" your argument should stand the test of consistency" Yes. So should everybodies. That's why when someone serves up a premise from which I can derive the negation of their conclusion, they've got a problem. But just because I use their premise in a reductio on their position doesn't mean I'm endorsing it.
That's why when someone serves up a premise from which I can derive the negation of their conclusion, they've got a problem. Sorry, I thought that’s what I was doing.
But just because I use their premise in a reductio on their position doesn't mean I'm endorsing it.
Gee, that’s hard to tell from your posts but I’ll take you word for it. So you agree then that the pursuit of happiness clause doesn’t prohibit “consensual homosexual sex should [can] be regulated by the state?