Morally repugnant consenting adult

Can we all agree that no matter the argument of adult consent, privacy, equality etc. that this is MORALLY repugnant (not just physically)and this man needs more then "5 years".

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12945509,00.html

WHOA! Don't be forcing your morality on me guys. Hey more non-human food for me!

Hahaha!

That brings up a question I don't think has been asked in this specific way. Does a person in good health have the right to consent to be murdered? I don't know. My initial thought is to say no. But I believe terminally ill people should be able to end their physical pain. Does the same apply for the physically healthy? Can we assume that anyone who would consent to be killed is mentally unhealthy? Maybe. But that is also one of the many invalid arguments used by people condemning homosexuality too.

Lots of what ifs.

BTW that dude needs not be out in public anywhere ever to convince people to let him eat them.

See, the problem there is mental health vs. shock. What if a woman in her mid 30s, great career, home, kids, etc. is in a car crash and has to spend the rest of her life in a wheel chair, paralyzed below her shoulders, she can't even feed or go to the bathroom by herself, she is in physical pain at all times. I promise, the first week she will be asking people to kill her, she will reject food, etc. However, the organism will eventually take over and she will adapt and overcome- it is only given the intial time to be in shock have grief and anger and then over come that one can live.

Wow, this case sounds a lot like another case recently discussed: WTF?

That brings up a question I don't think has been asked in this specific way. Does a person in good health have the right to consent to be murdered? I don't know. My initial thought is to say no. But I believe terminally ill people should be able to end their physical pain. Does the same apply for the physically healthy? Can we assume that anyone who would consent to be killed is mentally unhealthy?I'd say anyone who has their quality of life reduced in some irreparable way (paralysis, loss of a limb, blindness etc.) has the right to seek euthanasia.

How does that argument relate to people condemning homosexuals? That they are mentally unhealthy?Yes. Some call homosexuality a disease of the mind. You could say, and rightly so, that this dude is nucking futs in the head. But the inevitable retort would be, "Don't you think it's a mental illness to be homosexual?"I was just mentioning beforehand the next step. Kind of like a prophet I guess.

Crescent has prophesied the correct. It was only a matter of time before someone likened this guy's actions to homosexuality.

Oh wait...that was already done on that other thread. Ooops.

SCRAP

these guys are like homosexuals :-)

"The way i see it god gave me this body, its mine and I'll do with it what a please."

And that is the choice you have. But it is not without consequences and you can't later say you didn't know.

And that is the choice you have. But it is not without consequences and you can't later say you didn't know.You're acting as if those "consequences" are a known fact when the real fact is that they are simply a belief and nothing more. Of course, I'm not talking about the observable fact of the effects of self-destructive behavior (like drug addiction, binge and purge disorders, etc) I'm talking about believing that there is a God who will send you to Hell (or other "divine" punishment) for killing yourself. That people argue to prevent those with terminal illnesses from self euthanasia are projecting their selfishness onto someone else. "I know you're in horrible, unimaginable pain, Dad, but I would be so lonely if you died!"That just smacks of arrogance.SCRAP

scrappers right...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MORALITY, at least that can be legistlated lest people "shove something down his throat".

Him and bludhall are sophisticated enough to defend the position of no morals (at least none tied to religion) w/out contradicting themselves by having their own personal standards.

The reality is they just hate Christian morality and are typical humanist which is "religious" as well.

how is humanism religious?

It is not that there are NO morals. It is that all CORRECT morals come out of the basis of group survival.

It's hopeless. If you don't follow the morals that rooster follows then you automatically support no morals. There is no in between.

No, the truth is if I disagree with your relative mores then I'm shoving "religion" down your throat. Which is it man. Do you believe in some standards and morals, just non Christian ones? Or do you pick and choose? Or do you leave it up to the individual?!?! Please.

1) I am for the defense of what was normal just 50 years ago. 2) Most Christians are trying to defend the status quo not introduce "new morals" which are just ancient barbaric standards. 3) The accusation of "pushing morality" goes both ways...be consistent, either you are for everyone participating in the debate of societies mores or your for anarchy....
4) Yes, humanism is the relgion of self. It is the belief that humans are the "divine" they are the highest "law" unto themselves.

Crescent is correct and again, Rooster is taking an emotional approach to this subject. Where in my post did you read me saying there are no morals?

That's right, you didn't. Once again, you're building a strawman to attack.

"4) Yes, humanism is the relgion of self. It is the belief that humans are the "divine" they are the highest "law" unto themselves."

lol@ your definition, well I´m sure you know better how to define humanism then humanists themselves, since you also think you know that homosexuality is something abnormal for homosexuals..

There really is no point discussing with people like you rooster, I´m leaving this, sorry for asking in the first place.

btw, Scrap and cw are correct. Have fun guys.

Gentlemen, first an actual definition of MORALS and MORALITY must be established before we are to quibble over meaning and boundaries.

When you type morals into dictionary.com you get 6 adj defs and 3 n defs.

Personally (and in this arguement, I have no other source), I find the 2nd n def the best so I will post it and use it as my refrence.

A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.

This is how I see morals. If we can agree on this (or another) definition the discussion can continue- until such time we are simply dancing around the fire.

Now, why did I say "all CORRECT morals come out of the basis of group survival"? Because human evolution and behavior has been governed by social groups. Long before we learned to speak, walk upright or even make tools- we lived in groups. When intelligent but physically weak animals live together in groups (and we have only the great apes as refrence) certain behavior patterns emerge. 1- When attacked w/o the ability to run away, all capable members of the group fight, the strong defending the weak! Do you realize what an evolutionary advantage that is for a species long term? 2- Hiearchies emerge. No group of beings can exist without a leader. No animal or human society has ever lived by commite (yes, small experimental groups have tried this, and ALL failed long term). The hiearchies are generally based on who can provide for the group the best AND who can play politics the best.

With these two conditions, we see quite clearly that the difference between a den of thieves and a tribe together is that in a den thieves, every man is out for himself while in a tribe, all men are out for the good of the tribe- this leads to long-term success. This leads to communication, tool making, invention, and most important team work!

With this in mind, all morality must then stem from group survival. The death of a single individual while others (esp. the young) make their escape is insignifigant! Why do we send our young men off to die and not our young women (even today, women are not allowed in combat positions on the front lines)? Because it is IMMORAL to waste good mothers! Fathers can be had from the older generation, but mothers- they must be young and strong. Why is it wrong to commit adultery? Because the whole troop will fall under suspision and be ripped apart by paranoia! Why is it wrong to murder within the tribe without need? Because all men must work towards the benefit of the tribe! Why is it ok to kill members of another tribe? Because we require the resources for our tribe and our young- we must survive!

This is my position. Morality, is merely a phenotypic expression (compounded by civilization) of traits breed into us by envrionmental need. Those who followed them survived the longest. In a world where lions and wild dogs were king- a man alone will not last- but a tribe together, with tools and language (danger, water, hungry, going hunting, need berries, etc) can last a long time out there if it had too.

MS