The homosexuals had a compelling reason in that the expression of human sexuality is a fundamental need. Moreover, homosexuality existed in the wild, so its supposed harmful effects were not based on any evidence. (Our experience with cannibalistic populations is almost zero.) Moreover, nobody 'gave' homosexuals the rights they have as much as they fought for them. And cannibalism is not a basic need. Moreover, we have experience of homosexuality both in other cultures, underground cultures and other species.

I understand the point you are making and it is a good one. However things like the rabbits in Australia, the Asian jumping carp which is poised to destroy the fishing industry in the great lakes, genetic pollution, and other potential disasters have to be weighed against benefit. Note that I didn't put up an absolute bar, but a relative one in which the benefits need to be weighed against the risk. I never stated that we shouldn't "explore" the prospect, but that without compelling interests, movement toward them should be conservative. The example you suggested put up an absolute bar. What if one of Chuck's prion's results in a form of acquired psychopathy. What benefit to cannibals and their suppliers justifies that? Should we introduce the Asian jumping carp into other lake systems, just to see what happens? We wouldn't want to bar exploration. Or perhaps there is a continent lacking in Kudzu we should try? There are environments where alien pythons haven't invaded yet. Let's get some snakes on a plane.

Eat pork. My ancestors replaced human meat with pork when the Spanish banned it's consumption. Served a dish that used to contain meat to some Christians and told them the history of the dish....classic reactions.

Though according to others, it tastes like tangy chicken so get an order of orange chicken.

(September 15, 2012 at 3:06 am)Polaris Wrote: Eat pork. My ancestors replaced human meat with pork when the Spanish banned it's consumption. Served a dish that used to contain meat to some Christians and told them the history of the dish....classic reactions.

Though according to others, it tastes like tangy chicken so get an order of orange chicken.

That looks like an Indian dish. I love chicken tikka masala.

(September 15, 2012 at 2:54 am)apophenia Wrote: The homosexuals had a compelling reason in that the expression of human sexuality is a fundamental need.

The cannibals might argue that the expression of cannibalism is a fundamental need for them. In fact, a lot of the cultural cannibals do argue that.

(September 15, 2012 at 2:54 am)apophenia Wrote: Moreover, homosexuality existed in the wild, so its supposed harmful effects were not based on any evidence. (Our experience with cannibalistic populations is almost zero.)

On the contrary, we do have knowledge of a lot of cannibalistic species in the wild - such as in pigs, cats, crocodiles and chimpanzees. And so far, we haven't seen much of the harmful effects.

(September 15, 2012 at 2:54 am)apophenia Wrote: Moreover, nobody 'gave' homosexuals the rights they have as much as they fought for them.

That was my point. They shouldn't have had to.

(September 15, 2012 at 2:54 am)apophenia Wrote: And cannibalism is not a basic need.

How do you determine a "basic need"?

(September 15, 2012 at 2:54 am)apophenia Wrote: Moreover, we have experience of homosexuality both in other cultures, underground cultures and other species.

The same goes for cannibalism. You can experience it in other cultures, underground cultures and other species.

(September 15, 2012 at 2:54 am)apophenia Wrote: I understand the point you are making and it is a good one. However things like the rabbits in Australia, the Asian jumping carp which is poised to destroy the fishing industry in the great lakes, genetic pollution, and other potential disasters have to be weighed against benefit. Note that I didn't put up an absolute bar, but a relative one in which the benefits need to be weighed against the risk. I never stated that we shouldn't "explore" the prospect, but that without compelling interests, movement toward them should be conservative. The example you suggested put up an absolute bar. What if one of Chuck's prion's results in a form of acquired psychopathy. What benefit to cannibals and their suppliers justifies that? Should we introduce the Asian jumping carp into other lake systems, just to see what happens? We wouldn't want to bar exploration. Or perhaps there is a continent lacking in Kudzu we should try? There are environments where alien pythons haven't invaded yet. Let's get some snakes on a plane.

