Zoo's good or bad?

[htid]

For myself yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. That you don't agree with it is your choice, but that doesn't make me inherently wrong any more than you.
At some point in your life you made a conscious decision to become vegan, for whatever reason.
It wasn't something you were born with, and although it may have been the way you were bought up you are perfectly capable of making a similar decision to change again.
Murderers choose to kill.
Abusers choose to abuse.
etc. etc......



And that's the rub, you say morals are not a choice, yet you can offer no other alternative.
You can cling to your chosen moral code as tightly as you wish....fill yer boots...but please do not even consider to impose YOUR moral standards on me.

But you're missing the point. I CHOOSE to be vegan, of course. I didn't choose to think that killing animals is wrong. I never made a consious decision to think "OK killing animals is wrong" it's just part of me. It wasn't how I was brought up as I've only been vegan 4 years. I met my current girlfriend who was vegan, she showed me what was involved and I felt it was wrong. Again, it was a choice to become vegan but not to believe it's wrong.
Murdereres choose to kill. They don't choose to think killing is wrong
Abusers choose to abuse. They don't choose to think abusing is wrong.

The alternative is that it is ingrained in you. You're basically agreeing with me.

You haven't answered my question. if you could rid the world of sexual slavery, FGM, rape etc. would you do it? Would you force what you find morally acceptable onto the rest of the world? Answer honestly.

 

[viv1969]

But you're missing the point. I CHOOSE to be vegan, of course. I didn't choose to think that killing animals is wrong. I never made a consious decision to think "OK killing animals is wrong" it's just part of me. It wasn't how I was brought up as I've only been vegan 4 years. I met my current girlfriend who was vegan, she showed me what was involved and I felt it was wrong. Again, it was a choice to become vegan but not to believe it's wrong.

So clearly before you met her you didn't think it was wrong, or you wouldn't have needed her to show you, would you?
Therefore YOU made that choice.

Murdereres choose to kill. They don't choose to think killing is wrong
Abusers choose to abuse. They don't choose to think abusing is wrong.

The alternative is that it is ingrained in you. You're basically agreeing with me.
.

Murderers clearly choose to believe that killing is OK
Same for abusers

I can assure you that I in no way agree with anything you have said thus far. I believe that humans make ALL the choices about how they live their lives.

And in answer to your question; I would seek to end those practices being carried out in countries where it is already illegal to do so.
I wouldn't seek to tell the Saudies (for instance) what they can and cannot do in their own country and by their own laws.
In the same vein, I've always sought to be very mindful of their laws whilst visiting.

 

[htid]

So clearly before you met her you didn't think it was wrong, or you wouldn't have needed her to show you, would you?
Therefore YOU made that choice.




Murderers clearly choose to believe that killing is OK
Same for abusers

I can assure you that I in no way agree with anything you have said thus far. I believe that humans make ALL the choices about how they live their lives.

And in answer to your question; I would seek to end those practices being carried out in countries where it is already illegal to do so.
I wouldn't seek to tell the Saudies (for instance) what they can and cannot do in their own country and by their own laws.
In the same vein, I've always sought to be very mindful of their laws whilst visiting.

I was vegetarian so I believed it was wrong but I didn't know the extent of cruelty involved in dairy and eggs (amongst other things). As long as I can remember I've always cared about animal welfare though.

With regards to the rest of the things you've said, we will have to agree to disagree then. I also find it abhorrent that you think people in other countries should be allowed to do what they want as long as it isn't illegal. If you truely believe and stick to what you're saying, by extension you wouldn't have banned slavery when it was illegal and you wouldn't disagree with child labour in countries where it is legal. To say you wouldn't seek to stop women being stoned to death in countries where it's legal is disgusting. I can't believe you have the gall to criticise me for wanting to impose my beliefs on people when you're happy for people to do whatever depraved things they wish as long as it's legal.

 

[viv1969]

I was vegetarian so I believed it was wrong but I didn't know the extent of cruelty involved in dairy and eggs (amongst other things). As long as I can remember I've always cared about animal welfare though.

With regards to the rest of the things you've said, we will have to agree to disagree then. I also find it abhorrent that you think people in other countries should be allowed to do what they want as long as it isn't illegal. If you truely believe and stick to what you're saying, by extension you wouldn't have banned slavery when it was illegal and you wouldn't disagree with child labour in countries where it is legal. To say you wouldn't seek to stop women being stoned to death in countries where it's legal is disgusting. I can't believe you have the gall to criticise me for wanting to impose my beliefs on people when you're happy for people to do whatever depraved things they wish as long as it's legal.

