I think the hypothetical doesn't have much to do with morality. There is no moral reason not to. But there are other reasons.
Actions don't have to be immoral for them to be judged or questioned. People who'd have sex with a dead deer aren't hurting anyone, but they are making choices that would ordinarily lead one to be sceptical of them as a person and be weary of other choices they might have made you are not aware of and if the choices they will make in the future.
The argument the joker Garfield is trying to make is that, in a standard proof format, can you define your ethics in an axiomatic system? He thinks that's important, and it is to a degree, but our intuition also tells us details about reality that our pure logic brain is ignorant of. Pure logic makes the Borg. Pure intuition stays in Eden, being as Lilith was. Logic and intuition together make the Federation of Star Trek.
It's like that book is used to engineer the culture, which is our operating system. Hey, lemme just make sure of something; are you aware that the New Testament describes a decentralized autonomous organization of secret police at an eighth grade reading level? The shit that's encoded in that good book is what makes the police state about two thousand years old. But you know Trump and Epstein and the Clintons and Hunter Biden are all cops, right? You're not retarded because you are so attached to your identity that you can't see what is intentionally "hidden?"
"Occult" literally just means "hidden." What don't you know?
Listen, momma ain't right all of the time. I KNOW it's a time to open a case of whoop-ass and my ass knows I can do it! I can do it all night long! But that's just what the prophets say.
Putting aside the "why the hell would you want to do that?" aspect, let's assume that you're the guy in the picture and you do. It would be morally wrong even if the deer were alive because a non-human animal cannot give consent. It's wrong after it's dead because it's disrespectful to the deer, which was once a living being. Don't need religion to understand that.
I don't think you'll get consensus on the "it's disrespectful" reasoning. It might not be inherently religious (although most religions I'm aware of expand upon it to specific procedures or prohibitions) but "respecting" the vessel which once contained a life seems very much tied up in sentimentality and woowoo more than sound reasoning or pragmatism. It's just engrained into social norms at this point but, purely speculation, burial and burning were probably done for the same reasons other animals do it - you don't attract other predators or suffer the scent of death inviting maggots, flies and other vectors for disease. It probably became more ritualistic and religious over time. If I'm dead someone can dangle my lads from their rearview like a pair of fuzzy dice for all I care - which will be not at all because I'm dead.
well, why is it we should disrespect? don’t give me wrong, i agree hat we should respect, but many customs of respect like this one seem to have origins nearly as arbitrary as faith
It’s wrong after it’s dead because it’s disrespectful to the deer, which was once a living being.
But people eat the deer with zero moral qualms. Are you really going to tell me that yanking something's skin off, cracking its bones, gouging out its internal organs, and processing its meat into sausages for roasting is a sign of respect?
For how many people do you think animals are the only viable food source? How many in this thread? Like 10%?
Sure hope anyone with options therefore doesn't....
I mean there are evolutionary reasons most humans feel disgust towards things, in this case mainly the spread of disease. If none of these were problems, there isn't really a good moral case to be made against it unless you believe in some sort of afterlife.
Getting any part of one’s body inside a dead carcass has nothing to do with morals…. It’s fucking DISGUSTING!
Remember that piece of meat is currently being eaten and digested by billions of bacterias. All eating and defecating everywhere inside and out.. flies have burrowed eggs in it, worms are crawling everywhere, and all this is releasing toxic gases from all the rotting and digesting….
Also all the sphincters have released so the bowels are leaking out ..!
Nope…nope….nope….!!!
Remember that piece of meat is currently being eaten and digested by billions of bacterias. All eating and defecating everywhere inside and out… flies have burrowed eggs in it, worms are crawling everywhere, and all this is releasing toxic gases from all the rotting and digesting
I'll never get over the slavery angle. Like, right after delivering your people from generations of slavery would have been the perfect opportunity to go "We're not doing that shit again."
No no you don't get it, God had to allow slavery because there was no way the humans in that time would put up with not having slaves. He had to make some concessions. Telling everyone to cut off their baby's foreskin though, that's fair game
I grew up in a very cultist region, and I remember having similar arguments at 8-13 years old already. Well, not about corpse fucking but murder and such. When I made the same argument, "I'm currently murdering as many people as I want which is 0", the holier than thou counter-argument always was "well that's only because you grew up in a Christian culture even if you're now deciding to not believe!" Which often wasn't just that, it often went further into pretty racist assumptions that if I was like a "wild human living somewhere in Africa", I'd be murdering and eating human meat.. That tells quite a lot about the whole love-thy-neighbor act I think.
And this wasn't somewhere in the 70's, it was in the 2000-2010.
I don't think objects without a subjective experience need to give or are capable of giving consent. I don't think anyone needs to ask their fleshlight for consent, e.g.
If it were a living deer, then it would need to give consent but be unable to. (I think it's reasonable to say any supposed communications from the deer is less trustworthy than "Facilitated Communication", and not sufficient consent.)
I mean, it's not like we care about consent when it comes to the animals we eat, or whose secretions we drink. Weird to draw the line at sex/rape, but not at killing/murder.
Douglas Adams actually explored this. In The Restaurant at The End of the Universe, Arthur is waited upon by a sentient bovine creature whose species wants to be eaten and spend their lives conditioning themselves to be as succulent as possible.
Cuz like are they forced? They were spawned by the infinitely possible universe. Implying that free will itself is fundamentally constrained by biology, or perhaps the deterministic nature of the universe itself.
If the only reason you aren't a necrophiliac rapist is because your god says not to, you are not a good person, you are a necrophiliac rapist on a leash.
Sorry what exactly are you raping. Is fucking a couch or flesh light rape now? Its dead it is a piece of meet nothing more unless you think its soul is their or something. And no I don't want to fuck a dead deer bit calling it rape is just odd.
That's the thing that bothers me about religious people, the only thing stopping the lot of them from committing heinous crimes is the fear of eternal damnation. It's like they have no morals at all.
The most baffling aspect of religious-thinking, to me, is the argument that "if you don't have these texts telling you what is right and what is wrong," how do you know / from where do you learn? It's pretty goddamned easy, friend. I don't treat others in ways that I wouldn't want to be treated. I don't need anyone telling me to act this way.
Hygiene. Sure, you can avoid it by getting a special taxidermy with fleshlights or whatever they're called, but if you go that far you're beyond saving.
Also deprecating corpses are still icky in my moral codex, so unless you find some human, who explicitly wants their body to be preserved for necrophiliac sex reasons (they do exists), that's the only loophole.
See? I can debate-bro my way into basic human decency! At least they learned that children cannot consent, and "God said so" isn't the only reason why people find pedophilia icky (the Bible says it's okay if the child is pubescent).
Among them is Jack, who was lost in luggage by American Airlines. He was found 61 days later, still alive, dehydrated and malnourished and beyond recovery, Jack was put down.
That's one incident. In nature, shit like that happens every single day.
I don't think there's a god, especially the Greek notion of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.
Are you familiar with the heresy of the Cathars? The God of the Old Testament is actually evil, and the God of the New is the 'good' guy. Cathars were burned at the stake, because Catholics didn't like the implication that their version of God might actually be evil.
There are various heresies like this, including at least one where God and Satan are literally the same dude, just wearing a different name tag. Shit gets fascinating. Obviously, still nuts, but fascinating.
It's not morally wrong, it's just disgusting. And it is morally wrong to fuck a human corpse because the corpse belongs to the family of the deceased, or the state if no family. It's not morally OK to fuck other people's property, or to distress them (in the case of the family) by doing so. Just like how it's OK to fuck your own couch, but not your parent's one.
Dammit, now I need to carry around a little note in my wallet, so that violent busybodies don't steal my corpse from the necrophiliacs who found it fair and square.
I'm going to play devils advocate, and claim that you are presupposing a legal technicality (medical definition of death) results in a corpse becoming property.
Moreover, I do not accept that it is inherently wrong to fuck other peoples couches, and if me or JD ensure no residue, or knowledge of our actions are made apparent, then it is okay.
Out of curiosity, DOES the bible specifically forbid fucking dead animals? I feel like it says something about human necrophilia and bestiality but I'm not sure about BOTH at the same time. I feel like there's a Mormon-esque loophole in there somewhere.
