Spirituality
13 Aug 06
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeIt's probably the only subject on which FreakyKBH and I agree.
I never said the dead chicken was buggered. I left open the mode of sexual congress. However, I wouldn't personally recommend oral.
But seriously, you can't really believe that there is NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVE SEX WITH A DEAD CHICKEN, can you? I have an ineradicable intuition that there something seriously morally and aesthetically wrong with it.
...[text shortened]... personally think that the sex-with-a-dead-chicken example threatens to refute utilitarianism.
What's say you and I get on over to a Kenny Rogers Roaster and celebrate?
13 Aug 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThe only reason I assumed that method of sex with a dead chicken is that as far as having sex with a dead chicken goes I thought it seemed more physically possible, but that is irrelevant.
I never said the dead chicken was buggered. I left open the mode of sexual congress. However, I wouldn't personally recommend oral.
But seriously, you can't really believe that there is NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVE SEX WITH A DEAD CHICKEN, can you? I have an ineradicable intuition that there something seriously morally and aesthetically wrong with it.
...[text shortened]... personally think that the sex with a dead chicken example threatens to refute utilitarianism.
On the serious note, I do actually believe that there is nothing morally wrong about having sex with a decessed chicken. I would not make that choice myself and if I had a son or daughter and found that they were exhibiting necroalektorophiliac tendancies, I would have them see some sort of therapist because it would probably be an indicator of some sort of deeper psychological problem. I would find it disgusting, but I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with it, just like sex with obeses, hairy, elderly midget women or enjoying Justin Timberlake music.
On your comment that there is something aesthetically wrong with it, I'll have to agree, it can't be pretty whatever method you chose, at least to my and most people's definitions of beauty.
14 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI certainly am. I am a utilitarianist and you're a Christian.
You must be reading from a different moral dictionary than am I. My source says sexual relations with an animal (fighting or not) is repre[b]hensible. I'd even go so far as to say that the physical world is in agreement with the moral dictionary I am using, relative to eventual consequences (read: AIDS).[/b]
I'd even go so far as to say that the physical world is in agreement with the moral dictionary I am using, relative to eventual consequences (read: AIDS).
People get AIDS from having sex with dead chickens? I thought they got AIDS from having sex with living people. Dead chickens are probably pretty safe in comparison.
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI'd think my kid was not typical, and I'd suggest psychiatric evaluation. I'd tell the kid not to hurt any living chickens. I'd also tell the kid that socially this is really going to mess with his lifelong happiness. But...if that's what he wants...he has a right to be free. If he's happy, good for him!
I never said the dead chicken was buggered. I left open the mode of sexual congress. However, I wouldn't personally recommend oral.
But seriously, you can't really believe that there is NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVE SEX WITH A DEAD CHICKEN, can you? I have an ineradicable intuition that there something seriously morally and aesthetically wrong with it.
...[text shortened]... personally think that the sex-with-a-dead-chicken example threatens to refute utilitarianism.
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe word spincter and sphinx are related.
If a person, female or male, experienced pleasure due to stimulation of the sphincter (AKA butthole)...
Is there any significance to this fact?
My perspective as a utilitarianist - good for the person who enjoys such pleasure. There's nothing bad or evil necessarily involved in this act.
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=apa.044s.0241a
14 Aug 06
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowWe all seem to be agreeing that bonking a bird whose pecking days are done is suggestive of psychological pathology.
The only reason I assumed that method of sex with a dead chicken is that as far as having sex with a dead chicken goes I thought it seemed more physically possible, but that is irrelevant.
On the serious note, I do actually believe that there is nothing morally wrong about having sex with a decessed chicken. I would not make that choice myself and ...[text shortened]... be pretty whatever method you chose, at least to my and most people's definitions of beauty.
However, pathology involves a negative moral judgment. Something good can't be pathological; it has to be bad.
So I think there is an implicit moral judgment going on here. But not one that is being made on simple utilitarian grounds.
Perhaps you might counter that while the act itself, bringing pleasure, is good, the general frame of mind that accompanies it, bringing other pains like social dysfunction, is bad.
Let's suppose however that the *only* thing wrong with your teenager was that he or she liked physical intimacy with lifeless fowl. Do you believe that there is nothing pathological in particular about what he or she does, or feels like doing?