The difference, no matter what you think of my beliefs - whatever they may or may not be, is that I would never be so utterly ignorant as to suggest they were more superior than anyone else’s; nor would I seek to impose them upon anyone else least of all against their will.

And in addition, I take full responsibility for my opinions / morals / beliefs….call them what you will; I don’t fall back on the “It’s just part of who I am / I can’t help how I feel” cop-out baloney.

 

[htid]

I think we should end thus discussion here as again we won't get anywhere. I don't agree with what you say in any way shape or form and you feel the same about what I say so let's just move on.

 

[htid]

It does bring up an interesting question though: do we chose our morals? I clearly feel we don't and you feel we do. Obviously each of us only has 1 brain and can't know what anybody else feels about it, so I wonder what the outcome would be if we asked everybody. I feel sure people would think they don't chose them, but am happy to be proven wrong.

 

[viv1969]

I think we should end thus discussion here as again we won't get anywhere. I don't agree with what you say in any way shape or form and you feel the same about what I say so let's just move on.

It does bring up an interesting question though: do we chose our morals? I clearly feel we don't and you feel we do. Obviously each of us only has 1 brain and can't know what anybody else feels about it, so I wonder what the outcome would be if we asked everybody. I feel sure people would think they don't chose them, but am happy to be proven wrong.

Is there ANYTHING you can make your mind up about?
It's like trying to nail jelly to a tree.

 

[simon ess]

It's rather more complicated than that. Far from black and white yes or no.

It involves socialisation, community, normalisation, sense of self vs sense of belonging, etc. etc.

The answer, if there is one, may be explored in works of philosophy and social history.

Complicated critters, us humans.

 

[htid]

Is there ANYTHING you can make your mind up about?
It's like trying to nail jelly to a tree.

I think you and I should end it, I meant. The wider question of humanity as a whole is still open for debate as far as I'm concerned, I just don't think there's any point you and I continuing to discuss it relating to our personal beliefs.

 

[inkiboo]

Typical hypocritical behaviour; spout nonsense and then people question and destroy the basis of the nonsense so then try and shut down the discussion.

 

[TheBigYin]

Personally, I see no reason for a thread closure.
It's been interesting, engaging and non-abusive.
The morality direction was one you chose to take by bringing it up, surely.
I don't think one get's to seek thread closure simply because it takes a direction you find uncomfortable.
You're free to cease contributing

This.

(yes, there's more than one moderator following this thread, not all of us have posted to express our opinions, but it's been a lively debate, and with one or two annoying incidences, it's managed to stay away from getting personal. As long as that happens, I see no reason why there should be any staff intervention in here...)

 

[htid]

Typical hypocritical behaviour; spout nonsense and then people question and destroy the basis of the nonsense so then try and shut down the discussion.

As far as I'm concerned I've not spouted any nonsense. I've not said anything hypocritical and you've yet to prove I have been. Finally nobody has destroyed anything as everything I've said is perfectly valid and nobody has shown otherwise.

So go ahead, show me where I've been hypocrital and don't use the medicine argument as I've already countered that and you declined to reply.

 

[TheBigYin]

Typical hypocritical behaviour; spout nonsense and then people question and destroy the basis of the nonsense so then try and shut down the discussion.

and when I mentioned the annoying personal attacks, YES, I was referring to you... Quit them, or stay out of the thread - your choice. By all means attack the OP's arguments, but not the OP themself - "play the ball, not the man"

 

[BillN_33]

Can we change the name of the thread, there could be children watching!!

 

[big soft moose]

You don't. As photographers, we have no inherent right to be able to photograph animals and if you do want to, you go abroad to where they live to take them. .

but what if by going there you cause more harm to the wild population ? (not to mention the carbon issues) End of the day i don't think zoos should run purely as a photographers resource they should run for conservation , but conservation has to be paid for and the visitor offer photography included is one indeed the principal way of doing that.

also the right to freedom is a bit of a myth in in a lot of cases - if you have a marmoset that lives its entire life in say three or four trees , then it is 'free' whether those four trees are in a jungle or in a zoo exhibit. (gerald durrell explains this in a lot more detail but thats the gist ) , also most animals live less long in the wild than they do in captivity and will almost certainly die in a manner less 'humane' than they do in captivity

 

[inkiboo]

and when I mentioned the annoying personal attacks, YES, I was referring to you... Quit them, or stay out of the thread - your choice. By all means attack the OP's arguments, but not the OP themself - "play the ball, not the man"

I'm leaving the thread now but where have I attacked him personally?

