1. I am inclined to the view that ones moral intuitions are prima facie justified. In other words if, when I have informed my self on an issue, it intuitively seems to me to be P then, in the absence of argument to the contrary P is the position I am rational in accepting. This does not mean I one blindly follows ones intuitions if someone does offer reasons to the contrary then that means I should consider them and if they are sound, modify my beliefs accordingly. But if they do not I should have the courage of my convictions to continue to believe the world is how I see it.

Now in this issue, I along with many people have quite conservative intuitions; I find it intuitively obvious that incest, necrophilia, cannibalism, homosexual conduct, prostitution etc are wrong. Some people: contemporary liberals, suggest that on homosexual sodomy I am wrong, the reason they give is that [1] its consensual and [2] consensual practices are permissible.

The problem is that [2] is not intuitively obvious to me at all (it never has been btw), moreover it clashes with many intuitive judgments I do make about necrophilia, cannibalism, incest etc. Hence, unless I am given some reason for accepting [2] a reason that appeals to premises which I have some reason to accept. The rational thing is to reject this argument, to do otherwise would be to simply reject what seems true to me, because it conflicts with a trendy idea that I have literally no reason to accept. This is especially true if, if as I think is the case, these can be made coherent parts of a broader theological vision and understanding of the world and morality which I reflectively hold to.

2. Regarding your comments about “getting to know “the problem is that this leads to absurd conclusions. For example I recently read a report from a Prison Counselor who counseled child molesters, he notes that when you get to know them they are really nice people, apart from the criminal action they are inside for; one finds them just as nice and personable as any other person. I hope you see the point.

3. Regarding your second point, it seems your claim is that we should not allow consensual homicide because in this case one cannot compensate people when we erroneously assume consent. That’s an interesting line of argument; my skepticism about it is that we do seem to accept consent in life threatening situations all the time. Surgery is one example I can think of another example is the right to refuse life saving medical treatment.

For what its worth, my take on the cannibalism case is that it shows people can consent to disrespectful degrading activity. There is such a thing as lack of self respect and so it’s possible, and not uncommon, for people to consent to treatment which degrades, or demeans them. If this is true, then a principle which suggests that anything you consent to is Ok, misses something important, and it allows people to justify degrade and demean other people because those people lack the self respect to not acquiesce in the treatment. I think that is wrong.

Uneducated no, I mean you have a doctorate degree don’t you? But yes I think do think they’re being irrational… And I think the more people are exposed to things they find different, the more accepting they become.

Maybe you should ask yourself whether your revulsion of homophobia is based on false stereotypes about other people and other religious groups.

I’m not revolted by homophobia. I do however dislike it – I don’t think there’s a good reason for it.

Actually the “real problems the allowance of such acts could throw up” seem to apply to numerous consensual acts. With heterosexual sex, for example, we can ask whether the person really consent, we can ask whether they have been force into the situation ( or pressured via peer pressure) , people could be threatened if they don’t do it. Yet none of this leads people to change their attitudes on consensual heterosexual sex.

This is very true. However if somebody is forced into heterosexual sex, there is the chance for this to later be remedied in some way. Apologies can be made, reparations can be given, and so on. If somebody is forced to let themselves be killed, on the other hand, that’s it. I think most people would see the difference here.

1. True a person with little knowledge could be revolted by anything. However, unless you want to assume that everyone who disagrees with homosexual conduct, necrophilia, cannibalism etc is all just ignoramus with little or no education. That point holds no weight in this context. Is it your position that everyone who thinks homosexual conduct, or necrophilia, or incest, is wrong, is uneducated, ignorant and stupid ?

Maybe you should ask yourself whether your revulsion of homophobia is based on false stereotypes about other people and other religious groups.

2. Actually the “real problems the allowance of such acts could throw up” seem to apply to numerous consensual acts. With heterosexual sex, for example, we can ask whether the person really consent, we can ask whether they have been force into the situation ( or pressured via peer pressure) , people could be threatened if they don’t do it. Yet none of this leads people to change their attitudes on consensual heterosexual sex.

