A critique of moral relativism

Oh, Rrhain, not long back and maing an arse of yourself already... you may want to do some research through EvC on Mod's own sexuality...Of course there are connections between bestiality and homosexuality... I mean, how dense are we being here? A connection between A and B does not necessarily imply A=B, A->B, A<-B, or any thing else you may conjure up. Nem's connection is bloody obvious - both entail sexual activity forbidden in the OT. Given Nem's previous comments and Berb's sensitivity to the issue, is it surprising that Berb took extreme offense? Of course not. Does this mean that we cannot discuss homosexulaity and bestiality in the same paragraph? We can discuss what the hell we like without having someone like you say 'oh, how very telling it is...' you Mary Whitehouse wannabe - well, Mary, you're nearly a laugh...If someone asks me: if I had to, would I shag a ram or a sheep? The answer is obvious, the sheep... I'm straight as they come. I can't be certain, but I'm fairly sure my gay friends would choose the ram. Mod gets the best of both worlds...Is that connection enough for you?ABEOoops, see Mod beat me to it... and there I was worrying about mentioning his preferences...Wife just told me a joke:

quote:

---

Two retired colonels drinking in the mess -

​

"dreadful business about Carruthers - was posted to Arabia, sand drove him mad, and he went AWOL with a camel"

​

"Good grief, man! Female camel I hope?"

​

"Oh yes, nothing odd about Carruthers"

---

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

So you agree that there is a connection. Good. Point noted. Hmmm, I thought we had just agreed there was a connection? Very strange...Anyway, bored now...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Paul, that's pretty much my exact opinion of the matter. I certainly wasn't trying to suggest relevance, merely that one cannot categorically state no connection, especially when one is calling for a suspension. You can't go around suspending members based on "what we *know* they were implying/thinking". NJ has made a complete ham-fisted job of defending his position, but it is still a defense of sorts. I wouldn't say no explanation, becasue of course this was all wrapped up in his "point" on moral relativism. But in the aftermath I think I agree. I'm not at all sure what NJ thinks he's doing in consistently evading the "consent" issue. It is here where I am confident in declaring NJ out of line.With regard to the original unfortuante comment, I think there is just about enough reasonable doubt to take it as suggested: a very poor and ill-advised questioning of moral relativism starting from a background of OT sexual prohibitions. Unlike Berb, Dan, Rhrain and Crash, I'm prepared to think (like Percy and Mod, I think) that Nem wasn't trying to make the point that "gays=animals" or something equivalent. Given what little I know of Nem, I'd like to think that. I may be wrong. But at least I don't know I'm right, which is what a number of posters seem to be suffering from recently...