quoting. I had pointed out that you were confusing something being a direct pleasure of masticating with other pleasures (like the direct pleasure of using your muscles or the indirect pleasure of moistening the mouth), and here you are repeating the same elementary error, as if you were an idiot of the highest order. Thus either you did not read the criticism to which you are responding, or you failed to recognize the very point it was making, which since it is a point that is essential to the argument you are criticizing, shows that you lack some of the most basic intellectual equipment required for criticizing that argument. You have also failed to address the point: that your "mirroring" requires that you actually mirror the argument you are addressing. <br /><br /><i>I do not go "back and forth".</i><br /><br />You do in fact go back and forth. The part of the original argument that was supposed to be mirrored was explicitly a subargument addressing one small point; you have failed to treat it as such, thus flattening the distinction made by the original argument between the larger case and the smaller. And the further response you make here simply shows you repeating the elementary error -- a pattern with you, it seems.<br /><br /><i>I simply do not find the claims in the original argument any more plausible than those in the "one might say" parallel.</i><br /><br />Only stupid people and sophists think that their own sense of plausibility is in itself relevant to the logical structure of an argument. To put it simply:<br /><br />If you have two arguments that are purportedly in parallel, A and B, such that the parallel with B is supposed to be a reason for doubting the cogency of A, then (1) B actually has to be in <i>structural</i> parallel with A, in such a way that (2) there are no extraneous elements of B's structure that could be the real source of its absurdity, implausibility, or whatever, and (3) the parallel does not arise from a tendentious interpretation of A. By the claims you make in the paragraph beginning with the above sentence, you by your own mouth establish the failure of your argument to prove anything about A; you have no grounds for saying that the problems you allege in the parallel B are anything other than a byproduct of your own stupidity.<br /><br /><i>I did not say it was the end, but rather, than one might similarly say that.</i><br /><br />What you said is irrelevant; as I explicitly stated it is what you are committed to within the parity. That you don't understand what this means is not surprising given the rest of your comments.<br /><br />As I said before, this reference of things entirely to your own sense of plausibility is a form of logical assessment used only by stupid people and sophists. Either you so badly misunderstand the concept of logical structure that you are botching one of the most elementary kinds of argument (parity argument), on which all of logic depends, which is stupidity, or you are deliberately trying to deceive those without a logical background into thinking you have an argument that is stronger than the sloppy and incompetent argument that you actually give -- which is deliberately making the lesser argument seem the stronger, and is the very definition of sophistry. There is no third route here; either your 'mirroring' is something you are doing cargo-cult-style, going through motions whose purpose you don't understand, or you are deliberately being dishonest and manipulative.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36862896257615465732018-11-25T22:22:16.644-08:002018-11-25T22:22:16.644-08:00pace the argument presented by Angra of course.pace the argument presented by Angra of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34096085303181366692018-11-25T22:19:51.614-08:002018-11-25T22:19:51.614-08:00"I think I made the parallel in a considerabl..."I think I made the parallel in a considerably detailed manner, so I'm not sure why you don't think it's similar."<br /><br />Because of the very same reasons I mentioned in the very comment.<br /><br />"In cases you mention the relevant faculty is either not used at all or used to limited fruition. None of which is quite contrary to natural end."<br /><br />@Walter<br /><br />My point is that aspect of it that are obviously immoral are clearly consistent with natural law account of impermissibility while those that aren't are not. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73927717162536432862018-11-25T14:32:35.186-08:002018-11-25T14:32:35.186-08:00Brandon,
