Starkist wrote:Not quite sure how well the test works, since it seems to presume a correct viewpoint of no harm, no foul. Interesting though.
The article that is provided after you take the test explains their motives pretty well and should answer your questions. It seems that they really are against people having inconsistencies in their thinking. I agree with this stance. I would rather peoples viewpoints be wrong than logically inconsistent.
I don't like taking internet tests. I would rather not get some printout of what some website thinks I am. I have no doubt; however, that I would get the same results as my brother. I have no problems with people doing things that don't harm anyone but themselves.
Lutraphobiac wrote:I would rather peoples viewpoints be wrong than logically inconsistent.
But if they are logically consistent with themselves, by what authority can you call them wrong? 😉
I actually didn't see anything wrong with any of the actions. People should be free to make their own decisions. I don't like being forced to do "what's best for me" so I don't do that to other people.
fatcatfan wrote:But if they are logically consistent with themselves, by what authority can you call them wrong? 😉
None that I can think of.
This text is straight from Urban Dictionary's definition of "squick". I think the viewpoint it presents is one well worth considering.
The concept of the "squick" differs from the concept of "disgust" in that "squick" refers purely to the physical sensation of repulsion, and does not imply a moral component.Stating that something is "disgusting" implies a judgement that it is bad or wrong. Stating that something "squicks you" is merely an observation of your reaction to it, but does not imply a judgement that such a thing is universally wrong.
The statement "kiddie porn squicks me" and "kiddie porn disgusts me" may both be true. In my case, the second sentence is true, and I assume that the first is also true, but, having never encountered it, I have no way of knowing for sure.
In general, distinguishing between "squick" and "disgust" is an important part of living in a tolerant society.
It is my contention that most anti-gay attitudes, for instance, are the result of people finding that gay sex squicks them -- and, because they don't know about the concept of the "squick", they assume that gay sex DISGUSTS them, which implies that there is something morally objectionable about it.
Joe loves hot wax, needles through sensitive parts of his body, cutting, and flogging -- but tickling? That squicks him.
In short: The idea of a guy having sex with a chicken may thoroughly gross you out, but that fails to provide any logical reason why he shouldn't be allowed to. In other words, it 'squicks' you. That doesn't mean it deserves moral condemnation. And certainly not legislative intervention.
Unless he's having sex with frozen chickens and selling them. That could be a health hazard. By the way, I thought gross fulfilled that need very well (icky but not morally wrong).
MacWeirdo42 wrote:Unless he's having sex with frozen chickens and selling them. That could be a health hazard. By the way, I thought gross fulfilled that need very well (icky but not morally wrong).
And did the question in the test ever say "Afterwards, he sells the chickens to unsuspecting buyers, clearly behaving in a deceitful manner?"
Excellent input by Texasdex.
Lilith wrote:Wtf is wrong with fucking a frozen chicken? It's like fucking a mattress. Except it's a chicken...and frozen..
Starkist wrote:It sounds like you have some stories to tell...
I know a girl that graduated with me that had to goto the ER to remove a frozen hot dog out of her pussy. The frozen chicken reminded me of it 😃
Taboo - The Results
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.70.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.60.
Master Ghaleon wrote:I know a girl that graduated with me that had to goto the ER to remove a frozen hot dog out of her pussy. The frozen chicken reminded me of it 😃
wtf? it would melt and become floppy, that doesn't make any sense.
and no, I'm not big into fucking things that are cold and dead.
Lilith wrote:wtf? it would melt and become floppy, that doesn't make any sense.and no, I'm not big into fucking things that are cold and dead.
Lemme put it to ya like this, think about a frozen poll and stick your tongue on it. Its gonna stick. Imaging that poll moving up and down rubbing the shit outta your tongue, it would tear your tongue up in peices. It was frozen and it broke into peices, it wasnt a whole hot dog they had to get out, it was the chucks that where imbedded into the tissue after she cold fucked the dog. It wasnt like she just slid it in and left it there. She was fucking it. She was outta school for like a week.
ANd no its not the urban legend, The girl was a good friend of mine in HS.
Even though there was like actual proof, like she didnt show us the remains of the hot dog in a bag or anything, she was very embarassed when people brought it up. Her bro leaked the info out.
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.33.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.20.
There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You did not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong. Where you have judged an act to be morally problematic, it is likely that you did so because you think that what makes it wrong comes from God or some other source of morality external to nature, society and human judgement. You indicated that an action can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook. However, there is a tension in your responses in that you indicated that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here. Given that the actions described in these scenarios are private and it was specified as clearly as possible that they did not involve harm, it isn't clear where you think the harm might lie. More about this below...
there was a chick at our high school that some how got jammed up on her bed post... She screamed until her dad came and found her and helped her... Her brother leaked that info too! (Brothers like to tell people shit like that)
Oh there was this guy named Billy Pidgeon who got caught by my buddys dad (a farmer ) fucking a cow. Swear to god. He had to leave our high school because people made fun of him so much. Which he deserved. Stupid cow probably couldn't even feel it. Ha!
If there is anything I learned from taking this test, it is that my idea of right and wrong seems to be centered around queasiness caused by imagining the example.
Master Ghaleon wrote: The girl was a good friend of mine in HS.
.....
now i'm seriously debating whether to EVER have secks with you again. just because i don't trust people who hang out with people who do weird shit like that. and if you've introduced me to her i'll hurt you in a bad way and make breaker help me dispose of your body.
Professor Gast wrote:If there is anything I learned from taking this test, it is that my idea of right and wrong seems to be centered around queasiness caused by imagining the example.
You appear to have just proven texasdex's point. Because you don't understand the concept of "squicks" you assume that anything aesthetically displeasing "disgusts" you and thus is wrong.
hahaha owned. I'm crazy too since I don't think fucking animals is wrong...if they're the ones doing the penetration. not that I would do it. <3 humans.
Okay... Sick as a dog... Gonna vom... Oh man, I so did not need to know any of this. The hotdog, the bedpost, the various farm animals... Not that any of it's morally wrong, but they're all just so very painful and humiliating. Oh God, I don't even want to think about it. *shudders*
Aesthetically displeasing. And possibly rape. After all, the animal never consented.