i'm curious what the local moral relativists think about this...is it really all just about perspective...or is there something intrinsically wrong with this? I know which side of that question I come out on! http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_629979.html?menu=news.weirdworld.badtaste A man has been forced to flee his Canadian home after having sex with two dogs he dressed in women's underwear. The man, who cannot be identified, has moved from British Columbia to Winnipeg where he's being watched by a police sex-crime unit. Both dogs were found dead and wearing bra and panties. One was found in a garage, hanging from the rafters, the other in a ditch near the man's home. DNA was used to convict the man, who is half-way through a three-year probation order for bestiality. He moved over fears for his safety from the public. The Winnipeg Sun reports authorities in Winnipeg were alerted to the man's presence by a parole board. An unnamed officer said: "He feared for his safety and got permission to move here and we're stuck with the sick b*stard." Staff Sgt Boyd Campbell, of the sex-crimes unit, said his greatest concern is the possibility "this is an escalating offence. Hopefully we are wrong but there is enough concern." Story filed: 14:48 Tuesday 16th July 2002
This should be interesting. I wonder how the responses would have been different if the dogs had not been killed.
Seriously, where are you in your life when you are sitting there one day and say....... "Dayum, them canines sure would look perty all dressed up in some silk panties and a bra. MMmmmmmmm!!" There are some real freaks in the world. Makes me wanna deholster my 9 mm, bolt all my doors and windows, and stay locked in home for the rest of my life.
(note to self, screwing dogs is shunned by modern society....) Seriously, it's pretty dimented. I agree, people *might* have a slightly augmented take if the dogs didn't die, but regardless, i don't think this guy is someone i'm dying to invite over to my place for dinner.
Yes, all we liberals have no moral or ethical center whatsoever. I know that I, for one, simply cruise along in life thinking nothing of all the murders I commit and candy I steal from babies. I figure when the judge is set to convict me, I'll just claim that the devil made me do it...no, no, I'll say that I was beaten...no, sexually abused by devil worshippers as a child. That should take care of it. I love Sodom and/or Gamorah. I think that Caligula was a genius. Oh, and that bin Laden guy, he's a tortured soul. Personally, I never think for a moment about ethical behavior or the concept of right and wrong. It never, EVER crosses my mind. I figure, just do what you want and it will all work out in the end...or is that Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out? I always get those two mixed up. <font size="1">oh, the dog thing is sick and the guy is a freak. is that better?</font>
That is sick. I cannot understand why one of the dogs was found hanging from the rafters. Did he feel the need to kill the dog afterwards? This guy needs some serious help
wait..i think you really misunderstood me...or took me to an extreme i didn't intend. i'm simply saying that i hear all the time that there really is no right or wrong...that ultimately, you can not judge what's right or wrong because everyone has a different perspective. I'm not claiming you personally have that view...I really don't know if you do or not. I'm just asking those who share that view to interpret this event for me in light of that way of viewing the world. This response is way too typical, though, Jeff...not from you, but in general from both sides of the fence. A question is posed or an argument is made...and instead of addressing it we use sarcasm and take the other person's arguments to a ridiculous extreme. I'm guilty of that too....but in this case it's easier to see because I'm on the other side of it.
Now, the $64,000 question...Did the dogs die before or after he banged them? Maybe he thought they were going to report him to the cops? Which brings up another question...Aren't Shaggy and Scooby just a LITTLE too close??
Ok, fine, here's a more serious response on the concept of moral relativism. I do not personally believe that the rules for life - what constitutes right or wrong - are set down by God because I don't believe in the God everyone associates with those rules. This is the difference between, IMO, morality and eithics. Morality, at least in my view, is a set of rules and guidlines imposed by a diety that are set in concrete not to be changed. Ethics are rules and guildelines imposed by society that adapt as our beliefs change. There are some human rights (and, IMO, animal rights) that should be adopted by society but they aren't always. Slavery was one of these, yet there are still slaves in the world. Women's rights is another yet there are plenty of places in the world where women have no rights. Personally, I believe that polluting the environment for profit should be shunned by society, but it isn't. I don't personally like the terms right and wrong because they imply finality and absoluteness. I think that motivating factors, circumstances, etc should all be weighed as part of a final equation on the right-ness or wrong-ness of an action. That is how they do it in court, no? Does this mean I would condone an action that violates the principles by which I live? Of course not. I just think the term "moral relativist" is used by people as a way to say "amoral person." It is like saying, "You don't believe in anything." It seems like a simple blanket condemnation of a system of beliefs that may have been developed carefully, compassionately and thoughtfully, not just an arbitrary set of rules. It is far too dismissive of those who fall into the "moral relativist" category as un-caring, amoral individuals.
Doesn't matter to me if the dogs died or not...being a dog lover, I think this guy should have been castrated and locked up forever. I just saw some cockers and some cocker pups last night with my dad and to me there is no greater companion than a dog. It will love you unconditionally if you are willing. To do something like that is just utterly despicable.
Actually the dog could not take it anymore and committed suicide. Rocket River I wonder where the SPCA come out on this. . .
I think your initial question was fair and thought provoking. You never used the term Liberal, you used the term moral relativist. Of course, any decent person is going to be revolted by a man who sexually abuses and kills animals. We all know these acts are wrong. Moral relativism and post modernism tell us that these acts can't be judged from any one perspective correctly. Max, I think you have taken an extreme situation that illustrates the folly of moral relativism. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and judgement is essential to the health of our civilization.
i certainly didn't mean to imply anyone was amoral or uncaring...not my point at all. you're right about the courts...but ultimately it's the job of a court to determine what is right and what is wrong...there is absoluteness...there is finality...and those are two treasured concepts of the old English judicial system. and I guess that's kinda my point...in the end, there is a right and a wrong. And you're right...this guy's actions are absolutely wrong. I guess it frustrates me that people are unwilling to call it that for fear of appearing insensitive or something. If you think it's wrong, by God stand up and say so! Not to imply you wouldn't do that...because I know you would...really I'm not speaking to you personally here...not sure how you became the spokesperson for moral relativism, quite frankly!
