Re: Kant on human differences

On Aug 17, 1:01 pm, Scott H <zinites_p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:


> I hate to embarrass you, Michael Gordge, but I pointed out what I
> believe to be the flaw in Kantian ethics in my second paragraph.- Hide
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"What if we based our maxims on something particular about one group
of people, such as race? My maxim would be, "If it happens that I am
white, then I may..." This appears to be a flaw in the Categorical
Imperative."

That is meant to embarrass me?

You're the one who ought be embarassed, talking about the WHAT
(metaphysics) instead of the HOW (epistemology) i.e. identify HOW Kant
arrived at his evil anti-human trash.

All you're asking Kantians to do is to explain themselves away which
they easily do by INVENTING yet another lot of horse-****, they just
adopt and apply the second or third or fourth or fifth definition of a
concept.

Ask Kantian chazzzz, (he likes to cnsider himself the most learned of
the git Kant) according to chazzzz, quote "The truth has man
definitions and philosophic meanings", now how bloody convienient is
that to Kantian irrationalizm?

Another favourite of the Kantian is their often appealed to position
of the uncertainty of everything.

The Kantians claim, that because man cant know reality in itself,
(FFS) then accordig to that principle, each man can never be certain
about anything, (not even whether or not he's had a **** today)

HOWEVER if everyone is uncertain of everything, then the there can be
no meaning for certainty, how the **** would they recognize that which
they say they cant? soooo if certainty has no meaning i it cant ever
be identified, then how the **** can uncertainty have any meaning?

These Kantians clearly do not know HOW to think which is why and how
they end up talking in endless non-senseical meaningless circles.


Michael Gordge











Michael Gordge