@RampantParanoia2365 My mistake! Didn't realize I'd addressed you specifically. Just grossed out by the topic. I used to volunteer at an animal shelter, and roadkill was sometimes dropped off at our door.
The actual answer is that it violates the dignity of animals and humans. It's so disgusting and grotesque that nobody even wants to read about this stupid hypothetical. Not even as a shitpost, nor as a snarky rejoinder to a shitpost. It's literal gore. What the fuck is wrong with you OP.
I'd be willing to bet 90% of the people in this comment section wouldn't find it disgusting to drain that deer's blood, skin it, flay it, cook it, and eat it. Personally I don't see how one of these things violates the deer's dignity while the other doesn't.
Not to mention the fact that the milk and cheese we consume necessitates the manual impregnation of living cows, and the slaughter of those cows' babies. Oops, I mentioned it
I don't disagree that it's unethical to eat sentient creatures, but there is a difference. It's part of our evolution. We evolved as hunter gatherers and like many other animals evolved to do pretty brutal things. This becomes nature and is part of "human nature". Hunting, killing, preparing and consuming meat is something that will always be part of us. It's unethical and unnecessary today so we shouldn't do it, but you can't argue it away. Hunting is not against our human or the animals "dignity", it's not a violation because it's part of our brutal mother nature.
It's why I play video games and still my bloodthirsty urges to slaughter my prey there.
Rape and murder are also part of our evolution, but nobody ever makes excuses for those. We can overcome the parts of our nature that are ethically wrong.
Idunno dude, I feel like If you're against fucking a dead deer on the deer's account, you should be against raping a living cow on the cow's account. If you're ok with raping living cows on the human's account, you should be ok with fucking a dead deer on the human's account.
What we evolved to do doesn't factor into it. Both of those are unnatural.
Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word's meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer's role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like rape, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.
I've never seen someone simultaneously acknowledge that dictionaries are inherently descriptive, while using that as an argument in favor of their own prescriptive definition. I totally support your effort to find new and unique ways to be wrong about literally everything
Yeah I'm not surprised that you aren't concerned with animals' ability (or lack thereof) to consent. You're so consistently wrong on everything that being pro-animal-sexual-abuse actually seems right up your alley
Many of our stories are cautionary tales about rape and murder, it's always been aberrant behavior and our species could not survive if everyone was like that. It's always been opposed, despite being human nature.
But nobody, absolutely nobody ever had anything against hunting and eating animals for the first 99% of our species. Hunting was necessary for survival and is universal behavior, you see everywhere in nature, unlike rape and murder.
I do oppose killing sentient animals for food, I'm also for banning industrial meat production and forcing veganism - simply because climate change mandates it. But I see no purpose in demanding that people "overcome their nature" or to be an asshole about this.
I mean, the animals we've been killing and eating might have disagreed. This logic only works in this particular discussion if you take an explicitly anthropocentric view of morality. In which case, the dignity of the animal is not a factor in the first place.
I'm not trying to be an asshole about this, I'm having a discussion about the foundations for our morals, and the justifications for thinking something is morally good or bad. Your initial comment intimated that you think the situation in question is morally bad because you think it's grotesque and violates the animal's dignity. If dignity is a factor in the morality of it, then raping cows to produce milk is also bad.
IDK those zoosadist freaks from a couple years ago would probably get a chub hearing about this shit. Mind you those sub-humans deserve the blood eagle for their actions and potential threat but that's beyond the point, at least the living ones deserve it since unlike them I have no interest in the dead.
Regardless this is actually a fine example of how cultural and biological morality works, as a rule it's a stupid idea to fuck around with corpses due to biological reasons so we have an instinctual ick towards it. As a result of that instinct we reinforce it with massive amounts of taboo because we instinctually know that fucking with corpses is a bad idea. Hence we make it so those that mess with corpses are made pariah, exceptions like grave diggers or certain medical practices.
Also, what a bizarre take! "Let's not discuss morality, because my morality is so absolute that I refuse to acknowledge any other take on it!"
It's almost zealous in its dogma. That's not how philosophy works, that's how fanaticism works. That's how religious extremism works. That's how racism works, and sexism, and homophobia. Is that the kind of crowd you want to find yourself in?
"Dignity" is solidly within the moral philosophical domain, and boy, let me tell you, that is a deeper hole than any road killed deer can ever hope to provide.
I've met Christians that think like this. I think the "logic" goes something like this:
God says not to do a lot of things because they're wrong
I try not to do those things, and some of them are totally gross
Atheists don't believe in God, so there's nothing stopping them from doing those things, including the gross ones
The just totally miss that atheists generally don't want to do those things any more than they do. It reminds me of what Penn Jillette said in an interview:
The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.
Christians just do whatever they want, their "belief" in God doesn't factor into any decisions they make. They just use it as a thought terminating cliché, an excuse to have the opinions and beliefs they have, with no regard for their biblical basis.
My favorite example is that God said plainly and clearly, with no room for interpretation, "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." Every "Christian" I've ever met seems to think the next verse says "unless they're a homeless guy in the Kroger parking lot, because he'll probably use that spare change to buy drugs."
The sad part is the hypocrisy. They throw the book at you to explain why they are "non violent" and "love" their neighbors. Then when you point out the millennia of rape and killings the Church committed against their neighbors, they say it was in service of God. Which fucking thing is it: god makes you a good person, or god ordains killing and raping (reserved for Christians only)?
Extremist members of every religion have gone on holy wars to exterminate non-believers at some point. Christians get the most attention because they were the most successful, but they're by no means the only ones. Even if Christians didn't exist, extremists of the next biggest group would step up to do the exact same thing.
Every major world religion is built on holy texts that advise people to love one another. Inevitably, extremists will (sometimes willfully) misinterpret these texts to lend justification to atrocities. This tendency belongs to humans, not religion. Religion is the means to the end, but it isn't inherently harmful. Just as knives don't stab people, religions don't go on crusades; people do.
It's right before the part in Matthew chapter 5, where Jesus says "unless you're a star, for in that case you can do anything. Grab them by the pussy, you can do anything."
Most people generally feel no attraction to a dead animal so maybe talk to a therapist about that.
But technically not moral issues, sure. You got us there, corpsefucker. Though, if it were capable of expressing its desire to not be fucked as a corpse before it died, we would want to respect that as part of the same social contract wherein we don't want our corpse fucked.
Morality is just Empathy re-branded by religion in order to be codified and used to cudgel uneducated medieval serfs.
What they preach about in not killing, not raping, not fucking deer, etc.. etc... literally comes from simply giving the barest minimum of shits about the people around you.
Their problem however, is that Empathy not only predates their religion by hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions), but that Empathy is not limited to humans, which would mean that they're no longer the creator's "special little boy".
So they rename it, put it into neat and easy little Mnemonic devices (lets call them sins) and then run around telling the uneducated peasants "don't do this, don't do that" even though most people weren't doing those things anyway because most people have empathy and simply aren't assholes.
Moral nihilism is a well explored area of philosophy. Personally I would phrase it as "there is no discernible objective standard for morality," but "morality doesn't exist" is a simpler way to say it
Show me in the Bible or Quran where it says I can't fuck roadkill and I'll stop fucking roadkill. And don't cheat with some "defile corpses" type of language. It's just a cream filling.
As truckers say, it's nature's pocket pussy. Brb I have to make America healthy again by eliminating vaccines and also removing any protections that prevent the spread of parasitic brain worms
I can guarantee you I don't have a brain worm controlling me and I never fucked a roadkill. Fucking a roadkill and banning vaccines seems morally ok, let's normalize it.
And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. (Leviticus 18:23)
“‘Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ (Deuteronomy 27:21)
Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death. (Exodus 22:19)
The Quran doesn’t say anything that I can find, but there are hadith.
The thing with Hadith is that they are stories/sayings attributed to his companions. That kind of commentary is about how trustworthy it is - how close to the original source, who relayed it… same as any historical analysis. It’s a scholar saying the evidence isn’t in the sayings favor for being historical.
It isn't morally wrong but it is disgusting. For most of us, that's enough to never do it, or even think about doing it. But I admit for some, they do need religion to keep them from fucking roadkill, apparently.
The part that gets me is that they think it's wrong because it's disgusting. It's the same reason why they think that LGBTQ people are immoral. All of those things make them go "eeww".
I'm trying to imagine having a values system that isn't predicated upon things like consent or sentience. It's based upon what makes you go "yuck".
