K
It only holds if everyone involved agrees with a number of hidden assumptions. Going back to the original post:
Mostly? Confused. A little bit curious, since necrophiliacs don't have a public face, much less on American Idol. I'm sorry - was the right answer "appalled?"
Apart from personal distaste, a concern over hygiene, and a worry that bodies whose previous "owners" did not consent are being used, why are we bothered by seeing necrophiliacs? The intent of the question was to invoke revulsion, because necrophiliacs are gross and clearly shouldn't be on TV, especially en masse, but it really fails when one considers the question carefully. The question relies on an "eww, cooties" reaction that thoughtful people will have left behind in their childhoods.
Furthermore, the comparison fails because not all marginalized groups are the same. Necrophilia and homosexuality both involve sex, right? So any time we accept the one we're beholden to accept the other, right? It may surprise you, but not all homosexuals accept all sexual expression as valid. For instance:
No, I (and most other people) probably won't be ashamed for having not shown support for necrophilia. Why? Because my measure for acceptance is not any of the above. There are larger questions than who is popular. In fact, I find it more than a little scary that this is how you decide what you're willing to accept. (I'm aware that it's not what you actually practice, but since you've set up this ridiculous strawman you're going to pay for it.)
This sort of nonsense, comparisons with other groups or people that we surely must dislike, seem to be common around here. In another thread concerning gay people, for instance, someone asked:
The answer is yes, I would support a cause that brings awareness of violence against prostitutes. No, I wouldn't support necrophiliac rights. But how can there possibly be a difference? Because I don't make my decisions based on the criteria you listed above, I can actually think through whom I support. I don't have to run down every slippery slope I see.
Mostly? Confused. A little bit curious, since necrophiliacs don't have a public face, much less on American Idol. I'm sorry - was the right answer "appalled?"
Apart from personal distaste, a concern over hygiene, and a worry that bodies whose previous "owners" did not consent are being used, why are we bothered by seeing necrophiliacs? The intent of the question was to invoke revulsion, because necrophiliacs are gross and clearly shouldn't be on TV, especially en masse, but it really fails when one considers the question carefully. The question relies on an "eww, cooties" reaction that thoughtful people will have left behind in their childhoods.
Furthermore, the comparison fails because not all marginalized groups are the same. Necrophilia and homosexuality both involve sex, right? So any time we accept the one we're beholden to accept the other, right? It may surprise you, but not all homosexuals accept all sexual expression as valid. For instance:
No, I (and most other people) probably won't be ashamed for having not shown support for necrophilia. Why? Because my measure for acceptance is not any of the above. There are larger questions than who is popular. In fact, I find it more than a little scary that this is how you decide what you're willing to accept. (I'm aware that it's not what you actually practice, but since you've set up this ridiculous strawman you're going to pay for it.)
This sort of nonsense, comparisons with other groups or people that we surely must dislike, seem to be common around here. In another thread concerning gay people, for instance, someone asked:
The answer is yes, I would support a cause that brings awareness of violence against prostitutes. No, I wouldn't support necrophiliac rights. But how can there possibly be a difference? Because I don't make my decisions based on the criteria you listed above, I can actually think through whom I support. I don't have to run down every slippery slope I see.
it's just discrimination! Think it should be deleted!