The only reason I suspect people have these worries with the examples I mentioned is because they hard time believing any sensible person would not be repulsed by such behavour. And that’s a tacit confession that you believe that rational informed people typically find this kind of behavior objectionable and revolting.

I lot could be said here. But I’ll limit myself to three points

First, you beg the question by assuming that opposition to certain practices is merely prejudice, of course if you start with this as a premise you will get the desired conclusion. Just as if I start by assuming that your views are prejudiced I will have a cogent argument against them.

Second, you note that some people are upset with ( i.e. they are unhappy about) certain practices. However, you dismiss this, on the grounds that its wrong to put in place policies which make more than 1% of the population unhappy. I think the problem here is fairly evident.
Finally I think the points I made to Ricky apply here, you seem to be suggesting that certain practices are wrong because at present they are extremely unpopular. However, if they were popular, then these practices would not be wrong. That sounds like you confuse ethics with fashion.

I think as actions gain in popularity, more people begin to understand them and so the numbers ‘repulsed’ by these actions decrease. Revulsion is ignorance really – just as here is no real reason to be disgusted by consensual homosexual conduct there is no real reason to be disgusted by ‘consensual’ necrophilia. I mean those with little knowledge could be revolted by a vagina, or find the thought of heterosexual sex revolting. Eating could be thought of as revolting – anything could really. So yes I think the big difference is popularity.

Apparently being “progressive and enlightened” about sex usually involves simultaneously adopting a principle and contradicting it and then justifying this on the grounds that is fashionable. It’s difficult to take this terribly seriously.

I don’t think I’ve contradicted any principle – the only sexual acts I had a problem with were those that involved killing something, and this was not a problem with the acts themselves but the rather the real problems the allowance of such acts could throw up.

Well I suspect that you’re unusual here. When confronted with a scenario where one person bangs his dad and sister. Or a situation where a person has sex with a corpse or wants to engage in erotic cannibalism. My response is not simply a lack of sexual arousal, its positive revulsion. I have lack of sexual arousal in the presence of many things, computers, trees, cars. But that experience is very different to how I respond to Necrophilia, incest and cannibalism. In these cases is one of revulsion and disgust. I suspect I am not alone in this.

Interestingly my response to homosexual conduct is the same and my response to of BDSM and strip clubs is similar. And yet in these latter contexts the argument is usually made that my responses are irrational *because* these actions are consensual. However this is also true in the examples I mentioned. So there appears no reason, on these grounds, for embracing the one and not the other.

Interestingly the only real difference you have pointed to is in terms of popularity. The former practices are more popular than the latter. But as I pointed out, and you agreed, appeals to what’s popular or fashionable are inadequate. It’s the whole, “hey do this because the cool kids do”, reasoning we try and educate our children not to emulate.

Apparently being “progressive and enlightened” about sex usually involves simultaneously adopting a principle and contradicting it and then justifying this on the grounds that is fashionable. It’s difficult to take this terribly seriously.

Well I absolutely disagree. I think most people don’t do those things because “the practises of necrophilla, cannibalism, and incest” don’t turn them on. If necrophilia turned you on I think it’s very likely that given the chance you’d partake in it, whether you felt what you were doing perverted or not.

Note the word “these practices” in which in the context refers to the practises of necrophilla, cannibalism, and incest.

Last time I checked, syncronised swimming involved did not involve these practices and they are not practised at the olympics.

My claims are limited to *these practises* I think most people do not do *these things* because they consider them or perverted. Hence the circularity in trying to say that they are wrong because they are unusual.

That must be why hardly anybody in New Zealand does syncronised swimming… That perversion is the definition of wrong. They’d better kick it out of the Olympics soon, I mean don’t they know children watch the Olympics?

I personally find the prospect of homosexual sex disgusting and offensive, but I realise that I have no right to impose my personal prejudices upon others, especially when it interferes with their ability to find happiness in such a fundamental way as legislating who people can and cannot fall in love with.