"(1) Masticating, unlike the multi-...<br />Brandon,<br /><br />"(1) Masticating, unlike the multi-part process of eating, has no pleasure associated directly with it; it is literally just a series of grinding, crushing, slicing actions with teeth."<br />Normally, masticating does cause pleasure, even if it is due to the taste of the food that is being chewed (or the sugar-free gum for that matter). <br /><br />"(2) You keep going back and forth between mastication and eating. This contrasts with the argument you are trying to mirror, which explicitly makes a distinction between the larger-scale and the smaller-scale (""Let’s turn now momentarily to the small picture") in order to make a specific point; you not do this."<br />I do not go "back and forth". I point out that what is said that eating (in terms of the process) in the perverted faculty argument (namely, that its biological point is to "provide an organism with the nutrients it needs to survive", the "biological point of masticating is not to give pleasure, or anything else, but rather, to assist in the further function of providing an organism with the nutrients it needs to survive.". <br /><br />"Not only do you not do this, you explicitly jump over it ("it is clear that") and do not provide any parallel to the actual argument given, despite that this is a crucial step in your parity argument. "One might say" does not suffice; you need "one would have to say". Otherwise you have established nothing at all."<br /><br />I simply do not find the claims in the original argument any more plausible than those in the "one might say" parallel. If you do, well, you will not be persuaded by it, but clearly, it's a parallel, not a perfect match (else, it would be the same argument), and my claim is not that it logically follows from the perverted faculty argument against masturbation, homosexual sex, etc., that chewing sugar-free gum is immoral, but rather, that perverted faculty argument against chewing sugar-free gum is no less plausible than the other perverted faculty argument (i.e., their premises are no less plausible). If you do not find it like that, sure, you will not be persuaded. did not intend to persuade you. <br /><br />"(3) You don't even bother to try to run a proper parallel in your third part. 'Putting food in the stomach' is neither the end of masticating (which is getting things chewed-up) nor the end of eating (the process of which is not completed by putting things in the stomach), so you've put a third thing on the table without establishing that it is relevant to the parallel."<br />I did not say it was the end, but rather, than one might similarly say that. It's not less plausible than saying tha "If we consider the structure of the sexual organs and the sexual act as a process beginning with arousal and ending in orgasm, it is clear that its biological function, its final cause, is to get semen into the vagina." One might more plausibly say that the process begining with arousal and ending in orgasm has the biological function (in males) of causing an ejaculation, regardless of where it goes, and surely the process beginning with arousal and ending in orgasm did not fail if the semen does not go into a vagina. Or something else. <br /><br />"So your "mirroring" is not a competent mirroring; parity fails at practically every essential point. It's as if you did not even bother to analyze the argument you were trying to mirror, and instead tried to wing it on the basis of a handful of verbal similarities and arbitrary assumptions."<br />Well, instead of mirroring, in that case I would have to say at every turn "There is no good reason to think that that is in fact the function. One might as well say it's X1, X2, etc., and none of those is less plausible". Then, we disagree, and that's that. Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7380980468075450862018-11-25T14:04:21.000-08:002018-11-25T14:04:21.000-08:00Anonymous,
I think I made the parallel in a cons...<br />Anonymous, <br /><br />I think I made the parallel in a considerably detailed manner, so I'm not sure why you don't think it's similar.Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42651817042409629802018-11-25T14:00:50.852-08:002018-11-25T14:00:50.852-08:00The Thomist Guy,
I'm afraid I can't help...The Thomist Guy, <br /><br />I'm afraid I can't help you with that, since my view is very different from yours - even though I think there is such thing as proper function, I take different view of it -, and I think transitions between species are fuzzy, even if I believe there are objective differences between species (and probably have a different view about what it takes for a difference to be objective).Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90475200429075954042018-11-25T13:35:12.292-08:002018-11-25T13:35:12.292-08:00It would be great to see Ed Feser with PetersonIt would be great to see Ed Feser with PetersonAvraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34917202211109347872018-11-25T08:21:41.420-08:002018-11-25T08:21:41.420-08:00I do not know it would, but my point is that one c...<i>I do not know it would, but my point is that one can mirror the perverted faculty argument in a way that avoids the usual replies from its defenders.</i><br /><br />You are not, in fact, mirroring the perverted faculty argument. If you are going to try to run a parity argument, take the trouble to do it competently after having properly analyzed the argument with which you are trying to run a parallel. <br /><br />(1) Masticating, unlike the multi-part process of eating, has no pleasure associated directly with it; it is literally just a series of grinding, crushing, slicing actions with teeth. You are confusing this imaginary pleasure of chomping with teeth with the direct pleasure of exercising the jaw muscles or the indirect pleasure of reducing aridity in the mouth and throat; this in itself breaks the supposed parallel, since it means that your parallel is fatally incomplete at precisely the point you are trying to make it.