3 ms·
> the others cannot by definition (according to legal and social norms). Your argument could equally be used to justify criminalizing gay sex as long as it hap
by Hondor 10y ago
> the others cannot by definition (according to legal and social norms).
Your argument could equally be used to justify criminalizing gay sex as long as it happens in a country where it's illegal and people generally don't like it. But really I'm not talking about sex but about sexuality. That's just what goes on inside people's minds. We aren't even tolerant of that. It's not a crime to be attracted to children but it's certainly ground to be abused by otherwise moral people.
I'm not comparing fish with Chinese. I'm comparing one group of humans with another. You could choose Americans and Chinese. How is it that we can ban members of one group from working for money but not the other? Of course this sounds ridiculous seen through the lens of current culture, but that's my point. We're so immersed in our culture that we can't see its hypocrisies.
We think it's wrong for employers to advertise "Irish need not apply" but today employers advertise "work permit required" and to get a work permit, you're not allowed to be Irish except for some special cases.
- solipsism 10y agoYour argument could equally be used to justify criminalizing gay sex as long as it happens in a country where it's illegal and people generally don't like it. No it can't. It's the notion of consent that is subject to legal interpretation. In a symmetric relationship like homosexuality how would consent apply? We think it's wrong for employers to advertise "Irish need not apply" but today employers advertise "work permit required" and to get a work permit, you're not allowed to be Irish except for some special cases. You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying our categorizations aren't constructed and somewhat arbitrary. They are. What I'm saying is that your comparisons are poorly chosen. It's wise to wonder why we eat cows but not dogs. But a relationship between two consenting adults is not comparable to one between an adult and an animal. If you want to wonder why some farmers prefer sex with goats to sex with sheep, knock yourself out.
- Hondor 10y agoSo you agree? Our ideas of right and wrong are largely arbitrary so we aren't actually very good people compared to our ancestors. Your main concern is that the examples I used to show that aren't as good as showing that we arbitrarily eat pigs but not dogs? Your argument using consent seems to be more arbitrary than it needs to be. The legal definition of consent isn't the reason we don't allow those things. That's just a tool we use to decide if it's a crime. The reason we don't allow them is probably because it can psychologically harm the children. I'm not sure about the reason for animals but it's probably more similar to the reason we don't eat dogs but we do kill and torture them. That is, it's not for the benefit of the animals, but something arbitrary in our culture.
- solipsism 10y agoSorry but you aren't making much sense to me. Our ideas of right and wrong are largely arbitrary so we aren't actually very good people compared to our ancestors. This does not follow. The definition of "good people" hinges on a moral system, arbitrary as it may be.