A boulder isn't alive, is it possible to rape an intimate object or is that just masturbation with an anthropomorphism fetish? Since plants can't consent it is possible to rape for fuck a tree.
Could be projection, but it's more likely that christians think atheists are nothing but nihilistic hedonists that fuck and kill everything and anything. looks at bible oh yeah, that's also projection.
Not good enough! Plenty of disgusting people. I mean, do you eat your own snot? That's disgusting too! We're all disgusting. Might as well fuck some roadkill.
To Christians, gross and wrong are the same thing. I remember reading about a study done awhile ago that demonstrated that some percentage of the population base their morality upon a disgust response.
Exactly. We're free to do whatever in this world, as long as it doesn't negatively affect other beings. That one dude from years ago who likes to stand in people's poop tanks? Sure! Just don't force any of that on anyone or anything. side eyeing religion
Plus, fucking dead animals is arguably less bad than what the food industry does to living beings. It might be dangerous and spread disease, though.
I am not an expert on every verse of the Bible, but I don't recall there being a passage that forbids a believer from fucking roadkill. And even if there is, I'm confident that he doesn't know about it, either. So, I suspect that the actual reason that guy doesn't fuck roadkill is nearly the same reason that I don't fuck roadkill.
I don't fuck roadkill because I don't want to. He, on the other hand, also doesn't want to, but he goes the extra step to say that because he doesn't want to, and it's sexual, then actually it's God that doesn't want him to do it.
In my experience, Christians do this frequently. They have some feeling, and then assume that God must want them to feel that way. I can only say that the thought itself must be blasphemous. And when you look at it in that light, it's actually pretty blasphemous if that Christian doesn't stop to fuck all of the roadkill he comes across. Who is he to guess the mind of God? Even if he doesn't want to, he's got to go pump his meat into that dead deer.
You don't need to be an expert to a) have read it or b) just look it up before writing a lengthy, uninformed comment:
Exodus ["Laws for a Just Community"]:
[22:19] Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.
Leviticus:
[18:23] And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. [...] [20:15–16] If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Deuteronomy [Moses speaking]:
[27:21] “‘Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
If you can read and claim that the above doesn't prohibit it, then you're arguing in bad faith. You can make plenty of solid arguments about e.g. consistency with laws of the Torah (e.g. mixed fabrics, shellfish); this one ain't it, chief.
This exact question is why I added the line: "If you can read and claim that the above doesn't prohibit it, then you're arguing in bad faith." I didn't commit to citing it specifically, though, because I secretly hoped Lemmy could restrain itself.
Because yes, this obviously prohibits dead animals too. It says "animals". You may as well be asking "well does it prohibit green animals?" Even if you take the Leviticus passages about the animal being put to death and warp it in wildly bad faith in order to assume that means the animal must be living, the Exodus passage spoken by Moses and the Deuteronomy one just say that lying with an animal is cursed/to be punished by death.
Yeah, I can't disagree there's no explicit passage against human necrophilia, although my logic didn't preclude that. It is, however, made clear to a reasonable person given a combination of Leviticus' condemnation of "sexual immorality", the way it treats simple inadvertent touching of unclean things, and the way Numbers (immediately proceeding Leviticus) specifically in detail talks about human corpses as unclean:
Leviticus:
[5:3–6] When [someone] inadvertently touches the uncleanness of a human being, whatever his uncleanness that made him unclean may be, when he himself comes to know about it, he will be guilty. When a person has sworn inadvertently by what he has said, whether for evil or good, whatever it was that the person spoke, when he comes to understand what he said, he will incur guilt by one of these things. When a person is guilty of one of these things, then he is to confess whatever sin it was and bring compensation to the LORD for the guilt that he committed: a female from the flock whether a lamb or goat for a sin offering. Then the priest is to make atonement for him.
Numbers [the Lord speaking to Moses and Aaron]:
[19:11–16] "Whoever comes in contact with the body of a dead person is to remain unclean for seven days. He is to purify himself on the third day and he will be clean on the seventh day. But if he can't purify himself on the third day then he can't be clean on the seventh day. Anyone who comes in contact with a dead person (that is, with the corpse of a human being who has died), but who does not purify himself, defiles the LORD's tent. That person is to be eliminated from Israel, because the water of impurity wasn't sprinkled on him. He remains unclean and his uncleanness will remain with him. This is the procedure to follow when a man dies in his tent: Everyone who enters the tent and everyone in it is to remain unclean for seven days. Every open vessel that has no covering fastened around it is to be considered unclean. Whoever is out in an open field and touches the body of someone who was killed by a sword, or a dead body, or someone's bones, or a grave, he is to be considered unclean for seven days. [insert cleaning ritual] [19:20] The person who is unclean but who doesn't purify himself is to be eliminated from contact with the assembly, since he has defiled the LORD's sanctuary and the water of impurity wasn't sprinkled on him. He is to be considered unclean as a continuing reminder to them.
Thus, there's technically no specific rule about fucking a human corpse, but Leviticus and Numbers so heavily emphasize cleanliness and so heavily condemn "sexual immorality" (including so much as having sex with a menstruating women, which results in both parties being "eliminated from contact with their people") that this is obviously prohibited. It's "I can't believe they closed my restaurant down; where was the rule about turning the raw chicken into a fleshlight? I had a plastic glove over it!" The lawyering would have to be around what the punishment would be, not if the Bible obviously considers it wrong.
Also, this is beside the point, but I found the rawest fucking quote while looking into this:
[Leviticus 20:6] “I’ll oppose and eliminate from contact with his people whoever consults mediums or familiar spirits, thereby committing spiritual prostitution with them.
You don't need to be an expert to a) have read it or b) just look it up before writing a lengthy, uninformed comment:
It was the very next sentence after the one you quoted that is critical, and that you clearly didn't read. You know, the one that says it doesn't really matter what the bible actually says because a guy who makes such a bad argument probably doesn't know any more than I do.
You wrote a lengthy, uninformed (because you didn't read enough to understand the context) comment while complaining about me doing the very same thing.
I don't know that I would say that it is wrong, morally. It is fucking disgusting though, like from a sanitary perspective, it is indicative of an aberrant psychology and poor judgement, likely detrimental to your health, it would have massive social consequences if people knew about it, and there are far more safe, healthy, and socially acceptable ways to achieve the same ends. So you objectively should not be doing that. But I don't think that it is any more morally wrong to fuck a rotting carcass than than to eat it. I would still highly discourage both practices though.
necrophelia, beastility are often the trifecta of phelias with pedophelia. often found done by evangelicals/conservatives, .. they are probably also attributing "Aethism" to that as well, but they arnt saying ti out loud.
I saw another similar post to this earlier and my first thoughts were:
Similar to the shooting the baby that's immortal when wearing the cross necklace scenario, what the actual fuck is wrong with you for even coming up with these types of scenarios in the first place!
I don't need any God, Goddess, or deity to tell me not to fuck animals, dead or alive, because we as humans kinda collectively decided a very long time ago that it's wrong in so many ways to have sex with anything that isn't human. And that's a worldwide thing that humans decided on, regardless of what religion was practiced.
If you need a God/Goddess/Deity to tell you not to do something the rest of the world has already deemed a heinous crime against nature, you are probably only following that holy instructions out of fear of not reaching whatever your religions heaven equivalent is. And I am a firm believer that if there is a heaven, those who do/don't do things only with the thought of getting into that place in the afterlife certainly ain't getting in, I'd hope. I wouldn't wanna somehow end up in Heaven only to find nobody actually did good for the sake of good and instead selfishly only thought about themselves when doing good deeds.
It's neither morally "right" or "wrong". It's just creepy.
Creepy like christianity and it's creepy followers.
I'm never shocked by the creepy thoughts of xians, obsession with sex and other people having sex, and now sex with roadkill.
Was this a post by RFK Jr??? Did you eat it's penis bob?
Personally I think it's valuable to suss out the source of our moral beliefs. If you can't explain why you think it's morally wrong to have sex with a roadkill deer, then you either don't think it's morally wrong, or you're letting your disgust response dictate your moral beliefs. There's a huge difference between "I refuse to do this because I think it's gross," and "I think someone should be jailed for doing this because I think it's gross." I think the latter is far more harmful than the former. See: all the morally neutral things Christians want outlawed.
