Most people would accept this consequence for what they regard as exceptional cases – such as vulnerable older people or physically disabled children.
Brouwer accepted this consequence wholeheartedly.
Hume accepted this consequence, but most philosophers regard it as absurd.
(For the suggestion that the disjunctivist should accept this consequence, see Sturgeon 2006 and 2008. For criticism of Fish's account, see Siegel 2008).
But constructionism, at least in its most extreme form, accepts this consequence, insisting that there are indeed no facts except for socially constructed ones, created and modified at particular times and places courtesy of prevailing theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
Epistemicists accept this astonishing consequence.
Many scholars have been reluctant to accept this apparent consequence of Xunzi's arguments, and indeed there are passages in the Xunzi that seem to express quite a different attitude towards the rituals.
And what's the consequence of accepting this?
We need to stop accepting this behavior as an unavoidable consequence of writing on the Internet.
Accepting this principle would have "devastating consequences": namely, that "government could forbid the graphic or visceral or emotionally charged expression of any opinion that might reasonably offend a disadvantaged group.
Protagoras just accepts this supposedly absurd consequence; and apparently he is right to do so.