Calling someone hypocritical and saying they are talking nonsense is not a personal attack especially when I have repeatedly pointed out why that is the case and been met with a response claiming they are morally superior!

 

[inkiboo]

As far as I'm concerned I've not spouted any nonsense. I've not said anything hypocritical and you've yet to prove I have been. Finally nobody has destroyed anything as everything I've said is perfectly valid and nobody has shown otherwise.

So go ahead, show me where I've been hypocrital and don't use the medicine argument as I've already countered that and you declined to reply.

I am not engaging you anymore; the hypocrisy of your arguments is clear for all to see.

 

[BillN_33]

I am not engaging you anymore; the hypocrisy of your arguments is clear for all to see.

I don't think that it is hypocritical - IMHO it is complicated and at best confusing

 

[inkiboo]

I don't think that it is hypocritical - IMHO it is complicated and at best confusing

I think to be so pro animal rights but to say you will benefit from medical advances involving animals "because the damage to animals has already been done" is the worst type of hypocrisy.

 

[htid]

@inkiboo so let me ask you, if you had clothing that at a later date you found had been produced by child labour, or say the pattern for the design had been designed by child labour and subsequently products had been made based on that design (with no further child labour involved) would you throw everything away simply because it was produced that way? We can't help what's happened before we were born but I can help what happens in future and as I've said I don't agree with further animal testing regardless.

 

[TheBigYin]

I'm leaving the thread now

correct

 

[htid]

Just to make it clear to anybody, I didn't complain or report him and am happy to discuss this as adults, I understand it can be a highly charged topic and inkiboo is entitled to his opinion. I personally took no offence but the mods are there to do as they see fit.

Just didn't want anybody thinking I can't handle his arguments and reported him to get rid of him.

 

[BillN_33]

I think to be so pro animal rights but to say you will benefit from medical advances involving animals "because the damage to animals has already been done" is the worst type of hypocrisy.

I am very pro animals - in fact I prefer them to most people -I spend lots of my time and money "looking" at them - but I'm not a vegetarian, I love many meat and game dishes ....... in fact it is high on my list of pastimes - eating animals, (cooked of course - but I do like the odd wurst and similar)

........ I am not opposed to culling/controlling animals, (even Elephants as there are now too many in certain African regions) - in fact I think that controlled culling by experts is necessary as many Rangers do

I am opposed to hunting and shooting animals for Sport - but not fishing or killing flies in the house - I am quite happy to trap mice - would shoot a rat on sight and kill a few of the bloody big snakes we have in France ....... bats annoy me, (they are protected so I would never shoot them?)

A cow to me is just a slab of beef ....... little lambs look lovely in the field, but they are even better with mint sauce

I hate what humans has done to animals - BES causing cows to be slaughtered before they are two years old - but I still love a steak

I contribute to saving animals - particularly in Africa - and am totally against the French hunters, (I live in France) - but am not too unhappy when they shoot the odd cat, (by mistake of course) - I hate cats, but love dogs

I had the odd sliver of whale meat when I was last in Japan - but I am totally against Whale hunting by the Japs

We have wild boar on some of our land - bloody nuisance - certainly happy when the local chasse come in and shoot them - shoot them all I say

I would rather experiment for medical purposes on that guy in Norway who killed all those young people than monkeys .. same goes for terrorists

Am I hypocritical, or confused?

 

[viv1969]

@inkiboo so let me ask you, if you had clothing that at a later date you found had been produced by child labour, or say the pattern for the design had been designed by child labour and subsequently products had been made based on that design (with no further child labour involved) would you throw everything away simply because it was produced that way? We can't help what's happened before we were born but I can help what happens in future and as I've said I don't agree with further animal testing regardless.

If animal testing happening right now provided a cure next year for Parkinson's disease (for example), and in 10 years time you are diagnosed with said disease; would you accept the treatment that would cure you?
Would you deny lifesaving (but animal tested) treatment to future children, based on your own beliefs?
You asked me earlier for an honest answer and I gave it, so in the spirit of reciprocity......

 

[GreenNinja67]

I contribute to Worcestershire wildlife but I eat meat.

My other half's a vegetarian but I love kebabs and a lamb dinner with mint sauce.

