Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is your house made of timber?
Which was once a living organism?
Are you clothes made of natural fibers? Which were once a living organism?
Is your beer made from barley? Which was once a living organism?
Your typing on your keyboard brings you some sense of enjoyment, does it not?
Why is that different than her enjoyment of her activity?
Yes and all of those things are now providing a use. I am sure you will tell me this dead horse's body provided this woman with amusement.
Oh well. I feel she is a sick individual with little respect for any living thing, animal or human.
Only this had nothing to do with survival or cold weather or anything like subzero temperatures.
She's a perverted freak. Attracted to dead things, probably a necrophile.
If I was alone in a room with her I wouldn't be scared. Anyway, it's fun to see how everyone makes a decision about what kind of person she is when none of us have ever, nor will we ever even meet her in real life.
I've seen a lot of sick and twisted things in my time, but doesn't even rank in the top 50. Not that I'm suggesting we all try skinny dipping in horse guts, but it's hardly the big deal the internet has made it out to be.
Nobody was up in arms when Bear Grylls did it in his series and got paid for it either... This is only a big deal because it's a young naked cute girl doing it...
Save a few people who managed to actually ask the right question, this thread has way too much emphasis on what happened after the horse was killed, rather than questioning the legitimacy of the killing itself, or otherwise making a case for what the prohibited negative externality should be.
In my opinion, this is an example of where some peoples aversion to a specific kind of taboo is impeding the advancement of a coherent system of ethics (the purpose of which is to: (a) set guidelines for interaction between moral agents [or the substantive equivalent of a moral agent to a determinist] and (b) set the guidelines outlining which negative externalities are permissible and prohibited to impose on other moral agents [and may extend to other sapient or sentient life which may be placed in a category of sub-moral agency deemed worthy of protection from externalities]) by tainting it with primitive taboos which do nothing to advance the purpose of ethics.
The issue needs to be narrowly confined to:
(1) The (il)legitimacy of the killing,
(2) Otherwise, make a well defined case for what specific negative externalities should be prohibited in this case.
Any opinion outside that narrow scope is a waste of time. It has no moral component to it, and you might as well be arguing about the morality or ethics of liking or hating the color blue.
Saying that the act seems "sick" (if using that word in a moral or ethical sense - as opposed to it simply being a value-neutral aesthetic judgment) is as vacuous a statement as is saying that liking the color blue is sick, unless you can articulate criteria (1) or (2), mentioned prior.
Dead things should no longer have rights. Despite the fact that most people here probably agree with that premise, the myriad comments about the supposed depravity of what happened to the corpse after-the-fact, begs a variety of questions with respect to what specific actions they are identifying as the wrong.
I didn't see Bear Grylls do it and I have no clue who he is. If I did, I'd have the same reaction. If people want to draw a convoluted line between a meat-eater living in a wood-frame house and this woman, so be it. I'll ascribe the tendency to do so as an internet phenomenon. I'm sure others will ascribe it to a spectrum. Go for it. I still think this woman has no respect for the dead and it disturbs me.
Save a few people who managed to actually ask the right question, this thread has way too much emphasis on what happened after the horse was killed, rather than questioning the legitimacy of the killing itself, or otherwise making a case for what the prohibited negative externality should be.
In my opinion, this is an example of where some peoples aversion to a specific kind of taboo is impeding the advancement of a coherent system of ethics (the purpose of which is to: (a) set guidelines for interaction between moral agents [or the substantive equivalent of a moral agent to a determinist] and (b) set the guidelines outlining which negative externalities are permissible and prohibited to impose on other moral agents [and may extend to other sapient or sentient life which may be placed in a category of sub-moral agency deemed worthy of protection from externalities]) by tainting it with primitive taboos which do nothing to advance the purpose of ethics.
The issue needs to be narrowly confined to:
(1) The (il)legitimacy of the killing,
(2) Otherwise, make a well defined case for what specific negative externalities should be prohibited in this case.
Any opinion outside that narrow scope is a waste of time. It has no moral component to it, and you might as well be arguing about the morality or ethics of liking or hating the color blue.
Saying that the act seems "sick" (if using that word in a moral or ethical sense - as opposed to it simply being a value-neutral aesthetic judgment) is as vacuous a statement as is saying that liking the color blue is sick, unless you can articulate criteria (1) or (2), mentioned prior.
Dead things should no longer have rights. Despite the fact that most people here probably agree with that premise, the myriad comments about the supposed depravity of what happened to the corpse after-the-fact, begs a variety of questions with respect to what specific actions they are identifying as the wrong.
**** all that noise, bro. Girl is a pervert, end of story.
It's more than likely that you do something that your neighbor finds weird.
I wonder what thrill you will seek when anonymously insulting another human you know nothing about other than one incident in their life no longer fulfills you.
She:you::you:me
See how that works?
Why am I not surprised at the liberal reaction to this perverted action? It's perfectly normal, everyone does it.
Liberal whackos. No values of any kind. No wonder you types vote the way you do.
Why am I not surprised at the liberal reaction to this perverted action? It's perfectly normal, everyone does it.
Liberal whackos. No values of any kind. No wonder you types vote the way you do.
It's not normal, in that most people don't do it. Just like you surely have an activity that you engage in that most others do not.
So what?
She used another living creature for her own benefit. Just like the vast majority of humans who have ever lived.
Just because I don't share your judgemental values, that doesn't mean that I don't have any values.
You don't know a thing about my voting record so it might be best not to enter that into the discussion.
How can ANYONE say this is on any level "normal"? It is NOT.
Thank you for responding to that post by filihok as my response was deleted for being too rude when I made a comparator to the behaviour of this individual and my deemed by filihok "insulting post" of her bahaviour.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