Is it morally wrong? I think it's extremely gross, but it isn't harming anyone. I think if we are going to say it's morally wrong, it'd have to be because of the rights an animal has in death to its corpse not being desecrated - but we have no problem with mutilating and eating animal corpses, so this only differs in terms of its disgustingness and depravity.
I actually don't think the bible has a compelling stance on this subject. The only relevant things the bible had to say that I can think of are that sex is restricted to marriage and the stuff about not spilling seed. So... the reason a Christian couldn't have sex with roadkill is because they aren't married to it or because it can't get pregnant? That's a pretty weak argument. And if there isn't anything else in the Bible about it... then we're left with soemthing like "necrophilic beastiality is gross" - which, while true, is not a strong moral claim and not something Jesus is recorded as having said, believe it or not.
Too frequently people conflate feelings of disgust with proof of unethical/immoral behavior - in this case it happens to work because the act in question is extremely repugnant, but it's also similar to how religious people justify all sorts of bad actions and bigotry even when their own religious dogma is silent or unclear on the morality of specific things.
It is a normal human impulse to want horrible and disgusting things like this to be immoral, but we do need actual, consistent reasons that make sense if we are going to call something immoral.
Secular ethics are better able to handle this because they can easily include things like animal rights extending beyond death - or we can be comfortable saying this is a disgusting and depraved act, worthy of punishment even, that doesn't have moral weight due to the lack of harm or rights violations (if we say animals don't have rights to dignity in death).
A compelling moral argument could be made in the case where they have human sexual partners; I would not consider having sex with road kill to be especially safe from a communicable disease standpoint, and engaging in this behavior endangers the partner’s life.
I’m willing to bet the partner doesn’t know, too.
That said, pretty sure the whole spilling seed things comes from a pretty blatant misunderstanding of genesis 38:8–10. It’s part of the story of Judah and Tamar.
Tamar was given to Er- Judah’s first son, who got offed by god for some undisclosed wickedness.so Judah tells his other son- Onan- to fulfill his obligation as Er’a brother and get Tamar preggers.
The idea here is that Onan would give Er and heir, who would inherit most of Judah’s shit. Onan, being not entirely stupid understood that if Tamar never gave birth to a son, then the greedy fuck would instead inherit Judah’s shit.
So Onan gamed the system with his pull out game, and god was like, “you little shit!” And smoked the greedy fucker. It had nothing to do with Onan pulling out and everything to do with him being greedy. If he tried the rhythm method, he’d have still gotten smoked...
And all this because the best social safety nets for single mother’s they could come up with was “hey. If the brother gets her pregnant, a son could be an heir and then she could take care of everything until the son is old enough!” Because women were property and couldn’t inherit anything.
I actually don’t think the bible has a compelling stance on this subject. The only relevant things the bible had to say that I can think of are that sex is restricted to marriage and the stuff about not spilling seed. So… the reason a Christian couldn’t have sex with roadkill is because they aren’t married to it or because it can’t get pregnant? That’s a pretty weak argument.
Leviticus 18:23: “You must not have sexual relations with any animal, defiling yourself with it; a woman must not present herself to an animal to mate with it; that is a perversion.”
To be clear, I'm an atheist and I don't fuck roadkill. But I do think this covers it from a biblical standpoint -- I don't think it makes any exception for dead animals.
Then again, this comes from some of the same passages that contain things modern Christians routinely ignore like "don't eat pork and shellfish" and "don't wear mixed fabrics". If they can ignore those rules, why not the animal-fucking rule as well?
Oh wow sure enough. Huh. Well nice job leviticus. Then the only question is if that applies to dead animals, too, but I'd think it's safe to assume it does. And if the "new covenant" means Christians can ignore that part or not.
Funnily, this drives at a niche thought experiment in vegan circles: "Is eating roadkill vegan?" That is, is veganism not fully a subset of a plant-based diet*? The Vegan Society's definition is roughly what most vegans would go by even if they've never heard it:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment.
To be absolutely clear, no vegan takes this thought experiment seriously. Vegans would prefer the animal be left alone to be consumed by e.g. other animals, and some hypothetical vegan delusional enough to pull that card would be ostracized immediately and plausibly worse than if they'd bought meat to eat for themselves.
* Notably, no, it isn't. Regardless of this particular scenario, there are edge case scenarios you can come up with that vegans would consider vegan but are definitionally not plant-based – because veganism stipulates "as far as is possible and practicable" while a PBD is a bright line.
As others have said, the response is to ask where in the bible it states you should not have sex with roadkill.
When they point to a passage about something they think is related (but obviously cannot be explicitly about roadkill) ask them if they think that having sex with roadkill is morally equivalent to the passage they cited. I would be surprised if they say yes..
If they do say yes, ask if the only reason they do not do these things is because the Bible told them so.
If they say no, ask them what the extra moral information they are drawing from is.
Also ask them why atheists are not caught doing this (at a rate higher than religious groups).
I see people focusing on how the bible addresses this, but I think I understand what the guy is trying to do, so I'll see if I can explain.
I think the logic goes something like, if they [the hypothetical atheist] say that it violates the honor or dignity of the animal, it would be some admission that there is a higher moral code and in a theist's view morals come from God
What's interesting is when you delve into the source of the higher moral code, you come to the conclusion that it must exist outside of a god. Let's concede that there is a god for the sake of the argument, are they someone worth worshipping for being good if they themselves created good? This opens a whole new level of arguments such as do you worship him because you fear reprisal from god? Do you not worry that god could change his mind and make murder legal suddenly, since it is entirely up to him, and would that then make it morally required to do?
Arguably, even if someone was religious, it is not difficult to reason that morality exists separately and empirically, so I don't need a book to tell me that banging roadkill is wrong to know it is wrong.
I had no difficulties myself, perchance you were suffering from a simple skill issue? Just keep up your training routine, you will get there eventually.
Because it's an animal's corpse in full view which might disturb some people scrolling by. Just because it's not a human doesn't mean it's less of a corpse
204 replies
Well the living deer run too fast.
I don't think so
I think the hypothetical doesn't have much to do with morality. There is no moral reason not to. But there are other reasons.
Actions don't have to be immoral for them to be judged or questioned. People who'd have sex with a dead deer aren't hurting anyone, but they are making choices that would ordinarily lead one to be sceptical of them as a person and be weary of other choices they might have made you are not aware of and if the choices they will make in the future.
wary*
The argument the joker Garfield is trying to make is that, in a standard proof format, can you define your ethics in an axiomatic system? He thinks that's important, and it is to a degree, but our intuition also tells us details about reality that our pure logic brain is ignorant of. Pure logic makes the Borg. Pure intuition stays in Eden, being as Lilith was. Logic and intuition together make the Federation of Star Trek.
Well, religion is morally bankrupt.
The god of the Bible never condemns slavery, and Jesus speaks of eternal punishment for finite crimes, to give a couple of examples.
It's like that book is used to engineer the culture, which is our operating system. Hey, lemme just make sure of something; are you aware that the New Testament describes a decentralized autonomous organization of secret police at an eighth grade reading level? The shit that's encoded in that good book is what makes the police state about two thousand years old. But you know Trump and Epstein and the Clintons and Hunter Biden are all cops, right? You're not retarded because you are so attached to your identity that you can't see what is intentionally "hidden?"
"Occult" literally just means "hidden." What don't you know?
Take your schizo pills, bud. We'll all be out in the garage playing foosball.
Listen, momma ain't right all of the time. I KNOW it's a time to open a case of whoop-ass and my ass knows I can do it! I can do it all night long! But that's just what the prophets say.
Putting aside the "why the hell would you want to do that?" aspect, let's assume that you're the guy in the picture and you do. It would be morally wrong even if the deer were alive because a non-human animal cannot give consent. It's wrong after it's dead because it's disrespectful to the deer, which was once a living being. Don't need religion to understand that.