I fish as a pastime but wouldn't take a freshwater fish from the water to eat.
Except a trout, Grayling or Salmon.

My father was a farmer and I spent my formative years on a farm, seeing lambs and calves born, feeding said animals in the winter and being taught where my Sunday roast comes from.

Most of us are hypocrites like Bill and myself if we're honest.

Or confused.


The main thing is to get with each other because if we were all the same there would be no place for forums like this.

e.g.

I posted a picture of a beach scene for critique.
No one could as it was perfect to everyone as we were all the same.

Division is interesting and should be applauded and welcomed.


It only breaks down when keyboard warriors start typing with gusto without a thought to who they may be upsetting / annoying.

So embrace our differences.
To my knowledge we are the only mammals on this fantastic place we call the Earth that have so many differences.

Terry.

 

[htid]

If animal testing happening right now provided a cure next year for Parkinson's disease (for example), and in 10 years time you are diagnosed with said disease; would you accept the treatment that would cure you?
Would you deny lifesaving (but animal tested) treatment to future children, based on your own beliefs?
You asked me earlier for an honest answer and I gave it, so in the spirit of reciprocity......

Since I value human life as equal to animal life it would be hard to decide, I guess I'd have to know how many animals would have to die and how many humans would be saved. In your specific example, I would accept the treatment because it's already happened. BUT, I'll be open here and say I am worried I will develop Parkinson's in later life due to certain precursors. With that said, if it was as black and white as somebody saying to me "we can conduct animal testing now which will cure your Parkinson's if you should get it" I would say "don't do the animal testing and I'll accept getting Parkinson's".

I believe (as do many many others) that the human population is too large and we need to do SOMETHING to cut it down. Illness and disease are part of natural selection. I don't wish anything bad to happen to people (well, not on the whole), but if illness occurs I think we need to stop trying to cure everything as we'll overrun the planet and cause our own demise by destroying the very resources we depend upon. Unfortunately there's no simple solution to this except to stop people from having children or allowing natural selection to take back over. This could actually happen anyway given the rate at which antibiotics are given to farmed animals leading to antibiotic resistant diseases.

I will concede defeat here though as I know you'll say how can I class myself as moral when I'd allow people to die from disease. But at least I'm consistant and believe the same thing for animals as well as humans.

 

[viv1969]

Since I value human life as equal to animal life it would be hard to decide, I guess I'd have to know how many animals would have to die and how many humans would be saved. In your specific example, I would accept the treatment because it's already happened. BUT, I'll be open here and say I am worried I will develop Parkinson's in later life due to certain precursors. With that said, if it was as black and white as somebody saying to me "we can conduct animal testing now which will cure your Parkinson's if you should get it" I would say "don't do the animal testing and I'll accept getting Parkinson's".

I believe (as do many many others) that the human population is too large and we need to do SOMETHING to cut it down. Illness and disease are part of natural selection. I don't wish anything bad to happen to people (well, not on the whole), but if illness occurs I think we need to stop trying to cure everything as we'll overrun the planet and cause our own demise by destroying the very resources we depend upon. Unfortunately there's no simple solution to this except to stop people from having children or allowing natural selection to take back over. This could actually happen anyway given the rate at which antibiotics are given to farmed animals leading to antibiotic resistant diseases.

I will concede defeat here though as I know you'll say how can I class myself as moral when I'd allow people to die from disease. But at least I'm consistant and believe the same thing for animals as well as humans.

OK, (although I did state treatments involving future animal research) ....however you didn't answer the second part of the question.

Would you deny lifesaving (but animal tested) treatment to future children, based on your own beliefs?

 

[big soft moose]

Since I value human life as equal to animal life it would be hard to decide, I guess I'd have to know how many animals would have to die and how many humans would be saved. In your specific example, I would accept the treatment because it's already happened. BUT, I'll be open here and say I am worried I will develop Parkinson's in later life due to certain precursors. With that said, if it was as black and white as somebody saying to me "we can conduct animal testing now which will cure your Parkinson's if you should get it" I would say "don't do the animal testing and I'll accept getting Parkinson's".
.

Theory is easy , practice is much harder , by which i mean that if you actually had parkinsons you might feel differently if the argument was ' if we test on this rabbit we can cure you' -

equally imagine you are in a room with a lion , you have a rifle and are a competent shot , running isnt an option - do you let it kill you , or do you kill it to stop that from happening

equally you are starving to death the obnly available food is a cute fluffy bunny rabbit - do you kill it or respect its 'rightto life' and thus die yourself

and so on

the will to survive is very ingrained in the human psyche and there arent many people who'd put their principles above their survival in these sorts of situations

 

[Cobra]

Blimey, this has moved on somewhat!