The fact that one practice is more unusual than another does not mean the first is not unusual. However to avoid tedious contrived definitions of what’s unusual. I’ll modify my examples. Suppose the practices I mentioned became more fashionable so that around 1%-2% of the population engaged in them. Would you then consider Necrophilia, Cannibal sex, and consensual incest to be permissible practices?

If a large proportion of the population (>1%, say)wanted to practice mutually consensual necrophilia then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to. The fact that it upsets me should not be grounds to deny the happiness of tens of thousands of people.

Actual Matthew I think you’ll find the 10% figure is popular myth for the number of homosexuals. But many people do argue it is around 6-7%, higher than the 2-4% figures you gave. Furthermore we were actually talking about engaging in homosexual sex, and a far greater percentage than this would have engaged in homosexual sex. Think of all the bisexuals and straight people experimenting.

Also (and this responds to David as well) any unusual practice is engaged at by a lot of people you take a worldwide population of 6 billion into account.

So you think there are a lot of people out there who are killing people and eating their penises? Do you have any evidence for this?

My first example described a real case hence; the number of people who engage in it is a positive integer. Of course if you want to limit the percentages to New Zealand its not, however its also true 2% of sexually active people in New Zealand is *not* a lot of people either.

I disagree. 2% of 4 million is 80,000. This is a lot of people! And 2% is perhaps the lowest estimate there is.

Moreover, if a practice only needs a positive integer to be called mainstream, then everything practice is mainstream. A term that means everything means nothing.

There are lots of practices that nobody does! Take my Sky Tower antennae example. Or something like cannibalism, which used to be practiced in certain places and no longer is. (I know it still is in some places, but it’s not in NZ.) So every practice is not mainstream, and this term does still mean something.

As to your question, it was not I who was making claims about what was mainstream (and also simultaneously denying people could make such claims).

Yes it was! I said “Who is anyone to say what is or isn’t sexually mainstream?” and you disagreed with this, implying you claimed a definition which didn’t hold with this.

But for what its worth I would say that any practice engaged in by a substantial majority of a population is mainstream for that population, whether the practice is consensual or not. On this account neither homosexual conduct nor evangelical Christianity would be mainstream.

This would mean the only mainstream activities are eating and sleeping! Rugby is definitely mainstream but it’s not watched or played by a majority of the population. Homosexual conduct is accepted most places these days, the same cannot be said of the evangelicals.

All the term “mainstream” tells us is that something is popular or fashionable. It does not tell us whether it’s right or wrong.

I agree.

The fact that some people seem to not grasp this point and castigate practices for being “out of date”, “not mainstream” or “a narrow minority view” only shows that they never grew out of their teens.

Well said. You could say the same about people who have a problem with homosexual sex!

Your second point is actually in agreement with what I said. In your earlier post you stated “the examples you provide are so unusual that it can be assumed that the people participating in them are not of sound mind to provide consent,” This response assumes that participation in an unusual practice provides adequate grounds for attributing incompetence on the part of the practitioner.

My point is that this is false. It’s actually a recipe for declaring insane any person or group who is unfashionable . My point was that there are practices which are (i) unusual and (ii) consensual. Homosexual conduct was my example. Your example is pre-martial chastity. The point is the same. The fact that a practice is unusual does not mean there is no consent, hence, your response to my counter examples fail. The logic you criticise in this paragraph is actually your logic not mine.

Your first response is also inadequate. The fact that one practice is more unusual than another does not mean the first is not unusual. However to avoid tedious contrived definitions of what’s unusual. I’ll modify my examples. Suppose the practices I mentioned became more fashionable so that around 1%-2% of the population engaged in them. Would you then consider Necrophilia, Cannibal sex, and consensual incest to be permissible practices?

In each case there are consenting adults ( note that in the cannibal case a court found that valid consent had been given). Hence if what you and others have argued about sex is true, these should be celebrated as alternative lifestyles not rejected because of bigoted iron age moral systems?

I will add a final point. I suspect the reason these practices are unusual is because most people believe they are wrong, disgusting, perverted etc. It seems then that one cannot explain their objectionableness by appealing to how unusual they are. That is to argue in a fairly tight circle.