I don't think you'll get consensus on the "it's disrespectful" reasoning. It might not be inherently religious (although most religions I'm aware of expand upon it to specific procedures or prohibitions) but "respecting" the vessel which once contained a life seems very much tied up in sentimentality and woowoo more than sound reasoning or pragmatism. It's just engrained into social norms at this point but, purely speculation, burial and burning were probably done for the same reasons other animals do it - you don't attract other predators or suffer the scent of death inviting maggots, flies and other vectors for disease. It probably became more ritualistic and religious over time. If I'm dead someone can dangle my lads from their rearview like a pair of fuzzy dice for all I care - which will be not at all because I'm dead.
well, why is it we should disrespect? don’t give me wrong, i agree hat we should respect, but many customs of respect like this one seem to have origins nearly as arbitrary as faith
But people eat the deer with zero moral qualms. Are you really going to tell me that yanking something's skin off, cracking its bones, gouging out its internal organs, and processing its meat into sausages for roasting is a sign of respect?
If the animal represents your only available food source, consuming it is required to continue living.
You aren't going to die if you fail to rape a dead animal, but you might if you fail to eat one.
is it true that anyone rich enough to eat deer meat need it, or any kind of meat at that, to survive?
For how many people do you think animals are the only viable food source? How many in this thread? Like 10%? Sure hope anyone with options therefore doesn't....
I mean there are evolutionary reasons most humans feel disgust towards things, in this case mainly the spread of disease. If none of these were problems, there isn't really a good moral case to be made against it unless you believe in some sort of afterlife.
Excuse me what
Getting any part of one’s body inside a dead carcass has nothing to do with morals…. It’s fucking DISGUSTING! Remember that piece of meat is currently being eaten and digested by billions of bacterias. All eating and defecating everywhere inside and out.. flies have burrowed eggs in it, worms are crawling everywhere, and all this is releasing toxic gases from all the rotting and digesting…. Also all the sphincters have released so the bowels are leaking out ..! Nope…nope….nope….!!!
A proper Appalachia Orgy
That's THE BEST ?
Fucking hell...
I mean they did say best logical fallacy. And their logic is indeed fallacious.
And maybe even fellatious depending on the carcass.
I'm not talking morals with someone who has a moral codex from 2000 years ago.
I'll never get over the slavery angle. Like, right after delivering your people from generations of slavery would have been the perfect opportunity to go "We're not doing that shit again."
No no you don't get it, God had to allow slavery because there was no way the humans in that time would put up with not having slaves. He had to make some concessions. Telling everyone to cut off their baby's foreskin though, that's fair game
That dirty doe, I'd make her hooves curl.
I grew up in a very cultist region, and I remember having similar arguments at 8-13 years old already. Well, not about corpse fucking but murder and such. When I made the same argument, "I'm currently murdering as many people as I want which is 0", the holier than thou counter-argument always was "well that's only because you grew up in a Christian culture even if you're now deciding to not believe!" Which often wasn't just that, it often went further into pretty racist assumptions that if I was like a "wild human living somewhere in Africa", I'd be murdering and eating human meat.. That tells quite a lot about the whole love-thy-neighbor act I think.
And this wasn't somewhere in the 70's, it was in the 2000-2010.
It also cannot consent, and I am big into consent, though
I don't think objects without a subjective experience need to give or are capable of giving consent. I don't think anyone needs to ask their fleshlight for consent, e.g.
If it were a living deer, then it would need to give consent but be unable to. (I think it's reasonable to say any supposed communications from the deer is less trustworthy than "Facilitated Communication", and not sufficient consent.)
I mean, it's not like we care about consent when it comes to the animals we eat, or whose secretions we drink. Weird to draw the line at sex/rape, but not at killing/murder.
Weird fact, killing in movies will give you a PG-13 rating, but nudity will land you in the land of R-Rated
Douglas Adams actually explored this. In The Restaurant at The End of the Universe, Arthur is waited upon by a sentient bovine creature whose species wants to be eaten and spend their lives conditioning themselves to be as succulent as possible.
Arthur was preeetty fuckin weirded out by that.
Yeah, is it consent if you are genetically forced to be consenting?
I loved that part of the book, fellow hitchhiker.
Is it consent if everything is deterministic and free will is an illusion???
Okay, I am going to go drink some whiskey
Dude is deep as the 10th circle of hell.
Cuz like are they forced? They were spawned by the infinitely possible universe. Implying that free will itself is fundamentally constrained by biology, or perhaps the deterministic nature of the universe itself.
It reminds me of the lyrics,
Now you are quoting Rise Against!? Are you me?
<3
If the only reason you aren't a necrophiliac rapist is because your god says not to, you are not a good person, you are a necrophiliac rapist on a leash.
Sorry what exactly are you raping. Is fucking a couch or flesh light rape now? Its dead it is a piece of meet nothing more unless you think its soul is their or something. And no I don't want to fuck a dead deer bit calling it rape is just odd.
Everyone needs to remember that
Its not, you do you, friend. I don't think your god cares either. Follow your bliss.
Just, um, let me get far enough I don't need to see/hear it, and I will never eat venison from you again.
That's the thing that bothers me about religious people, the only thing stopping the lot of them from committing heinous crimes is the fear of eternal damnation. It's like they have no morals at all.
If it's actually stopping them, I will support their continuing to believe.
Look at your "religious" politicians. It is just a tool to control the stupid they don't believe in any of it.
Some of them don't. Even facing "eternal damnation", they'll still commit terrible crimes.
The most baffling aspect of religious-thinking, to me, is the argument that "if you don't have these texts telling you what is right and what is wrong," how do you know / from where do you learn? It's pretty goddamned easy, friend. I don't treat others in ways that I wouldn't want to be treated. I don't need anyone telling me to act this way.
Hygiene. Sure, you can avoid it by getting a special taxidermy with fleshlights or whatever they're called, but if you go that far you're beyond saving.
Also deprecating corpses are still icky in my moral codex, so unless you find some human, who explicitly wants their body to be preserved for necrophiliac sex reasons (they do exists), that's the only loophole.
See? I can debate-bro my way into basic human decency! At least they learned that children cannot consent, and "God said so" isn't the only reason why people find pedophilia icky (the Bible says it's okay if the child is pubescent).
Recently, I was introduced to Wikipedia's List of individual cats.
Among them is Jack, who was lost in luggage by American Airlines. He was found 61 days later, still alive, dehydrated and malnourished and beyond recovery, Jack was put down.
That's one incident. In nature, shit like that happens every single day.
I don't think there's a god, especially the Greek notion of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.
But if one did exist, to us, it is a monster...
...and to It, we are irrelevant.
Are you familiar with the heresy of the Cathars? The God of the Old Testament is actually evil, and the God of the New is the 'good' guy. Cathars were burned at the stake, because Catholics didn't like the implication that their version of God might actually be evil.
There are various heresies like this, including at least one where God and Satan are literally the same dude, just wearing a different name tag. Shit gets fascinating. Obviously, still nuts, but fascinating.
Debates were way easier for religious folks when they could just burn the other side
"Lean not upon your own understanding" is a goated debate strat tbh
Tell you what: You fuck the rotting deer corpse, I'll stream the video on all your social media.
I just don't want maggots on my dick. Simple.
Coward
A pragmaticist!
Personally I just don't find this particular deer that hot. I blame the deer for that.
Now if Gadget were freshly hit by the car in front of me…
What if I suck them out for you?
It's not morally wrong, it's just disgusting. And it is morally wrong to fuck a human corpse because the corpse belongs to the family of the deceased, or the state if no family. It's not morally OK to fuck other people's property, or to distress them (in the case of the family) by doing so. Just like how it's OK to fuck your own couch, but not your parent's one.
Dammit, now I need to carry around a little note in my wallet, so that violent busybodies don't steal my corpse from the necrophiliacs who found it fair and square.
If you fuck a corpse in the forest, did you really?
I'm going to play devils advocate, and claim that you are presupposing a legal technicality (medical definition of death) results in a corpse becoming property.
Moreover, I do not accept that it is inherently wrong to fuck other peoples couches, and if me or JD ensure no residue, or knowledge of our actions are made apparent, then it is okay.
Out of curiosity, DOES the bible specifically forbid fucking dead animals? I feel like it says something about human necrophilia and bestiality but I'm not sure about BOTH at the same time. I feel like there's a Mormon-esque loophole in there somewhere.
I think the main loophole is that "God" "created" animals "for" humans. So that makes all kind of cruelty and factory farming okay.
Please don't make deer soaking a thing.
How about Cervitaur soaking.
Please do.
Logical fallacy.
Jeez.
Guy, just heard that term and ran with it.