@Cobra not sure if you're a mod or not

I'm a member first But yes I am a Mod second, the Green stripe gives it away
And as my fellow mod said ...

it's been a lively debate, and with one or two annoying incidences, it's managed to stay away from getting personal. As long as that happens, I see no reason why there should be any staff intervention in here...)

Just so you ( and everyone else) is clear I'm posting as a member, and as such any moderation required would normally be done by another mod.

@Cobra @htid í don't thibk the thread should be closed. I will be posting links about zoos, especially about the Orca debate as the sea world story progresses. The story with Morgan in Spain is still developing and I think how other zoos and marine parks react to sea world's news is important (logo parque have already indicated they do not agree about the breeding!)

You carry on Dan
As above from Mark (TBY) there is no reason to close it, but its pretty amazing the way this thread has evolved, to encompass "all" aspects of animals, and I include the human race in that.

Just to make it clear to anybody,
Just didn't want anybody thinking I can't handle his arguments and reported him to get rid of him.

I can confirm that Chris indeed did not hit the RTM button, it was another member here that was concerned that the thread was starting to go down hill, with personal attackes,
which up til then had been avoided.

The moral question, surely these are instilled by our parents from a very young age ( or at least should be) as we grow we are free to make our own right from wrong.
Although it does seem that some people are "wired" differently, and can't see what is right from wrong.

The 13 year old bride question for instance, its generally seen as abhorrent among most Westerners, but its the culture, out there, its what they have been brought up with,
and I doubt that the will change any-time soon.
So yes that type of question is purely down to culture.
I'm not sure that its a matter of morality.

 

[TheBigYin]

Just to make it clear to anybody, I didn't complain or report him

Correct - his removal was as a direct result of his own actions, following being warned in the thread. He's not banned BTW, simply no longer able to post in this thread.

Just so you ( and everyone else) is clear I'm posting as a member, and as such any moderation required would normally be done by another mod.

.


Yep, in this case, muggins here drew the short straw.

 

[htid]

Theory is easy , practice is much harder , by which i mean that if you actually had parkinsons you might feel differently if the argument was ' if we test on this rabbit we can cure you' -

equally imagine you are in a room with a lion , you have a rifle and are a competent shot , running isnt an option - do you let it kill you , or do you kill it to stop that from happening

equally you are starving to death the obnly available food is a cute fluffy bunny rabbit - do you kill it or respect its 'rightto life' and thus die yourself

and so on

the will to survive is very ingrained in the human psyche and there arent many people who'd put their principles above their survival in these sorts of situations

You are right in that it's impossible to know what I or anybody would do in a given situation. Obviously I wouldn't want to kill anything myself and doubt I could do it. It would come down to the specifics on a case by case basis. In the lion case, I think with it being a kill or be killed situation, I'd kill the lion. One shot to kill the lion is more acceptable to me than for me to be mauled to death in a horrific way. The rabbit situation, it would depen on the age of the rabbit and its future health. I doubt I could kill it and in this hypothetical example I'd prefer to starve to death, but again in the situation who knows.

OK, (although I did state treatments involving future animal research) ....however you didn't answer the second part of the question.

Not trying to avoid the question but I don't believe it's valid to be honest simply because there are alternatives to animal testing available such as discussed by the Dr Hadwin Trust etc. They may be more expensive (I don't know if they are or not) but I've read a LOT about the inefficiency of animal testing so I don't believe it's the best way to come up with cures and makes the question invalid.

IF you need a specific answer to "what if there were no alternatives to animal testing and the lives of future children depended on them" it would again depend on the specifics.

 

[viv1969]

Not trying to avoid the question.

Much.
OK....Moving on!

 

[realspeed]

You don't. As photographers, we have no inherent right to be able to photograph animals and if you do want to, you go abroad to where they live to take them. If you can't for whatever reason, that's unfortunate but tough luck. From my POV you you can't split this from the zoos good or bad argument because as far as I'm concerned your ability to get a photo is a lot less important than an animal's right to freedom.

