Do you think there's anything wrong with putting your penis in a dead pig's mouth?

[chilango]

in other news, a hunt steward pictured simulating sex with a dead goose. i suppose littlebabyjesus and Orang Utan would be quick to describe this as moral. Police hunt sick yob pretending to have sex with a dead GOOSE

Spuds in goose fat?

 

[danny la rouge]

I've already said that I interpreted the question as asking if I thought there was something morally wrong, ie that it was something I thought other people shouldn't do. But given that I don't see any harm being done here necessarily (and I accept that others do see harm for various reasons, all of which I personally reject), my position is that it's really none of my business morally. Doesn't mean I approve or encourage it, nor that I wouldn't discourage it in a person I know if I thought it was doing them harm. Just means that it is a morally neutral question for me.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of what morality means and doesn't mean, and how it might or might not differ from ethics. That's all been done a million times on this forum. But it does seem to me that your application of your understanding of morality here in informing your judgement is underpinned by a kind of possessive individualism, either that or you think it necessary to apply those principles when evaluating rightness and wrongness. My rejection of the former is a concomitant of my world view, and I reject the latter as an unnecessary encumbrance. I think you're tying yourself in knots by saying that you may disapprove (or approve) but it's none of your business. Nobody's asking you if it's your business. Only if you think it right or wrong. You are interpreting the question in these steps: 1) it's moral (which has a specific meaning for you). 2) That implies deciding whether or not it's my business. Fine, but at least be open to the fact that that was neither implied nor is necessarily the way other people have interpreted the question.

Here's the thing: it isn't neutral to say there's nothing wrong with the penis/pig thing.

I believe someone on the other thread gave the example of homosexuality for some ill-judged reason. When I say there's nothing wrong with homosexuality I am certainly not being neutral. I'm definitely taking sides. And I want to.

We're only having this part of the discussion now because you asked me why I "feel it necessary" to vote Yes. It's because, having decided on answering my own poll, I came down on the side of Yes. The reasons for my doing so are given in the thread.

 

[laptop]

New Scientist is topical entirely by accident, in a feature that went to press well before #piggate:

...moral intuition is often fuelled by emotional reactions. Most people are repulsed by the thought of a human engaging in coitus with a deceased chicken, and that alone is enough to condemn the act. When reasoning comes into play, it is frequently to rationalise these intuitive decisions after the event.

Morality 2.0: How manipulating our minds could save the world

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Another example given was coprophilia. Perhaps more relevant in that it is a practice that disgusts me in terms of the thought of the act far more than the idea of putting my dick in a dead pig. But I can find nothing wrong with it in the sense that I can find no reason to think that others shouldn't do it if that's their bag.

In that sense, yes, we have different ideas about what we can or should say about things that we judge to be none of our business. As for that being part of a wider sense of individualism on my part, that's something I reject. I see no contradiction between believing strongly in the collective and collective interests and also believing strongly that there is and should be a private sphere that is no business of anybody else.

 

[Pickman's model]

Another example given was coprophilia. Perhaps more relevant in that it is a practice that disgusts me in terms of the thought of the act far more than the idea of putting my dick in a dead pig. But I can find nothing wrong with it in the sense that I can find no reason to think that others shouldn't do it if that's their bag.

In that sense, yes, we have different ideas about what we can or should say about things that we judge to be none of our business. As for that being part of a wider sense of individualism on my part, that's something I reject. I see no contradiction between believing strongly in the collective and collective interests and also believing strongly that there is and should be a private sphere that is no business of anybody else.

i don't suppose many people would consider lurid initiation rites for student clubs and societies falls into that private spehere.

 

[danny la rouge]

I see no contradiction between believing strongly in the collective and collective interests and also believing strongly that there is and should be a private sphere that is no business of anybody else.

So it's not all belief that you think is a mistake, just certain beliefs? It's not having beliefs per se that you denounce.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So it's not all belief that you think is a mistake, just certain beliefs? It's not having beliefs per se that you denounce.

I am very much with TH Huxley on this one: 'Do not believe something without good reason to believe it.' (This was included in his original definition of the term he himself coined, 'agnosticism', a term that many people use in a different way nowadays to mean something like 'I'm not sure'. But its original definition is very precise, and, I think, useful.)

I accept that our definitions of 'good reason' are going to vary in certain instances. That's what we thrash out in discussions like this, I would think.

ETA: the context of 'belief' before was specifically that of belief in a 'god' of some kind. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

 

[Pickman's model]

So it's not all belief that you think is a mistake, just certain beliefs? It's not having beliefs per se that you denounce.

just looking at lbj's argument, it seems to me to have gone from 'dick pig mouth moral' if i may so summarise to 'the question of inserting a penis into a dead pig's mouth is morally neutral': which i would submit is rather a shift. in the case of belief, lbj started by saying 'i am an atheist and my atheism is a disbelief in god' and rather rapidly moved to 'i am a huxleyite agnostick'. what the thrashing in discussion seems to lead to (imo) is movement in lbj's position, when he's not handing out abuse (e.g. nasty cunt) which he is so loath to receive. if any of his well considered opinions has stood up to scrutiny i would be grateful to be told of them.