Inheritantly, it's not, you sick fucking corpse fucker. Now please stay away from me.
@RampantParanoia2365 @VetOfTheSeas
I would like to block this thread, but I don't know how.
I'm afraid I can't help. Not that I mind at all, but why are you asking me?
@RampantParanoia2365 My mistake! Didn't realize I'd addressed you specifically. Just grossed out by the topic. I used to volunteer at an animal shelter, and roadkill was sometimes dropped off at our door.
Lol np, and yeah I'd have to agree.
The actual answer is that it violates the dignity of animals and humans. It's so disgusting and grotesque that nobody even wants to read about this stupid hypothetical. Not even as a shitpost, nor as a snarky rejoinder to a shitpost. It's literal gore. What the fuck is wrong with you OP.
That and health issues.
I'd be willing to bet 90% of the people in this comment section wouldn't find it disgusting to drain that deer's blood, skin it, flay it, cook it, and eat it. Personally I don't see how one of these things violates the deer's dignity while the other doesn't.
Not to mention the fact that the milk and cheese we consume necessitates the manual impregnation of living cows, and the slaughter of those cows' babies. Oops, I mentioned it
I don't disagree that it's unethical to eat sentient creatures, but there is a difference. It's part of our evolution. We evolved as hunter gatherers and like many other animals evolved to do pretty brutal things. This becomes nature and is part of "human nature". Hunting, killing, preparing and consuming meat is something that will always be part of us. It's unethical and unnecessary today so we shouldn't do it, but you can't argue it away. Hunting is not against our human or the animals "dignity", it's not a violation because it's part of our brutal mother nature.
It's why I play video games and still my bloodthirsty urges to slaughter my prey there.
Rape and murder are also part of our evolution, but nobody ever makes excuses for those. We can overcome the parts of our nature that are ethically wrong.
Idunno dude, I feel like If you're against fucking a dead deer on the deer's account, you should be against raping a living cow on the cow's account. If you're ok with raping living cows on the human's account, you should be ok with fucking a dead deer on the human's account.
What we evolved to do doesn't factor into it. Both of those are unnatural.
no one is raping cows
Hi commie. Cool to see you're still committed to always being on the wrong side of every possible issue.
Definition of rape.
Unless you think the cows are consenting, forced impregnation is definitionally rape.
Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word's meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer's role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like rape, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.
--
marriam webster
I've never seen someone simultaneously acknowledge that dictionaries are inherently descriptive, while using that as an argument in favor of their own prescriptive definition. I totally support your effort to find new and unique ways to be wrong about literally everything
Why did you link to the definition of racism???
it's absurd to discuss consent from something that can't be informed.
Yeah I'm not surprised that you aren't concerned with animals' ability (or lack thereof) to consent. You're so consistently wrong on everything that being pro-animal-sexual-abuse actually seems right up your alley
artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it's not rape
Many of our stories are cautionary tales about rape and murder, it's always been aberrant behavior and our species could not survive if everyone was like that. It's always been opposed, despite being human nature.
But nobody, absolutely nobody ever had anything against hunting and eating animals for the first 99% of our species. Hunting was necessary for survival and is universal behavior, you see everywhere in nature, unlike rape and murder.
I do oppose killing sentient animals for food, I'm also for banning industrial meat production and forcing veganism - simply because climate change mandates it. But I see no purpose in demanding that people "overcome their nature" or to be an asshole about this.
I mean, the animals we've been killing and eating might have disagreed. This logic only works in this particular discussion if you take an explicitly anthropocentric view of morality. In which case, the dignity of the animal is not a factor in the first place.
I'm not trying to be an asshole about this, I'm having a discussion about the foundations for our morals, and the justifications for thinking something is morally good or bad. Your initial comment intimated that you think the situation in question is morally bad because you think it's grotesque and violates the animal's dignity. If dignity is a factor in the morality of it, then raping cows to produce milk is also bad.
IDK those zoosadist freaks from a couple years ago would probably get a chub hearing about this shit. Mind you those sub-humans deserve the blood eagle for their actions and potential threat but that's beyond the point, at least the living ones deserve it since unlike them I have no interest in the dead.
Regardless this is actually a fine example of how cultural and biological morality works, as a rule it's a stupid idea to fuck around with corpses due to biological reasons so we have an instinctual ick towards it. As a result of that instinct we reinforce it with massive amounts of taboo because we instinctually know that fucking with corpses is a bad idea. Hence we make it so those that mess with corpses are made pariah, exceptions like grave diggers or certain medical practices.
Also, what a bizarre take! "Let's not discuss morality, because my morality is so absolute that I refuse to acknowledge any other take on it!"
It's almost zealous in its dogma. That's not how philosophy works, that's how fanaticism works. That's how religious extremism works. That's how racism works, and sexism, and homophobia. Is that the kind of crowd you want to find yourself in?
"Dignity" is solidly within the moral philosophical domain, and boy, let me tell you, that is a deeper hole than any road killed deer can ever hope to provide.
Yeah I really wish this was tagged as NSFW at the very least...
I've met Christians that think like this. I think the "logic" goes something like this:
The just totally miss that atheists generally don't want to do those things any more than they do. It reminds me of what Penn Jillette said in an interview:
Christians just do whatever they want, their "belief" in God doesn't factor into any decisions they make. They just use it as a thought terminating cliché, an excuse to have the opinions and beliefs they have, with no regard for their biblical basis.
My favorite example is that God said plainly and clearly, with no room for interpretation, "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." Every "Christian" I've ever met seems to think the next verse says "unless they're a homeless guy in the Kroger parking lot, because he'll probably use that spare change to buy drugs."
The sad part is the hypocrisy. They throw the book at you to explain why they are "non violent" and "love" their neighbors. Then when you point out the millennia of rape and killings the Church committed against their neighbors, they say it was in service of God. Which fucking thing is it: god makes you a good person, or god ordains killing and raping (reserved for Christians only)?
Have you ever read the bible? You can find something to justify anything, as long as you're willing to ignore other parts.
Extremist members of every religion have gone on holy wars to exterminate non-believers at some point. Christians get the most attention because they were the most successful, but they're by no means the only ones. Even if Christians didn't exist, extremists of the next biggest group would step up to do the exact same thing.
Every major world religion is built on holy texts that advise people to love one another. Inevitably, extremists will (sometimes willfully) misinterpret these texts to lend justification to atrocities. This tendency belongs to humans, not religion. Religion is the means to the end, but it isn't inherently harmful. Just as knives don't stab people, religions don't go on crusades; people do.
"Without god, what's to stop you from committing all the rape and murder you want?"
I already commit all the rape and murder I want, which is none.
I like this one the best.
I can't remember the Bible verse about not sticking your dick in roadkill.
It's right before the part in Matthew chapter 5, where Jesus says "unless you're a star, for in that case you can do anything. Grab them by the pussy, you can do anything."
It was right after the part about digital IP media rights policy. Just before the 2029 FIA rule changes.
I think it's in one of the books they took out because none of it made sense to them.
Maybe it was on that other stone tablet that Moses dropped.
It is plainly a biological hazzard.
Most people generally feel no attraction to a dead animal so maybe talk to a therapist about that.
But technically not moral issues, sure. You got us there, corpsefucker. Though, if it were capable of expressing its desire to not be fucked as a corpse before it died, we would want to respect that as part of the same social contract wherein we don't want our corpse fucked.
I'm not sexually attracted to living deer either. Being religious sounds confusing as hell.
It's easy to avoid the confusion caused by the absurdities involved by being fucking stupid
I even fail at that. I'm really worthless 😭
Hey, speak for yourself. Not everybody wants to have a virgin afterlife.
Hooray! I made a brand new sentence!
I hear they make you fuck suicide bombers.
They just told them 72 virgins, guy should have read the fine print
Well, dead guys can't afford to be picky.
Why not? There are literally billions of ghosts. You're settling, even in death.
Morality doesn't exist.
Morality is just Empathy re-branded by religion in order to be codified and used to cudgel uneducated medieval serfs.
What they preach about in not killing, not raping, not fucking deer, etc.. etc... literally comes from simply giving the barest minimum of shits about the people around you.
Their problem however, is that Empathy not only predates their religion by hundreds of thousands of years (if not millions), but that Empathy is not limited to humans, which would mean that they're no longer the creator's "special little boy".
