|
The Belgian posted:Brains taste like eggs but more bland just fyi. Anyways, I think we all agree that the best part of an animal is the tongue. Absolutely.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
The Belgian posted:Brains taste like eggs but more bland just fyi. Anyways, I think we all agree that the best part of an animal is the tongue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:eyes are good and tongue is ok but preparing it yourself is just annoying so better to get it pre pokal-ed. anyone here ever tried pigs' ears? p good This type of cookie is called a pig's ear and it's about the closest I've gotten to eating unusual animal parts:  However, I will tell you that the tastiest part of a fish is its little cheeks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:eyes are good and tongue is ok but preparing it yourself is just annoying so better to get it pre pokal-ed. anyone here ever tried pigs' ears? p good don't eat pig ears, that's how the shakyamuni buddha died
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:don't eat pig ears, that's how the shakyamuni buddha died
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
alright, don't blame me if you die of diarrhea
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
pidan posted:This type of cookie is called a pig's ear and it's about the closest I've gotten to eating unusual animal parts: Barbecue gator ribs are delicious. So are properly breaded frog legs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
pidan posted:This type of cookie is called a pig's ear and it's about the closest I've gotten to eating unusual animal parts: A positively methuselaic muslim lady once gave me a package of those! poo poo owned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:But disgust isn't a moral category? I can think that chicken livers are disgusting and never want to eat them without morally condemning people who like them. That translation is possible, and that's where the problem introduces itself, but it's not a necessary step. I like to think that respecting the sexual proclivities of others also means acknowledging the fact that, for every one of us, there's a range of behaviors that we personally find unappealing, gross, or just silly. That I don't like something doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist and that no one should do it, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with my not liking it. Assuming that all sexuality is to be affirmed and demanding this of others is just another way of making an absolute norm regarding sexual behavior, and is violent in its own way. I rather think it is when you apply it to people. I do not remotely trust someone who claims the actions of another to be disgusting if they then go on to claim that they are not making a moral judgement about that person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I rather think it is when you apply it to people. I do not remotely trust someone who claims the actions of another to be disgusting if they then go on to claim that they are not making a moral judgement about that person. Yeah, this ^^^^^^^ I mean, evil is as evil does, if you say something people do is disgusting, it's not a far leap to consider them disgusting as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Runny shits are disgusting. Almost everyone will have runny shits from time to time. Therefore all humans are evil?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Runny shits are disgusting. I think you're being very disingenuous if you're comparing illness with a decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think you're being very disingenuous if you're comparing illness with a decision. There are very many non-sexual things people decide to do that I think are disgusting, that do not make me dislike the person or wish them ill. e: Maybe we're using different definitions of disgusting here, where some of you use it in a sense where it already contains an element of moral judgement. pidan fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Conversely there is nothing save for morally abhorrent actions which people electively do, that I would characterize as disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Maybe it's a dumb derail. I guess most people would fall on the 'hate the sin', and then not be completely forthcoming about what they consider a sin, when asked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think you're being very disingenuous if you're comparing illness with a decision. scat is disgusting, betraying a friend isn't. but only one of them is immoral. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Hmm, I suppose perhaps you don't feel visceral disgust at immoral actions, to me superficially gross things like, as you say, scat, are just strange. Don't see the appeal but it really doesn't bother me. Betraying trust however makes me nauseous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Hmm, I suppose perhaps you don't feel visceral disgust at immoral actions, to me superficially gross things like, as you say, scat, are just strange. Don't see the appeal but it really doesn't bother me. Betraying trust however makes me nauseous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Perhaps but I still don't trust someone who bandies about disgusting to describe the actions of people, they are very very seldom nice people. There are better words and better ways to think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Perhaps but I still don't trust someone who bandies about disgusting to describe the actions of people, they are very very seldom nice people. There are better words and better ways to think. http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conservative-brain-responses-disgusting/ HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:the part in bold there should have told you that speculating about what we supposedly do was a poor decision. look, i'm going to be blunt: what you wrote was a hash of pretty offensive right-wing stereotypes that some easy google searches could have dispelled, and if you're going to speak about the culture of a vilified minority, you have a special obligation to get the facts straight. here are some things that the google searches would probably not tell you: First I’d like to acknowledge that we’re basically talking about gay and bi men now, because quietly ignoring lesbians and trans people is something that happens quite often and I think that’s no good. I’ll also stay out of the hetero fetish discussion. