February 20, 2004

Monkey Poo... Ewww, that's disgusting. Don't you find it so?
posted by Gyan 20 years ago
  • yes. That was disgusting - here, you look at it.
  • That's one take on squickiness. This is another.
  • To quote Mil Millington - 'Oh, Sweet Christ, I'm going to be heavingly sick.'
  • *waves at Spacekitty* (OK, maybe just keeping an idiotic "new tradition"
  • goetter I see them as two different things. The study I linked to revolved more around visceral reactions of a basic nature, your quiz revolves more around morality. Although sometimes people use the same exclamations towards both kinds of repulsives, I don't think the actual emotions elicited are the same.
  • I remember reading a long time ago that we screw up our faces in disgust to warn others that something is poisoned or off. Even little kids can do it!
  • "You can't teach a child to have an aversion to oranges or sweets" Oh yeah? Pack em full of maggots a few times and I bet Junior will wince when he sees a Hershey bar. Teach them damn kids to stay away from my candy.
  • That image of the rotten gums with maggots in them? I just about gakked in my tea!! Eeech!
  • Gyan, if one believes that disgust is culturally acquired [near the end of the article, the opposing viewpoint], then the emotions could be the same, or at least closely related. Witness some na
  • goetter: Having done both tests, I think the emotion is different. The images from Gyan's link seem to affect the stomach, while the moral issues from the other affect the heart and mind. That said, I thought the TPM's survey was ...well, a little stupid. Sorry for the crudeness, but I couldn't think of a better word. I get very annoyed when philosophers wish to reduce morality to nothing but logic, and either end up making fun of moral relitavism and promote moral absolutism (usually of a so-called Judeo-Christian brand), or end up working themselves into ridiculous statements because they say that if you believe X in one situation, you must believe X all the time, despite the fact that the situation is totally different. What philosophers using this kind of logic fail to even comprehend is that morality, as with all things in human life, is often a compromise, a delicate balance weighing the rights and freedoms of one individual or group against those of another. They are also situational - though the genetic reasons against incest aren'[t really as compelling as people have thought, no one is ever asking to break our incest taboos because we know that the vast majority of incest involves child abuse and/or unequal power dimesions. But what if you were confronted with the case of a brother and sister separated at birth who later meet as adults? Or two teenagers adopted into the same family, who fall in love? I find myself slightly disturbed at the former, perhaps reflecting the strength of the taboo, but not at all bothered by the later. But I can't find either case immoral, since no one has been harmed.
  • mommy, why does that man talk funny? shhh, don't point. he's FRENCH...