OOh we have got our knickers in a twist havn't we. This is a typical reply from the tree hugging fraternity.
Someone who just can't read and comes out with stupid statements.
Nowhere did I mention about photographers rights so get off your high horse and think before you post, if that is at all possible

 

[htid]

The moral question, surely these are instilled by our parents from a very young age ( or at least should be) as we grow we are free to make our own right from wrong.
Although it does seem that some people are "wired" differently, and can't see what is right from wrong.

The 13 year old bride question for instance, its generally seen as abhorrent among most Westerners, but its the culture, out there, its what they have been brought up with,
and I doubt that the will change any-time soon.
So yes that type of question is purely down to culture.
I'm not sure that its a matter of morality.

Ah but the question being discussed is can we choose what we feel is right or wrong? Can anybody suddenly choose to think "rape isn't wrong"? I know I can't just change my opinion as it's just part of me. If I try and tell myself right now "rape is OK", it doesn't work, I still feel it is wrong. Ruth obviously can make that choice as she's said, so it was about whether other people are able to. For all I know everybody except me could be the same as Ruth (well except the 5 people in my office that I've asked).

 

[htid]

OOh we have got our knickers in a twist havn't we. This is a typical reply from the tree hugging fraternity.
Someone who just can't read and comes out with stupid statements.
Nowhere did I mention about photographers rights so get off your high horse and think before you post, if that is at all possible

What?? Where did that come from? You said how else are you going to get a photo if not in a zoo. I said in that case you just don't get a photo, it's not the end of the world. How is that not being able to read and coming out with a stupid statement? By saying you wouldn't be able to get a photo otherwise is surely implying that you have a right to get the photo. If I'm wrong, I apologise but I can't see how your post can be read any other way.

 

[htid]

Much.
OK....Moving on!

We can move on if you wish but I'm not happy about you thinking I avoided the question. I gave you a valid answer below the main statement. It would depend on the situation, what else do you want me to say?

 

[GreenNinja67]

Ah but the question being discussed is can we choose what we feel is right or wrong?

Yes I believe we can.


When I was 18 or 19 myself and 2 friends used to go shooting every Sunday morning.
We used air rifles and would try and shoot pretty much anything, squirrels, rabbits and one day a pheasant.
It took a long time to kill the pheasant and a lot of pellets.

Today I find myself looking back in horror on those times.

But I have chosen to be different.

I now actively love wildlife and wouldn't harm it for fun.

Terry.

 

[big soft moose]

Ah but the question being discussed is can we choose what we feel is right or wrong? Can anybody suddenly choose to think "rape isn't wrong"? I know I can't just change my opinion as it's just part of me. If I try and tell myself right now "rape is OK", it doesn't work,.

thats because you've been taught that its wrong conciously or subconciously - if you'd grown up thinking it was fine with people arround you doing it all the time as a standard practice then your opinion would probably be different (I'm not disagreeing with your assessment to be clear, i can't think i'd ever think rape was okay either, but I can see why someone who grew up in a different environment with a different social context might)

 

[Cobra]

Ah but the question being discussed is can we choose what we feel is right or wrong? Can anybody suddenly choose to think "rape isn't wrong"?

Ah OK I misunderstood what you were asking.

Lets turn this round the other way.
Most people would agree that rape is wrong, a very very small minority, would think that abusing a woman ( or man for that matter) is morally and criminally wrong.
These types of morals as I said are instilled in us from a very young age, by our parents.

That small amount of people from abusive backgrounds, *may* see this type of abuse as OK or *normal* behaviour.
And may well go on to abuse a partner, or stranger.

I wouldn't have thought that any right minded person could suddenly think that rape is OK, as its against the law, its against Christian beliefs ( religious or not). and morally abhorrent.

I would however suggest that someone from the fictional background, where rape or abuse is part of the daily norm, could come to realise that its wrong and change their behaviour.
We as an advanced species ( most of us at least) have the ability to make informed choices and even change our beliefs.

 

[htid]

thats because you've been taught that its wrong conciously or subconciously - if you'd grown up thinking it was fine with people arround you doing it all the time as a standard practice then your opinion would probably be different (I'm not disagreeing with your assessment to be clear, i can't think i'd ever think rape was okay either, but I can see why someone who grew up in a different environment with a different social context might)

And so can I. I'm not questioning that, but I find it hard to believe that somebody who has been brought up to think it is wrong consiously or subconsiously can (without any external influence and any time passing) decide "right now I'm going to decide rape is not wrong" and actually believe it. Many years of conditioning if you will have brought us to what we now believe, it's not as simple as flipping a switch to change.