<br /><br />(2) You keep going back and forth between mastication and eating. This contrasts with the argument you are trying to mirror, which explicitly makes a distinction between the larger-scale and the smaller-scale (""Let’s turn now momentarily to the small picture") in order to make a specific point; you not do this. <br /><br />What is more, your 'mirroring' at this point commits a standard error with amateur attempts at parity argument. What needs to be mirrored is not bare word-forms but cogency of argument -- that is, someone building a parity argument needs to establish that if an argument of type A works it would require that an argument of type B works. Not only do you not do this, you explicitly jump over it ("it is clear that") and do not provide any parallel to the actual argument given, despite that this is a crucial step in your parity argument. "One might say" does not suffice; you need "one would have to say". Otherwise you have established nothing at all.<br /><br />(3) You don't even bother to try to run a proper parallel in your third part. 'Putting food in the stomach' is neither the end of masticating (which is getting things chewed-up) nor the end of eating (the process of which is not completed by putting things in the stomach), so you've put a third thing on the table without establishing that it is relevant to the parallel. It's very much as if somebody said that the operation of the corpus spongiosum was to put semen into the vagina; it confuses what the corpus spongiosum does with what it makes possible for something else. Here we see again both your failure to be consistent about the faculty and your consistent sloppiness about what is involved in mastication itself.<br /><br />But more seriously even than that, you have failed to establish frustration. Let us suppose (even though it's stupid analysis) that the purpose of chewing things with the teeth was to put things in the stomach. Chewing gum is not inconsistent with this end, as anyone who has dealt with children and gum knows. Since frustration requires an inconsistency (as Ed explicitly notes), there is no frustration even under your stupid analysis. Further, your emphasis on the further end of nutrition means that you would actually be committed in the parity to 'the end of mastication is to put things in the stomach <i>so as to make nutrition possible</i>'. But this means that the end of chewing is not frustrated by failing to put things in the stomach that do not make nutrition possible. So, again, no frustration.<br /><br />So your "mirroring" is not a competent mirroring; parity fails at practically every essential point. It's as if you did not even bother to analyze the argument you were trying to mirror, and instead tried to wing it on the basis of a handful of verbal similarities and arbitrary assumptions.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7915823212861176712018-11-25T01:23:26.421-08:002018-11-25T01:23:26.421-08:00Anonymus
But in that case, the immorality would f...Anonymus<br /><br />But in that case, the immorality would follow from the fact that you deliberately do something that damages your health. <br />Masturbation, e.g. would only be immoral if it damages ones health. <br />Angra's point, i think, is that in chewing sugar-free gum, a faculty is "frustrated" because it is used in a way contrary to its "telos".Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49065932721352119292018-11-25T01:19:37.530-08:002018-11-25T01:19:37.530-08:00"Anonymous is posing articulate challenges to..."Anonymous is posing articulate challenges to the Perverted Faculty Argument."<br /><br />I disagree. This is merely one of those situations where someone is so deeply mistaken that trying to explain their error requires writing 3-4x as much in response, and Anon is saying a lot.<br /><br />Here is one of the first things said:<br /><br />"perhaps if that research was directed at fertility studies we could say that the standard process of obtaining a specimen was still directed towards the primary natural purpose of the reproduction of the species, and we might allow it on this basis"<br /><br />There is so much incorrect about this, it shows a complete misunderstanding of purposes and almost every paragraph has these kinds of errors. Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84625185090566100732018-11-25T01:00:00.994-08:002018-11-25T01:00:00.994-08:00Anon,