So they rename it, put it into neat and easy little Mnemonic devices (lets call them sins) and then run around telling the uneducated peasants "don't do this, don't do that" even though most people weren't doing those things anyway because most people have empathy and simply aren't assholes.
I believe morality exists and that it has an objective metric; wellbeing.
If you intentionally impair or damage the wellbeing of another, then you are being immoral.
Right. But I'm saying that most people don't do that because most people can empathize with others.
Morality is just another word for Empathy.
"Morality doesn't exist" is a wild claim.
Moral nihilism is a well explored area of philosophy. Personally I would phrase it as "there is no discernible objective standard for morality," but "morality doesn't exist" is a simpler way to say it
I'm saying that moralilty is just another word for Empathy.
How do you fuck your deer then?
First I fawn over them...
Depends on which end got damaged the most from the truck.
Show me in the Bible or Quran where it says I can't fuck roadkill and I'll stop fucking roadkill. And don't cheat with some "defile corpses" type of language. It's just a cream filling.
As truckers say, it's nature's pocket pussy. Brb I have to make America healthy again by eliminating vaccines and also removing any protections that prevent the spread of parasitic brain worms
I'm no parasitic brain worm expert but this does seem like something that a brain worm riddled person would say.
Can anyone who's fucked roadkill but is definitely not infested with parasitic brain worms care to give us their opinion?
I can guarantee you I don't have a brain worm controlling me and I never fucked a roadkill. Fucking a roadkill and banning vaccines seems morally ok, let's normalize it.
The Quran doesn’t say anything that I can find, but there are hadith.
“Abu Dawud said: This is not a strong tradition.”
They’re arguing against The Prophet? Or agreeing more likely?
The thing with Hadith is that they are stories/sayings attributed to his companions. That kind of commentary is about how trustworthy it is - how close to the original source, who relayed it… same as any historical analysis. It’s a scholar saying the evidence isn’t in the sayings favor for being historical.
It isn't morally wrong but it is disgusting. For most of us, that's enough to never do it, or even think about doing it. But I admit for some, they do need religion to keep them from fucking roadkill, apparently.
The part that gets me is that they think it's wrong because it's disgusting. It's the same reason why they think that LGBTQ people are immoral. All of those things make them go "eeww".
I'm trying to imagine having a values system that isn't predicated upon things like consent or sentience. It's based upon what makes you go "yuck".
A moral worldview as according to icks.
Why do you think it is wrong to fuck roadkill?
Since the deer is dead, it can't consent, which is rape. That is what an atheist would say.
I'd say rape is the violation of consent, which a dead body has none of.
Is it rape to fuck a tree? Or a boulder with just the right dimensions?
A boulder isn't alive, is it possible to rape an intimate object or is that just masturbation with an anthropomorphism fetish? Since plants can't consent it is possible to rape for fuck a tree.
It can't consent when it's alive either.
Good Christian: Yeah but why didn't your atheist god tell you not to fuck it?
(Starts dry humping the dead creature)
Sure, "an atheist" might say that. Being an atheist doesn't stop you from making hilariously bad arguments.
Could be projection, but it's more likely that christians think atheists are nothing but nihilistic hedonists that fuck and kill everything and anything. looks at bible oh yeah, that's also projection.
What the fuck did I just read?
Look at my user name and post history. I repeat my comment. What the fuck.
I thought my brain rot had shriveled my brain to the size of a raisin, and yet Christians beat me handily.
Wow.
Good point, it might not be immoral
It is, however, fucking disgusting and that's one good reason not to do it.
Not good enough! Plenty of disgusting people. I mean, do you eat your own snot? That's disgusting too! We're all disgusting. Might as well fuck some roadkill.
Has my guy never seen the sheep intestine condoms? You can fuck a dead animal while fucking someone else at the same time!
I don't really think of this scenario as a morality issue. It's just gross.
To Christians, gross and wrong are the same thing. I remember reading about a study done awhile ago that demonstrated that some percentage of the population base their morality upon a disgust response.
Exactly. We're free to do whatever in this world, as long as it doesn't negatively affect other beings. That one dude from years ago who likes to stand in people's poop tanks? Sure! Just don't force any of that on anyone or anything. side eyeing religion
Plus, fucking dead animals is arguably less bad than what the food industry does to living beings. It might be dangerous and spread disease, though.
RFK is in the chat
I am not an expert on every verse of the Bible, but I don't recall there being a passage that forbids a believer from fucking roadkill. And even if there is, I'm confident that he doesn't know about it, either. So, I suspect that the actual reason that guy doesn't fuck roadkill is nearly the same reason that I don't fuck roadkill.
I don't fuck roadkill because I don't want to. He, on the other hand, also doesn't want to, but he goes the extra step to say that because he doesn't want to, and it's sexual, then actually it's God that doesn't want him to do it.
In my experience, Christians do this frequently. They have some feeling, and then assume that God must want them to feel that way. I can only say that the thought itself must be blasphemous. And when you look at it in that light, it's actually pretty blasphemous if that Christian doesn't stop to fuck all of the roadkill he comes across. Who is he to guess the mind of God? Even if he doesn't want to, he's got to go pump his meat into that dead deer.
Bold of you to assume that guy doesn't fuck roadkill.
You don't need to be an expert to a) have read it or b) just look it up before writing a lengthy, uninformed comment:
Exodus ["Laws for a Just Community"]:
Leviticus:
Deuteronomy [Moses speaking]:
If you can read and claim that the above doesn't prohibit it, then you're arguing in bad faith. You can make plenty of solid arguments about e.g. consistency with laws of the Torah (e.g. mixed fabrics, shellfish); this one ain't it, chief.
But it's it still lying with an animal if it's dead?
More importantly, are we saying everything in Leviticus is immortal/unethical, including those you cite at the end? Because most Christians don't.
This exact question is why I added the line: "If you can read and claim that the above doesn't prohibit it, then you're arguing in bad faith." I didn't commit to citing it specifically, though, because I secretly hoped Lemmy could restrain itself.
Because yes, this obviously prohibits dead animals too. It says "animals". You may as well be asking "well does it prohibit green animals?" Even if you take the Leviticus passages about the animal being put to death and warp it in wildly bad faith in order to assume that means the animal must be living, the Exodus passage spoken by Moses and the Deuteronomy one just say that lying with an animal is cursed/to be punished by death.
Objection overruled, Attorney Sam-I-Am.
By your logic that means the Bible thinks it's okay to have sex with a dead human.
Yeah, I can't disagree there's no explicit passage against human necrophilia, although my logic didn't preclude that. It is, however, made clear to a reasonable person given a combination of Leviticus' condemnation of "sexual immorality", the way it treats simple inadvertent touching of unclean things, and the way Numbers (immediately proceeding Leviticus) specifically in detail talks about human corpses as unclean:
Leviticus:
Numbers [the Lord speaking to Moses and Aaron]:
Thus, there's technically no specific rule about fucking a human corpse, but Leviticus and Numbers so heavily emphasize cleanliness and so heavily condemn "sexual immorality" (including so much as having sex with a menstruating women, which results in both parties being "eliminated from contact with their people") that this is obviously prohibited. It's "I can't believe they closed my restaurant down; where was the rule about turning the raw chicken into a fleshlight? I had a plastic glove over it!" The lawyering would have to be around what the punishment would be, not if the Bible obviously considers it wrong.
Also, this is beside the point, but I found the rawest fucking quote while looking into this:
If it's dead, it's just meat. Loophole. What is the Bible's stance on lying with a hamburger?
It was the very next sentence after the one you quoted that is critical, and that you clearly didn't read. You know, the one that says it doesn't really matter what the bible actually says because a guy who makes such a bad argument probably doesn't know any more than I do.
You wrote a lengthy, uninformed (because you didn't read enough to understand the context) comment while complaining about me doing the very same thing.
Unlike you, I do not get a boner from road kill. Maybe you should see a therapist about your necrophiliac beastiality.
Conservatives on another level, subhuman.
Do they not know your own feelings can be a factor? I know the dead deer won't feel anything, that's not what the issue is lol
I don't know that I would say that it is wrong, morally. It is fucking disgusting though, like from a sanitary perspective, it is indicative of an aberrant psychology and poor judgement, likely detrimental to your health, it would have massive social consequences if people knew about it, and there are far more safe, healthy, and socially acceptable ways to achieve the same ends. So you objectively should not be doing that. But I don't think that it is any more morally wrong to fuck a rotting carcass than than to eat it. I would still highly discourage both practices though.
