Is cannibalism wrong, immoral, or unethical if it doesn't involve people being *intentionally* killed?
-
-
Why *is* it traditionally considered wrong? Avoiding prion diseases?
-
suppressing instrumentalization societies require that we think of each other as people, not as things, and thinking of someone as potential calories is a fairly hardcore level of thinking of them as a thing
-
Tweet unavailable
-
yeah, that works too, but it's edging closer to the failure case as the only people who know anything about it will tell you, in social engineering you want fences around your fences
-
actual social engineering, not the cute hax0r use of the term, which would properly be called social cryptanalysis
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
consent or agency has nothing to do with it, it's a violation of purity norms
-
Yeah but purity norms don't develop for no reason
-
I could speculate on origins, but there's an important distinction between harm (rape, murder) and purity (cannibalism, incest) norms
-
it isn't important that there isn't a "victim" given mutual consent (people who argue about prion disease or inbred children miss the point)
-
elaborate one step more?
-
I mean that because people are used to thinking of widely proscribed actions in terms of harm done, when it comes to purity violations, they...
-
...(if they are arguing said violations ought to be punished) try to construct the violation in terms of harm norms because it's how they think of transgression
-
eg "close relation incest is wrong because it could produce a malformed child, the victim of the action!" what if they use birth control and if it fails abort? "there's still a chance!" etc
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.