Mammal to Mammal, Zoo Shocks Cannes

[The Bacon Guy]

Try me. Or are you just bluffing?

[Baarst]

Quote by: Rinoa In the same way that having sex with a two year old is immoral. A two year old is not intelligent enough to consent, despite being vastly more intelligent than a horse of pretty much any age.

Your quote is worthless, what you are implying is that a horse is less intelligent than a two year human and there for unable to consent to sex.... Hmmmm Then how can two horses have sex together if they can't consent to sex, let's stop all horses mating because Rinoa thinks its immoral.

[tinybear]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I can understand that your irrational reaction is disgust, but you didn't answer gw's question: how is it immoral?

It's immoral if the majority of people in the community within which the morals standards are applicable consider it to be so. :)

[Baarst]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio BTW to have sex with a horse,most of the time requires ropes or drugs.

Are you speaking from experience Mr.Vicchio?

[Rinoa]

Quote by: Baarst Your quote is worthless, what you are implying is that a horse is less intelligent than a two year human and there for unable to consent to sex.... Hmmmm Then how can two horses have sex together if they can't consent to sex, let's stop all horses mating because Rinoa thinks its immoral.

The problem is the difference in intellect. Not a lack thereof.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tiny It's immoral if the majority of people in the community within which the morals standards are applicable consider it to be so.

I'm aware that the majority of people are moralistic bigots with no concept of individual rights. I was simply trying to ascertain whether Vicchio falls into this category, or if he can actually justify his views with logic. Judging from his lack of response...

[Rinoa]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I'm aware that the majority of people are moralistic bigots with no concept of individual rights. I was simply trying to ascertain whether Vicchio falls into this category, or if he can actually justify his views with logic. Judging from his lack of response...

You know, it's interesting how you always seem to see the millions in the majority always seem to be the ones wrong, particularly when vs such a tiny minority, when the rest of us see it to a an immoral abnormality, a disease, and a couple hundred people disagree...you can label us bigots, simply because we disagree with your points to a strong extent. I understand that being in the majority doesn't always make us right, but when the percentages are as far off as they are it gives it credence.

Also, a concept that you need help with is the conscience...part of it is understanding that, sometimes, right is just right. You don't always need perfect logic, when that thing in your head, the one called a conscience goes off, you should just know. Though, I'd bet that it's been ignored for so long in your case that you honestly don't have the ability to give a shit about moral right and wrong. It's about what you want and nothing else, so long as you don't see the harm.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Rinoa It's about what you want and nothing else, so long as you don't see the harm.

This is not about what I want; it's about giving people freedom to run their own lives, so long as there is no harm done. Operating on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, you have no grounds to judge anyone if you can't prove that, or even suggest how, their behaviour is harmful.

You're doing a pretty damn good job of proving my point here. If you have nothing other than emotional ad hominem, please don't bother posting.

[tinybear]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I'm aware that the majority of people are moralistic bigots with no concept of individual rights. I was simply trying to ascertain whether Vicchio falls into this category, or if he can actually justify his views with logic. Judging from his lack of response...

But aren't moral standards defined by what is accepted by the majority of the community? Moral standards cannot take into account or be defined with reference to individual preferences which differ within a very wide range or spectrum.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tiny But aren't moral standards defined by what is accepted by the majority of the community?

No. They're subjective and therefore defined by the individual. There is often moral agreement over society as a whole for various reasons, but any one morality is determined by the individual. I'm trying to establish whether this particular individual is an irrational bigot, or if he can justify his views with logic.

I'm not particularly interested in what the majority of people think about the issue, since the majority view is by no means cohesive with a logical view.

[tinybear]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy No. They're subjective and therefore defined by the individual. There is often moral agreement over society as a whole for various reasons, but any one morality is determined by the individual.

Moral standards within any given community must be uniform to have any meaning. Hence the use of the word 'standards'. How can a standard yardstick be defined by 'the individual' when different individuals have different subjective views as to what it should be? It simply makes no sense.

[The Bacon Guy]

Moral standards within any given community are a result of many intersubjective individual moralities. However, I'm not interested in the moral standards of any given community; I'm interested in the moral standards of the individuals in this debate. I can only argue against the people who are here to defend themselves after all.