What if you knew noone would see you and the deer pussy was still fresh and warm?
Get a deer tick on my junk? No thanks.
What if you knew there'd be no consequences - just deer pussy?
Can I help you, dude?
Idk maybe drive recklessly through West Virginia in the fall
(·•᷄ࡇ•᷅ )
I love how the poster suggests giving the atheist a logical fallacy...
They sure did...
Multiple...
(Also an ethical dilemma is not the same thing as a fallacy)
Also the use of an actual logical fallacy would undermine any attempt to argue God exists.
Dude shut up just let me fuck the warm deer while god isn't looking.
I am pretty sure you can let God watch you fuck the dead dear. The Ten commandments to say anything about that.
"Who hasn't fucked a deer corpse or two?"
And I thought the ubiquitous Christian baby was bad....
necrophelia, beastility are often the trifecta of phelias with pedophelia. often found done by evangelicals/conservatives, .. they are probably also attributing "Aethism" to that as well, but they arnt saying ti out loud.
I saw another similar post to this earlier and my first thoughts were:
Listen... Necrophilic beastiality might just be the best death metal song name ive heard
It's neither morally "right" or "wrong". It's just creepy. Creepy like christianity and it's creepy followers. I'm never shocked by the creepy thoughts of xians, obsession with sex and other people having sex, and now sex with roadkill. Was this a post by RFK Jr??? Did you eat it's penis bob?
Is humanity this far gone?
I don't think much can be accomplished by discussing the moral and ethical nuance of roadkill fucking.
For some reason we can't get morally squared away on fucking kids. No need to get distracted with hypothetical "I-40 Bambi" scenarios.
Personally I think it's valuable to suss out the source of our moral beliefs. If you can't explain why you think it's morally wrong to have sex with a roadkill deer, then you either don't think it's morally wrong, or you're letting your disgust response dictate your moral beliefs. There's a huge difference between "I refuse to do this because I think it's gross," and "I think someone should be jailed for doing this because I think it's gross." I think the latter is far more harmful than the former. See: all the morally neutral things Christians want outlawed.
Tom Green enters the chat...
No going to lie, I really miss read that.
Is it morally wrong? I think it's extremely gross, but it isn't harming anyone. I think if we are going to say it's morally wrong, it'd have to be because of the rights an animal has in death to its corpse not being desecrated - but we have no problem with mutilating and eating animal corpses, so this only differs in terms of its disgustingness and depravity.
I actually don't think the bible has a compelling stance on this subject. The only relevant things the bible had to say that I can think of are that sex is restricted to marriage and the stuff about not spilling seed. So... the reason a Christian couldn't have sex with roadkill is because they aren't married to it or because it can't get pregnant? That's a pretty weak argument. And if there isn't anything else in the Bible about it... then we're left with soemthing like "necrophilic beastiality is gross" - which, while true, is not a strong moral claim and not something Jesus is recorded as having said, believe it or not.
Too frequently people conflate feelings of disgust with proof of unethical/immoral behavior - in this case it happens to work because the act in question is extremely repugnant, but it's also similar to how religious people justify all sorts of bad actions and bigotry even when their own religious dogma is silent or unclear on the morality of specific things.
It is a normal human impulse to want horrible and disgusting things like this to be immoral, but we do need actual, consistent reasons that make sense if we are going to call something immoral.
Secular ethics are better able to handle this because they can easily include things like animal rights extending beyond death - or we can be comfortable saying this is a disgusting and depraved act, worthy of punishment even, that doesn't have moral weight due to the lack of harm or rights violations (if we say animals don't have rights to dignity in death).
A compelling moral argument could be made in the case where they have human sexual partners; I would not consider having sex with road kill to be especially safe from a communicable disease standpoint, and engaging in this behavior endangers the partner’s life.
I’m willing to bet the partner doesn’t know, too.
That said, pretty sure the whole spilling seed things comes from a pretty blatant misunderstanding of genesis 38:8–10. It’s part of the story of Judah and Tamar.
Tamar was given to Er- Judah’s first son, who got offed by god for some undisclosed wickedness.so Judah tells his other son- Onan- to fulfill his obligation as Er’a brother and get Tamar preggers.
The idea here is that Onan would give Er and heir, who would inherit most of Judah’s shit. Onan, being not entirely stupid understood that if Tamar never gave birth to a son, then the greedy fuck would instead inherit Judah’s shit.
So Onan gamed the system with his pull out game, and god was like, “you little shit!” And smoked the greedy fucker. It had nothing to do with Onan pulling out and everything to do with him being greedy. If he tried the rhythm method, he’d have still gotten smoked...
And all this because the best social safety nets for single mother’s they could come up with was “hey. If the brother gets her pregnant, a son could be an heir and then she could take care of everything until the son is old enough!” Because women were property and couldn’t inherit anything.
Leviticus 18:23: “You must not have sexual relations with any animal, defiling yourself with it; a woman must not present herself to an animal to mate with it; that is a perversion.”
To be clear, I'm an atheist and I don't fuck roadkill. But I do think this covers it from a biblical standpoint -- I don't think it makes any exception for dead animals.
Then again, this comes from some of the same passages that contain things modern Christians routinely ignore like "don't eat pork and shellfish" and "don't wear mixed fabrics". If they can ignore those rules, why not the animal-fucking rule as well?
Oh wow sure enough. Huh. Well nice job leviticus. Then the only question is if that applies to dead animals, too, but I'd think it's safe to assume it does. And if the "new covenant" means Christians can ignore that part or not.
Funnily, this drives at a niche thought experiment in vegan circles: "Is eating roadkill vegan?" That is, is veganism not fully a subset of a plant-based diet*? The Vegan Society's definition is roughly what most vegans would go by even if they've never heard it:
To be absolutely clear, no vegan takes this thought experiment seriously. Vegans would prefer the animal be left alone to be consumed by e.g. other animals, and some hypothetical vegan delusional enough to pull that card would be ostracized immediately and plausibly worse than if they'd bought meat to eat for themselves.
* Notably, no, it isn't. Regardless of this particular scenario, there are edge case scenarios you can come up with that vegans would consider vegan but are definitionally not plant-based – because veganism stipulates "as far as is possible and practicable" while a PBD is a bright line.
As others have said, the response is to ask where in the bible it states you should not have sex with roadkill.
When they point to a passage about something they think is related (but obviously cannot be explicitly about roadkill) ask them if they think that having sex with roadkill is morally equivalent to the passage they cited. I would be surprised if they say yes..
If they do say yes, ask if the only reason they do not do these things is because the Bible told them so. If they say no, ask them what the extra moral information they are drawing from is.
Also ask them why atheists are not caught doing this (at a rate higher than religious groups).
And they are both right
Turns out "right" and "wrong" are super tricky issues!
I see people focusing on how the bible addresses this, but I think I understand what the guy is trying to do, so I'll see if I can explain.
I think the logic goes something like, if they [the hypothetical atheist] say that it violates the honor or dignity of the animal, it would be some admission that there is a higher moral code and in a theist's view morals come from God
What's interesting is when you delve into the source of the higher moral code, you come to the conclusion that it must exist outside of a god. Let's concede that there is a god for the sake of the argument, are they someone worth worshipping for being good if they themselves created good? This opens a whole new level of arguments such as do you worship him because you fear reprisal from god? Do you not worry that god could change his mind and make murder legal suddenly, since it is entirely up to him, and would that then make it morally required to do?
Arguably, even if someone was religious, it is not difficult to reason that morality exists separately and empirically, so I don't need a book to tell me that banging roadkill is wrong to know it is wrong.
I get the sentiment. Maybe flag as NSFW though
What's not safe? The profanity, or does the roadkill look too slutty?
It was difficult to masturbate to
I had no difficulties myself, perchance you were suffering from a simple skill issue? Just keep up your training routine, you will get there eventually.
Because it's an animal's corpse in full view which might disturb some people scrolling by. Just because it's not a human doesn't mean it's less of a corpse
Oh, harden the fuck up...
Fuck off
Somebody is ashamed of their dead deer boner.
Haha necrophilia