The difference is that while experiments in can and do get out of hand very quickly, the same is not true for human societies. You keep comparing allowing cannibalism to genetic pollution, but there is simply no evidence that it is on the same scale. In all the cases where the genetic pollution resulted in a disaster, the key factor of rapid and near-uncontrollable spread of the polluting agent through the entire ecosystem. The same would obviously not be true for cannibalism. Even of cannibalism is legalized, the entire population is not going to become cannibalistic overnight. In fact, I'd think that things would remain pretty much the same for a long time.

It'd be pretty much the same as introducing any new food-product. There'd be companies that make and sell the product, only on this case, a select demographic. The existing social taboo would prevail and prevent much spreading for years. If negative health effects do come to light, then the people are going to sue the manufacturing companies - like they always do. If the scientists find out harmful health effects of cannibalism, then they'd publish their findings and the legalization may be repealed or atleast a warning label attached depending on how powerful the cannibal lobby has become. And the fundies will hit the roof no matter what.

(September 14, 2012 at 5:18 pm)genkaus Wrote: And you have determined it unagreeable based on some ethical theory - presumably.

Indeed, but all moral claims are made on such a basis, all there is to do is argue for which theory is correct, so I suppose I have no response, well argued.

Quote:To pick an example that's hit closer to home, would you support your own son's choice of becoming a fireman or would you try and talk him out of it?

I'd support such a decision, saving people's lives is honourable and self-sacrifice for the good of others sits well with me. (irrelevant point, never having kids but I understand the importance of such a question.)

Quote:Not at all. Under that ethical theory, I would be condemning the choice he makes based on the ability to choose - not the ability to choose itself - and that is the place of morality.

But his action causes no harm to anyone but him, so why would they be immoral?

Quote:No, actually, whether he ends up saving other people or not would be irrelevant. It is the choice he made - that of self-sacrifice - that is being condemned.

Why? On what grounds is this contested?

Quote:Broadly speaking, when the corresponding inaction becomes less dangerous.

So, when contemplating standing up and sitting down, that which is least dangerous is the one which should be performed? The problem with this is that it is a less/more classification and as such is completely ridiculous when considering low-risk actions and even lower-difference actions.

Quote:Agreed. You'd have to ask the proponents of those particular ehtical theories the answer to those.

You're proposing it now, even if only as a hypothetical, so you'll have to answer to them

Excuse for cannibalism. What to eat nothings in the fridge. *Knock Knock(door)* Howdy Neighbor I just moved in next door my name is Phil what's your name? Mmmm lunch... Your name is lunch? Hey what the!? Ahhhhh!!!!

Later on that day. *Knock Knock* Hey have you seen my husband Phil he went off introducing himself to the neighbors and hasn't come back yet. Mmmm dinner...

(September 15, 2012 at 4:02 pm)JohnDG Wrote: Excuse for cannibalism. What to eat nothings in the fridge. *Knock Knock(door)* Howdy Neighbor I just moved in next door my name is Phil what's your name? Mmmm lunch... Your name is lunch? Hey what the!? Ahhhhh!!!!

Later on that day. *Knock Knock* Hey have you seen my husband Phil he went off introducing himself to the neighbors and hasn't come back yet. Mmmm dinner...

Doritos are a safer way to cure the munchies, man.

(September 15, 2012 at 4:02 pm)JohnDG Wrote: Excuse for cannibalism. What to eat nothings in the fridge. *Knock Knock(door)* Howdy Neighbor I just moved in next door my name is Phil what's your name? Mmmm lunch... Your name is lunch? Hey what the!? Ahhhhh!!!!

Later on that day. *Knock Knock* Hey have you seen my husband Phil he went off introducing himself to the neighbors and hasn't come back yet. Mmmm dinner...

Now that is immoral! One person a day is more than enough for anybody that's just pure greed that is.

People eating people? Doesn't that seem just a tad........primitive? Sapient beings eating each other?

(September 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: People eating people? Doesn't that seem just a tad........primitive? Sapient beings eating each other?

How is that worse than Sapient beings killing each other?