In other Oregon news

[Reginald Ret]

Actually, you could even argue there's strictly speaking a tiny hint or idea of supernaturalism or superstition behind this. Because yeah, of course, from a purely rational point of view, there's nothing wrong with these acts, except for the people that would be hurt by them, but in most of the cases, most of those people would never even know, and even those that would find out, you could argue don't really have a rational reason for being upset or feeling wronged in a real way.

I'd say that such is often the nature of respect, but I would also have to grant you that argument.

Good point about the nature of respect, irrationality is no reason to stop respecting. But then you are talking about respect for those that will be offended(right?), and that's a whole different animal.
Thinking that way the act itself was not disrespectful, but the dissemination of the resulting pictures is if it is targetting those you know will be offended or hurt.

Also it makes me worry how your family and loved ones would feel, but it's your choice in the end

I think his point was that it isn't his choice anymore. Which raises an interesting question: Whose body is it? It can't be the deceased' body since he should be dead.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I might be a freak but I thought the grin was really cute. That was one of my favorite pictures. Interestingly, my friend J, who is very into guns and survivalism etc, was completely horrified and creeped out by the pics, while me and b both found them kind of awesome and endearing (frankly, I think the girl is adorable, not sexually but just cute in her raw enthusiasm and exploration) and b and I are artists while J is a programmer. There may be a difference in how we view things.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

One of the things that I thought was really interesting was that the article did not name ownership of the horse. It didn't mention it AT ALL. It said that the couple had been "caring for" the horse, which implies via omission that they were not the owners, but it didn't say anything about who actually owned the horse or how they felt about it. However, the fact that the couple shot the horse (humanely) and planned to eat it strongly suggest that they had the legal right to do so.

Honestly, had this been a cow and not a horse, I doubt there would be much uproar. People tend to view "friend" animals very differently from "food" animals.

[East Coast Hustle]

I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, it was their dead horse, right? So who the fuck is anyone else to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own dead horse?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, it was their dead horse, right? So who the fuck is anyone else to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own dead horse?

FRANCE!

[Triple Zero]

Also it makes me worry how your family and loved ones would feel, but it's your choice in the end

I think his point was that it isn't his choice anymore. Which raises an interesting question: Whose body is it? It can't be the deceased' body since he should be dead.

[/quote]

Yeah I wasn't being clear, what I meant is it's most definitely not my choice, and that it's Net's choice to decide and try to get that to happen--whether the family has any say in it or could or should try to stop it, is another big question. Very culturally motivated as well, IMO. And also rooted in respect, whether he ought to try it if would make his family and loved ones very miserable.

Honestly, had this been a cow and not a horse, I doubt there would be much uproar. People tend to view "friend" animals very differently from "food" animals.

Actually, I thought it was a cow before I read the article. Not very good at identifying carcasses with the entrails pouring out like that

I found the presence of a grinning naked woman to vastly improve my contemplation of the death of that horse. I find the lack of any interaction that most people have with the slaughtering of animals to be more disrespectful than what those people did. Most people don't really give a shit if the cows, pigs, and chickens they eat suffered a tortuous death, yet a grinning naked woman crawls inside a humanely killed horse and it's an obscene desecration. Really?

Body Worlds is running a show where human plastinated corpses are put into sexual positions. Is this also "disrespectful to the animal"?

BTW no offense intended, but aren't these sort of examples of this Dawkins Fallacy we've been discussing recently?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't know why people are so upset about it.

They're not okay with their own arousal, and no one else should be either.

I don't see why people believe you should be so reverent with dead animals. It's as though these people are desecrating them and factory farms sanctify them for consumption or something.

Yeah, this.  I have always said that animals have no rights, and dead animals don't even have privileges.

If that's what it takes to get her monkey on, though, I'm surprised she doesn't live on Drachmann St in Tucson.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also it makes me worry how your family and loved ones would feel, but it's your choice in the end

I think his point was that it isn't his choice anymore. Which raises an interesting question: Whose body is it? It can't be the deceased' body since he should be dead.

Yeah I wasn't being clear, what I meant is it's most definitely not my choice, and that it's Net's choice to decide and try to get that to happen--whether the family has any say in it or could or should try to stop it, is another big question. Very culturally motivated as well, IMO. And also rooted in respect, whether he ought to try it if would make his family and loved ones very miserable.

Honestly, had this been a cow and not a horse, I doubt there would be much uproar. People tend to view "friend" animals very differently from "food" animals.

Actually, I thought it was a cow before I read the article. Not very good at identifying carcasses with the entrails pouring out like that

I found the presence of a grinning naked woman to vastly improve my contemplation of the death of that horse. I find the lack of any interaction that most people have with the slaughtering of animals to be more disrespectful than what those people did. Most people don't really give a shit if the cows, pigs, and chickens they eat suffered a tortuous death, yet a grinning naked woman crawls inside a humanely killed horse and it's an obscene desecration. Really?

Body Worlds is running a show where human plastinated corpses are put into sexual positions. Is this also "disrespectful to the animal"?

BTW no offense intended, but aren't these sort of examples of this Dawkins Fallacy we've been discussing recently?
[/quote]

I am not sure if the Dawkins Fallacy could be said to apply, simply because it's not necessarily a matter of "bad" vs. "worse", but more of a question of whether it's bad AT ALL. The horse was going to be dead either way, and is it actually harming anyone or anything to crawl inside its abdomen and take pictures? Or to hold its heart? I suppose if you're vegetarian and have objections to using animals as food, it could be seen as wrong. But the animal was put down humanely, and then it was eaten.

As far as Body Worlds is concerned, there was some controversy over whether some of the bodies came from Chinese prisons. That would definitely be bad, whereas if they were voluntary donations, that would be not bad (IMO).