 

[danny la rouge]

the context of 'belief' before was specifically that of belief in a 'god' of some kind. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

No, it's not clear, sorry; you brought it up to illustrate something about the difference - in your opinion - between answering Yes or No in the poll. It brought me no closer to understanding why you think answering No is neutral.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, it's not clear, sorry; you brought it up to illustrate something about the difference - in your opinion - between answering Yes or No in the poll. It brought me no closer to understanding why you think answering No is neutral.

i suspect you are mistaken in believing thought behind his position.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, it's not clear, sorry; you brought it up to illustrate something about the difference - in your opinion - between answering Yes or No in the poll. It brought me no closer to understanding why you think answering No is neutral.

I brought it up possibly in an ill-judged attempt to show an analogous situation. Saying 'no I don't think there is something wrong with it' isn't the same as saying 'I think there is something right with it'. It is not a positive assertion of rightness. Some things are neither virtues nor sins.

 

[Pickman's model]

I brought it up possibly in an ill-judged attempt to show an analogous situation. Saying 'no I don't think there is something wrong with it' isn't the same as saying 'I think there is something right with it'. It is not a positive assertion of rightness. Some things are neither virtues nor sins.

fucking a dead pig's head in the face def one of the sins.

 

[danny la rouge]

Saying 'no I don't think there is something wrong with it' isn't the same as saying 'I think there is something right with it'.

I know that. I hadn't realised you thought that was in dispute.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I know that. I hadn't realised you thought that was in dispute.

And that is why I think that answering 'no' can be neutral in a way that answering 'yes' can't. Taking a hypothetical situation in which I see no harm being caused, I then see no need to judge the act morally either way. And thinking in that way, I vote 'no'.

ETA:

And I'm going to leave this here, danny. I've received enough abuse for my position and I've said all that I can, I think. Not good for me to continue further.

 

[danny la rouge]

And that is why I think that answering 'no' can be neutral in a way that answering 'yes' can't. Taking a hypothetical situation in which I see no harm being caused, I then see no need to judge the act morally either way. And thinking in that way, I vote 'no'.

You don't seem to be saying anything more than you think No is the right answer. Which I know.

 

[Pickman's model]

And that is why I think that answering 'no' can be neutral in a way that answering 'yes' can't. Taking a hypothetical situation in which I see no harm being caused, I then see no need to judge the act morally either way. And thinking in that way, I vote 'no'.

readers will doubtless note that when the question is 'is there anything wrong with putting your penis in a dead pig's mouth?', then answering 'no' is not neutral, it means you view there as being nothing wrong with putting your cock in a dead pig's mouth. and that being the case, if nothing's wrong with the act then it must be right - there's no '0' on the scale beyond morality and immorality.

 

[laptop]

there's no '0' on the scale beyond [sc. between ?] morality and immorality.

Step back from the argument. Breathe. Are you quite sure about that?

 

[Spymaster]

 

[Spymaster]

Top thread!

 

[Pickman's model]

Step back from the argument. Breathe. Are you quite sure about that?

it'll teach me to type after reading nietzsche

 

[Wilf]

What, exactly, do you suspect of being in a Papal Bull?

Cameron's winkle?

 

[Wilf]

Can we not discuss pig fucking without calling each other pig fuckers and/or judgemental?

I believe this exact phrase is being tabled as an amendment to the Equality Act 2010. Cameron has had to declare an interest and, for the sake of propriety, will absent himself.

 

[andysays]

I was called a pigfucker.

That sparked a rather unpleasant memory because of its parallels with that memory, so I pointed out as much here.

That is all, andysays. Go and re-read the other thread if you don't believe me.

If you were genuinely and seriously called a pigfucker, then I agree that was out of order and I apologise for suggesting otherwise.

Nevertheless, you do seem to have laid on the suggestion that you're being attacked, while simultaneously smearing people for arguing things that they're not, so in general I still find your attempts to claim martyrdom a little misplaced.

 

[phildwyer]

Fuck's sake. Is pickers being a boring cunt again?

Shove him on ignore - it makes this place far more pleasant.

Yes, but then it looks like everyone's screaming abuse into thin air. It's too confusing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ok. A salt beef and mustard bagel then?

Mustard???

 

[frogwoman]

Fucking a pig, fucking the country

 

[campanula]

I have lots of differing thoughts about this ranging from quite amusing, a bit pathetic, sad and weird, to waste of a good pigs head...but nothing that makes me want to scream wrong from the rooftops. Course, all the other shit - doing it in public, initiation rites, posho's being wanky, well yeah - wrong for sure...but putting your ham in a ham...well.
So, trying to imagine creeping up on one of the offspring and catching them with a part of their anatomy in a corned beef sandwich - would I be horrified? I would be a sight more upset if I caught one of them stamping on ants or torturing frogs, but stiffing a sausage?

 

[campanula]

And who has not 'gone a bit experimental' with a jar of nutella?

 

[Greebo]

Yes, but then it looks like everyone's screaming abuse into thin air. It's too confusing.

 

[8ball]

And who has not 'gone a bit experimental' with a jar of nutella?

Usually with a jar of nutella and someone both of the same species and alive...