Matthew Flannagan

Every story that any media outlet publishes that alleges bad character issues about anyone is “potentially defamatory.”

I doubt that the PSB story is defamatory as Ian Wishart has not even had a lawyers letter from PSB, PSB phoned the Otago Daily Times to instruct them to NOT publish a denial on his part.

As for the notion that Fairfax is a ‘responsible ‘mainstream’ media outlet that does not print defamatory, fabricated things about people unlike Investigate I present the following table.

Number of cheques I have received for settled defamation actions from the aforementioned media outlets:

Investigate – 0
Fairfax – 1

Investigate have never defamed me, Fairfax have. That makes Investigate more reliable in my books – purely subjective of course but it does somewhat reduce the moral highground you set them on.

As has been mentioned in this thread there were grave doubts about the reliability of Investigate’s source for the story.

Oh please, assuming anyone is even right on the identity of the alleged source, how does having a criminal record make one a liar for life?

A source with a criminal record will not withstand a Burns Unit attack as the typical Labour response to true and damaging allegations is to attack the source rather than respond to the allegations (much the same way a rapist’s lawyer attacks the victim on the stand) but it simply does not follow that simply because someone once made a bad mistake that landed them before the courts that they will then make up stories about the sexual fetishes of an MP.

Thank goodness NZ has Investigate which over recent years has brought us many stories that the ‘real journalists’ at the ‘mainstream’ media outlets appear to have missed…. Funny how its always the negative stories about Labour that they miss and the uncritical acceptance of the word of a Labour MP that got them in trouble with my lawyers.

The real difference between Fairfax and Investigate is that no matter how much Ian Wishart does not like the politics of a person, no matter how far it might advance his own politics, he will not publish something that he knows is not true that will damage a person’s reputation. He is an ethical person.

Matthew Flannagan

The first grave flaw in your logic is that the number of homosexuals within the population is larger than the incidence of guys who want to consume their own genitals and be eaten by a cannibal by a factor of several million.

The second is that its probably safe to say that proportion of the population that believes in preserving their virginity before marriage is also roughly 2%-4%. Does that mean all those chaste Christians out there are not ‘mainstream’ and are clearly not of sound mind? Should the government intervene to prevent them from maintaining their virginal status?

Pissed in a strip joint?
No problems there with the Australian electorate.

Couldn’t hold his grog?
Embarrassing, but still no problem.

Pissed in a strip joint with reputed organised crime connections where the “owner” gives 3 different, tho benign, stories to 2GB about a group of 3 he “remembers” from 4 years ago who were not memorable, by definition.

Did Kevni lie about not goping the girls or worse?

The suspicion is that CTV exists and the “connections” can use it to extort favour from the next Aussie PM.
Big problem.

Kevni needs to make sure there are no loose ends.

I heard 10%.

But even 2% would be a lot of people…

What percentage do you need to be mainstream Matthew?

I just said “a certain number of people” are needed, and this ruled out your first example because any positive integer would be more than the number of New Zealanders who kill people and eat their penises.

It’s a fact that homosexual sex is unusual, only about 2%-4% of the population engages in it.

Hence, by Ricky’s criteria one can say that homosexual conduct is not mainstream.

And by Danyl’s reasoning one can assume people who engage in same sex intercourse are not of sound mind, and their relations are not consensual.

Matthew Flannagan

[So only 30 - 60 million men worldwide have had homosexual sex. That's a hell of a lot of people]

Several months before Investigate published its story an individual began contacting media in the South Island with allegations that a Labour Party Minister had kidnapped her, kept her prisoner and tortured and raped her. She alleged that the Minister was a member of a satanic group that practised black magic. She accused several other public individuals of being involved. She claimed she came into contact with this group through Southern Kinks.

The individual was clearly mentally ill, had a history of coming to journalists with fantastic stories and had a vey serious criminal background. An easy descision was made not to proceed with the story.

Months later when Investigate Magazine published its story it was clear that Ian Wisharts anonymous source was almost certainly the person who had contacted my company.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion about the ‘PSB’ story thats been evident in this thread.