A Conversation in my Head

So I'm having this conversion in my head and it goes like this:

Other person: blah blah blah alternative lifestyles blah blah blah
Me: You mean by alternative lifestyles someone who chooses an unconventional lifestyle?
The other person: Yeah
Me: I'm just curious about whether you think that would be ok to say in front of someone who is homosexual, or likes kink.
The other person: Why not? It's just a word, a term
Me: People say that but it's not a good argument; words have consequences too.
The other person: Yeah whatever sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
Me: Could you pass me that bottle of scotch?
Me: Words have consequences like actions do in the sense that they have a place in the cause and effect paradigm. This means classic judgements can be made against words, the same as actions. I say to you, you should not use a word unless you are certain you know it's not going to be a negative experience to someone within earshot of you. Since you can't prove to me that nobody would be hurt by a particular word, and even more specifically that nobody in earshot would be hurt by a word you say, I say be very careful about what words you use.

You are going to say that the taxonomic imperatives of language outweigh the moral imperative of avoiding personal injury. I say to you that that is just rephrasing the maxim that we should all be utilitarians about words. I also say that what we say is one of the few things we may actually be able to exercise on the basis of pure will. There are no unavoidable impact calculi when we are discussing the taxonomic imperatives of language.

Ah, but then you say that if you know your audience you can safely make a utilitarian calculus of word choice against personal injury that results in a positive outcome. After all, you say, the beauty of operating on a case-by-case basis is that you have adaptability over stodgy moral imperatives. But I say to you, wouldn't behaving differently in different situations violate your true identity at least some of the time? I'm not sure what you would say then.

But, I would say that the notion of a true identity is a shaky one at best, and that if we were about to get all existentialist I would divert to metaphysics. The key change goes something like this: the entire notion of identity is presumed by the fact that we are entirely complex chemical reactions. What is so special about us is that we don't know the entirety of the reaction. In fact it's quite probable the reactions in each of us are so unique and complex we'll never know. It's the x-factor. It's certainly not God, but it's certainly a reason people go looking for God.

This leaves us at one possible resolution: we just don't know whether we are a single identity or many. I would say you can see how it relates back to what we were talking about originally.