Excuse me what
That dirty doe, I’d make her hooves curl.
-
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 😭
wherein we don’t want our corpse fucked.
Hey, speak for yourself. Not everybody wants to have a virgin afterlife.
I hear they make you fuck suicide bombers.
Well, dead guys can’t afford to be picky.
Why not? There are literally billions of ghosts. You’re settling, even in death.
They just told them 72 virgins, guy should have read the fine print
Hooray! I made a brand new sentence!
-
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
So, I suspect that the actual reason that guy doesn’t fuck roadkill is nearly the same reason that I don’t fuck roadkill.
Bold of you to assume that guy doesn’t fuck roadkill.
I am not an expert on every verse of the Bible
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.
If it’s dead, it’s just meat. Loophole. What is the Bible’s stance on lying with a hamburger?
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.
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.
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 GodWhat’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.
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 doing it 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 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.
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.
Have you ever read the bible? You can find something to justify anything, as long as you’re willing to ignore other parts.
RFK is in the chat
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.