"My point in the wider discussion is t...Anon,<br /><br />"My point in the wider discussion is that, from an ethical point of view, both are genuine human goods, and that the telos of reproduction does not always and necessarily trump the telos of forming a loving relationship."<br /><br />We form loving relationships precisely for the reproductive end. Loving/romantic relationships are only basic to humans, as rational animals. Reproduction is something that is basic at a much higher level, as it is basic to all living substances. For this reason, the unitive end of sex cannot trump the reproductive end but must act in unison with it. Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35541623488448395702018-11-25T00:01:45.446-08:002018-11-25T00:01:45.446-08:00Angra, I don't quite get the parallel. In case...Angra, I don't quite get the parallel. In cases you mention the relevant faculty is either not used at all or used to limited fruition. None of which is quite contrary to natural end. of course it might well be immoral to eat large amount of chewing gums only and damage the health.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40088675765809767902018-11-24T22:20:16.206-08:002018-11-24T22:20:16.206-08:00@Angra Mainyu, your interpretation of my usage of ...@Angra Mainyu, your interpretation of my usage of the term random is right. What was specially making me confused is that in some places in the TLS Feser seemed to say that natural selection exibited final causes, but than it arrived to me the question, through the objection i stated above:<br />“How can it be so if natural selection is an event and what possesses final causes are substances?”<br /><br />But than latter on another thought arrived: <br />“Events are relation between substances so final causality may not be present in the event “natural selection” but in the substances that make such event happen in the first place.”<br /><br />So I also think I made a mistake saying that mutations have final causes, since, as was shown, they are themselves events.<br /><br />What seems to possess final causes after all are the genes. Mutations are events, and the substance of such events are the genes.<br /><br />With that said, I could make a summary of my point as follows:<br />Genes have the final cause to make some protein. In some cases a perversion of this final cause happen and the genes start having a new final cause. This new final cause, depending on the way it will impact the organism and its relation to the environment in which it is living, may be stored or go to the trash can. In some cases those peversions are good for survival and are stored. With time and “accumulation of perversions” may happen. In such case you will probrably have two things: <br /><br />1-The essential properties of the original substance are now gone, this means a new substance have arrive(new formal cause, new species), this does not happen if such perversions affect only the acidental properties of the organism, but if they affect the essential properties, then you a brand new thing (new formal cause);<br /><br /> 2-The teleology found in such organisms will become more complex, since in various cases complexity will be good for survival. In these cases the telos of something will also be more apparent, the way the telos of the eye is not apparent than the telos of minerals say. So we could in such case, as Feser did, make an argument for final causes based on how to explain biological fenomena. Of course we could argue that telos is necessary any substance, living or non-living, but since I’m living thing telos is more apparent, we can use it specifically to argue for final causes in nature.<br /><br />This answers objection 1, that final causes do not exist in the biological realm, since natural selection, being an event, does not seek any goal like survival.<br /><br />And also objection 2, that natural selection is a fluid and continuous process and therefore we cannot really talk about when a species give way to another. Such objection begs the question even if made in a epistemological way, since Thomists would simply say we can look to the essential properties of a substance and compare it to the essential properties of another substances, if they are equal the substance is the same, if they are different, you have different substances. This applies to biology not less than to anything else, we really can compare substances and drawn real and objective distinction between a species and another.<br /><br />I think this is enough to summarize the discussion an my position at the present point. <br /><br />Any further contribution to it will be really appreciated by myself 👍👍The Thomist Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06529345392140792728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43675944208349249932018-11-24T21:10:37.425-08:002018-11-24T21:10:37.425-08:00Peter,
But this precisely is why your challenge c...Peter,<br /><br />But this precisely is why your challenge can't be considered successful because then your challenge turn out to be circular for example your reply to Joe's comment turn on dismissing his claim because you think one act isn't immoral as the other based on its un-coerced nature .( it doesn't need to be as immoral, just immoral in general for the conclusion to follow) but not being coerced isn't a sufficient condition for being morally permissible. In this way claims of those aspects being bizarre simply don't work.<br /><br />And secondly this is said by proponents of a lot of views in metaphysics and I think this applies here too, you shouldn't dismiss a view as absurd without checking out alternatives. <br /><br />And about common sense moral intuitions, they can be highly varied , I would have considered these perverted acts as immoral even if I had never seen these particular sorts of argument for it.Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.com