Thursday, December 09, 2004


The self-righteous S.O.B. who scores the taboo test thinks I'm inconsistent because (a) I don't think morals come from God or any other external source, and (b) I think personal actions which cause no harm are not wrong, and yet (c) I find it a little wrong for a family to eat their dead cat, even though they didn't kill the cat and no one was harmed in the process.

I'm still thinking about the guy who has sex with a frozen chicken before cooking and eating it. The information given was incomplete. Did he thaw the chicken before having sex with it? Did he wash it before cooking and eating it? And, yes, it would bother me to watch him having sex with the chicken, whether he thawed it first or not.

Thanks for the link, Peter.


Blogger Peter Wizenberg said...

The test is fun, but alas, flawed. I was also scored to be a little inconsistent.

The thing I don't like about a family making a meal of their deceased pet, is that if they enjoy the meal too much, and others learn of the taste treat, this could possibly encourage others to seek their pets' premature demise.

Although when pressed, I'd admit it's probably morally preferable to purposely killing an animal for food (or even supporting an industry that does).

And yes, it is definitely better that some things remain unseen! (Like "Waterworld"!)

December 9, 2004 at 9:51 AM  
Blogger Bill Julyan said...

I'm new to blogging. I just discovered that I could have (should have) posted my "Yuk!" message as a comment to your Taboo message.

Better to learn about blogging here than at some site with a political ax to grind. I've trying not to think about politics lately, but it's a lot like trying not to think about elephants. Oops! Bad choice of imagery.

December 9, 2004 at 10:02 AM  
Blogger Peter Wizenberg said...

The Taboo test reminded me of a conversation I had with a woman at a party in New York about twenty-some odd years ago.

She told me that when she was 19 she initiated consensual sexual relations with her 16 year-old biological brother with whom she lived. They went on to engage in frequent and regular encounters for about five years. This went on mainly in their home, and she claimed that her parents never had any idea. (I joked with her that at least she was with someone her parents would have approved of!).

I asked her why she did this. She responded that she loved her brother very much and she found him to be very sexy. I then asked her if any negative consequences ever ensued from this relationship for her or her brother or anyone else. She said none whatsoever. I asked her if she or he regretted doing it. She said neither had any regrets.

I then asked her what her brother was doing now. She said, "Oh, he's a psychiatrist."

I swear I am NOT making this up!

December 9, 2004 at 10:15 AM  
Blogger Bill Julyan said...

Damn! I never meet anyone that interesting.

Her little brother probably didn't mind as long as she didn't try to kiss him.

December 9, 2004 at 11:07 AM  
Blogger Mike Gorman said...

The test is fundamentally flawed because, in spite of their admonitions and disclaimers, one's own moral sensibilities fairly cry out that harm does (or at the very least might, for inadequately specified scenarios) in fact accrue, e.g. to one's own actualization of sensitivities and respect for (possible) symbolic value. Inviting the children to the table to eat the family pet seems an impossibly provocative and contrarian example of a supposedly arbitrary revulsion which bears no harm.

We are classified as inconsistent because we cannot, and sometimes think that we simply should not, resist the impulse to refuse their rules. Had we been more perfectly compliant, would the time thus spent have been:

a. Wasted
b. Mostly wasted
c. Really well spent

December 9, 2004 at 11:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home