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. My impression of gay culture does not come primarily from right wing publications, but mostly from pro-gay writers like Dan Savage, Andrew Sullivan and others. They claim that the majority of long-term gay relationships are not monogamous, that casual sex is the norm among young gay people, and that the idea of gay marriage initially got a lot of push-back from the gay scene, because people argued that this was surrendering to hetero-normative expectations. Gay saunas certainly still exist in my city, I’ve personally seen them though I obviously didn’t go inside and thus don’t know what exactly people get up to in there. I know about straight sex clubs. Many of my friends are involved in that scene, so I can’t say for sure, but I’ve had the impression that most other straight people are pretty horrified by the very idea and it’s certainly not part of the mainstream. Over the years I’ve come to believe that it’s not good for the straight people either. I don’t know what being gay is like, or how it would interact with other aspects of a person’s interior life. And I’m not arguing that gay people can’t be religious. I’m not trying to decide whether or not I should hate gay people or try to exclude them from society — I shouldn’t do either of those things, even if it was the case that every gay person has sexual relations that I consider contrary to moral self-cultivation. I guess I would like to embrace gay equality, but I feel weird about it because I feel like I am then also embracing a form of sexuality that is not oriented towards the good of the person and of others. And at the risk of coming across like an old church lady, I realise that not everybody has the same ideals that I have, and that gay or otherwise sexually unusual people really have no reason to care what I think. But we discuss this kind of thing a lot ITT, and I just want to figure it out for once. Cythereal posted:I don't blame anyone in the LGBT community who looks on traditional (i.e. Abrahamic, can't speak for Eastern religions on this issue) religion and standards of behavior with a wary and untrusting eye. That makes sense, and I concede your point. I do believe in general, that people inherently want the good, and that people who have self-destructive or morally wrong habits are doing it because of external factors in society or in their instincts. We should have love and compassion for every person regardless of what they do. But that doesn’t negate the fact that some individuals and some sub-cultures have formed an identity around their bad behaviour, that only reinforces it and leads them in a downward spiral. One example that’s currently being discussed on SA is the online "incel" community, where guys who have some issues with women keep reinforcing that in each other until they become very hateful, bitter people. And I wouldn’t support that. Though the thoughtful posts from many of you have helped me understand that the gay community is probably not like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:scat and being a furry is disgusting to me, but how dirty and beat up i get at reenactment might be disgusting to a hypothetical furry. i don't think it's a moral issue. So I gather.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
pidan posted:Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. My impression of gay culture does not come primarily from right wing publications, but mostly from pro-gay writers like Dan Savage, Andrew Sullivan and others. They claim that the majority of long-term gay relationships are not monogamous, that casual sex is the norm among young gay people, and that the idea of gay marriage initially got a lot of push-back from the gay scene, because people argued that this was surrendering to hetero-normative expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Perhaps but I still don't trust someone who bandies about disgusting to describe the actions of people, they are very very seldom nice people. There are better words and better ways to think. I think the distinction that one needs to draw is between the statements "Scat play is disgusting," posed as a universal, implying that people who do it are dirty and wrong, and "I find scat play disgusting," which rests on a personal reaction. Does the latter statement imply that no one should ever do it? No, the act itself is indifferent and sure, if some people get off that way, why not, I just don't want to be involved, or really even confronted with it. And there it's important to draw the distinction between the intellectual domain (where the act is indifferent) and the immediate, visceral and often illogical way that an individual is seized by disgust. That's to say that I think Hey Gail is right to keep those two domains separate; if everything has to be judged from the standpoint of the universal, there is no room for individual taste, founded as it often is on primitive reactions that we can have trouble justifying to ourselves. Just because someone, somewhere likes a particular sex act doesn't mean we all have to pretend to like it, or even be open to it. And moreover, it keeps us from putting ourselves in the awkward position where burn victims are evil, because seeing them can often provoke an individual reaction of disgust, even though intellectually we know it is horribly unfair, only adding insult to injury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:And moreover, it keeps us from putting ourselves in the awkward position where burn victims are evil, because seeing them can often provoke an individual reaction of disgust, even though intellectually we know it is horribly unfair, only adding insult to injury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
I would suggest that it should not be beyond your ability to overcome your animal instincts about what is and isn't disgusting and that you should reserve that emotional response for things which merit it. Part of growing up is learning not to shrink from things that are superficially distasteful and it's a small step from there to realizing that there's no reason why you should feel the distaste to begin with. That reaction is far better used for things that you should have an instinctive and visceral opposition to, things that are actually wrong. There is ample room for individual taste without disgust being an element, the alternative to liking a thing is not being disgusted by it, you can simply not like a thing, you can be entirely unmoved by it. I really don't see why someone would hang on to that reaction unless they retain a lingering sense of moral dislike associated with the thing they find disgusting. Or perhaps the other way, I don't trust someone to experience that reaction and not gravitate towards assigning it some justification. I also don't see how you can morally dislike a thing and not experience visceral disgust towards it. Fundamentally I do not understand this professed separation of belief and response, the two inform each other strongly and I don't understand trying to separate them rather than examining why you feel or believe what you do and changing that. And I still see no compelling reason whatsoever to extend the benefit of the doubt to people who would use the term in proximity to sexuality. Such people do not, in my experience, have anything positive to offer on the subject. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
I wonder how you all will think about how I read the scriptures when I think about what is sexually moral. In the New Testament, after the ascension of Jesus, Peter said, "Don't call something vulgar what God has made clean," and, "Why burden the gentiles with expectations we Jews don't meet, when Jesus has grace-given everyone salvation?" Peter said these things specifically in response to non-kosher diets and male circumcision. And I find the wisdom behind his answers to be broadly relevant, not just in the specific instances of diet and foreskins. It doesn't look like a personal union automatically receives divine or spiritual protection just because it's monogamous and heterosexual. It does appear that for a couple to grow into the largeness of their marriage, they have to accept the grace that the universe wants to give them, namely love. Life is fleshy and funky; I'm not always sure what's clean or what's clean enough. But I have a sense of what love is. It's not dishonest. It's not cruel, or cold, or conveniently forgetful. It's tender and trustworthy, vulnerable and strong. Is there a way to be loving when you're naked in a park, having sex with a few strangers and an audience? Maybe. Is there a way to be unloving when you're a husband to one woman or a wife to one man? Definitely. I'm praying for all your friendships and loveships. Just be lovely to one another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Runny shits are disgusting. This is what they were getting at with "total depravity."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
I don't care whether my disgust has a moral component or not. I just know that I find it disgusting and haven't measured it against what feel for furries or foot fetishists. I don't have any solid moral backing to be against it, but I find nothing attractive about what I understand to be dogging. Much like with other fetishes that I'm not neutral about, it ties into some sort of flimsy, ill defined feeling that this goes against human dignity. Of course, you can then argue about human dignity till the sun goes out, and I don't care about that. There's nothing virtuous about having a fetish, and getting misty-eyed romantic about its nature doesn't help me to accept it. Bumping uglies can be fun even without love or stuff or whatever. And if not getting your specific kink praised and accepted by everyone, then maybe the trouble is with you. My fetishes don't influence my outside of whipping my junk out, and that doesn't occupy as much time in my day than getting angry about plastic toy soldiers. I could go on, but I don't want to. Worrying about what to say in the thread about the subject has already occupied too much time these two days and I want to be rid of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
"I don't want to think about why I have this infantile response but obviously you're the problem" is not a compelling argument and it does make you a bad person whether or not you like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
Infantile (adj.) 1. of or related to thinking fat ugly English people loving in public on top of a car is gross
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
If that is your benchmark for grotesquery to the point that you start feeling that the dignity of humanity is being offended then I do think you have a child's palate for the depth of depravity in the world, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Owlfancier swishes his glass and sniffs. He pauses for a moment then nods. "Subtle notes of Japanese rope bondage and furry roleplay on top of a robust body of rear end to mouth. A clean finish of CBT with just a hint of rectal prolapse. I expect this to medal in Paris next year."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"I don't want to think about why I have this infantile response but obviously you're the problem" is not a compelling argument and it does make you a bad person whether or not you like it. Help, I'm being oppressed! Someone else has an aversion to a thing I like and dared articulate it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Matters of taste have never been framed as moral questions--although it is interesting why we often use metaphors of eating or smelling to describe moral reactions to things, so often that OwlFancier doesn't even think they're metaphors. OwlFancier, it's ok to not like things. edit: I believe that sex with someone you don't care about is immoral, but I'm not going to make that decision for others. What interests me though, is why some people seem to think morality is aesthetic. Or why OwlFancier, looking at all this, thinks that aesthetic questions are moral ones. Is it immoral not to like Rembrandt? to like him? (There are actually people who believe that ugly art is immoral. If you hang around trad circles, you will meet them. I think they're wrong, but it's also interesting to ask what they're doing here. I have also heard some dude--he was Dutch--describe Titian as a sadist, but that book was full of anti-Catholic bigotry, he was still extremely salty about the 80 Years' War) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
It is OK not to like some things, it is OK to be indifferent to even more things, a few things it is absolutely not OK to be anything other than enthusiastic about, such as matters of justice. However I continue to thoroughly doubt that many people exhibit the degree of separation between response and belief required for them to be physically disgusted by a thing someone does without passing moral judgement on them in the process. And that is not the same thing as "not liking" a thing. "Not liking" does not describe an aversion. Your only visceral aversions should be moral ones and they should be entirely concurrent with your moral aversions as well. You should not be able to look at an immoral thing without feeling disgust and you should not be disgusted by what is not immoral. Not when you're talking about people, at the very least. I am well aware that some people profess that those allusions are just metaphors but I am not inclined to believe them. Your sense of aesthetics should be subservient to your sense of morality, and if it isn't I don't think you have sufficient control over either. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
hot take: sex arguments are almost as bad as abortion arguments
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:hot take: sex arguments are almost as bad as abortion arguments i agree only if we limit sex arguments to the last three pages because otherwise i would be a huge hypocrite
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Your sense of aesthetics should be subservient to your sense of morality, and if it isn't I don't think you have sufficient control over either.  edit: proud member of Team Ugly HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:german expressionism is ugly as poo poo i take it all back, aesthetic taste can definitely be evil 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 19:17
|
|
