Yeah because the reason I’m not having it off with roadkill is due to my religion.
Nothing prevent someone to fuck a corpse, even religion or the faith in a god, if they have the drive to do it.
That’s the point that should be made. There’s a difference between being able to do it and wanting to do it.
The one time I saw a post about bestiality and necrophilia, someone was saying it is common for hunters to fuck their kills, because the adrenaline of the hunt and all, makes them horny and crazy. No reason to bring it up here, though, I just want you all to suffer with me.
I’ve shot a lot of animals through the years. “Horny” is now how I would describe the aftermath.
Mostly it’s mild annoyance because now I have to clean it, which is a PITA.
Yeah, my family has hunters, and none of them would in no way describe it as “horny”. Though they kill for food, so I do not know how trophy hunter people are. And if someone kills just for their enjoyment, well… they are already kind of messed up, really. I do not think it is common, but I would also not be surprised if someone…
The workers that process pigs from alive to dead, tend to be abussive to the pigs as well.
And research I have seen before, showed that sadists often get this hig, or tingle.
That is very reminiscent of someone getting their rocks off.
Someone making people cry, might actually be getting off it.
Unfortunate typo lol
Well I have to lave it.
I think someone was messing with you
Oh, I was not even part of that conversation (luckily). I just happened to read it (sadly).
No, we often have to prescribe morality broadly, because engaging with the nuance with every instance is not really viable on a societal level. What are the chances that someone engaging with roadkill on the side of the road actually accidentally killed the animal, versus them doing it intentionally and claiming it was an accident? What would happen if this behaviour was normalized?
I agree, but I’ll also say it’s immoral if you have a conflict of interest. Such as if you paid a friend to run it over.
I view fucking an animal and voring an animal the same way: If it was going to die anyway, it’s okay. If you’re paying for it to die needlessly, you’re evil.
Such as if you paid a friend to run it over.
That’s still you committing a roadkill, just second hand.
Sure, but the bloodmouths get all huffy when I call them animal murderers, and say “Well I only paid a supermarket to pay a distributor to pay a slaughterhouse to kill them, so it doesn’t count”.
Meat consumption definitely requires death and meat consumers are absolutely the reason for said death.
Granted it isn’t murder, because that has additional meaning that requires personhood, but it is absolutely still death, no question.
Yeah. Personally, I don’t believe in personhood, it seems poorly defined. Actually, there’s this game I really like the way it tackles personhood. You play as a robot, and you get to debate philosophy with a computer. The computer probes you on your beliefs, and at one point tries to ad absurdum you into agreeing that frogs are people. I forget exactly what the arguments are, especially since you can choose a few different things to argue. But it’s really neat, because you’re a robot debating what it means to be a person; who we as a society should extend personhood to. Personally, I said that frogs are people in My first playthrough. And in the sequel, there’s this throwaway joke about how the “are frogs people” debate topic has been banned from the online forums. And I think that’s great! Evidently, the NPCs really got into the weeds on that one!
So yeah, I think personhood is an iffy construct and I don’t personally identify with it. I’m no person. I reject the very system that would grant Me special status for conforming to its notions of political life. So I don’t think murder has much to do with personhood.
Oh, and historically, “person” just means a human body. You know, “it’s nice to meet you in person.” Letters and phone calls don’t count, because as minds sending messages over the wire, we’re not people. People are human bodies, according to our vestigial linguistics. What a load of bullshit.
I understand your philosophical argument, but imo the moment you compare running over a frog to hitting a child with your car, personhood becomes real obvious.
And frankly, I don’t feel the need for some air-tight philosophical package to claim it. Species-based tribalism is, in fact, sufficient cause to me.
I mean there’s a lot of arguments for the act to be wrong that have nothing to do with any god. Most believers will reach for consequence or virtue themselves.
- Allowing people to fuck animals, alive or dead, may normalize the behavior. Fucking animals is a high risk activity. Allowing you to fuck an animal may indirectly cause someone to get sick. You could even become patient zero for a zoonotic plague, in which case you could hurt a lot of people.
- Behavior so far outside the shared moral framework is corrosive. In doing somethig so radically taboo you damage the fabric of society. We, as inhabitants and builders of society, have a moral obligation to uphold rules that allow polite society to function. Rules like “don’t fuck dead animals”.
- Do you really wanna be the kinda guy that can honestly say he’s fucked a dead deer? Engaging in deviant behavior erodes your dignity and makes it more likely for you to continue to behave antisocially in the future.
Thisbcommebt was a waste of time but I had fun writing it
We, as inhabitants and builders of society, have a moral obligation to uphold rules that allow polite society to function.
Why, if there’s no objective moral good?
Because space is cool and we’re never gonna get to dyson spheres by pontificating on the morality of fucking an animal’s corpse.
Just a genuinely fucking stupid topic. Apparently I was right, there are people who need Christianity to keep them from fucking dead animals. You’d think that declaring themselves atheist means that they reasoned themselves into the position but no, no for these people ‘atheist’ means free ticket to fuck dead animals with no shame.
I’m not speaking about fucking animal corpses. I just think that we need philosophically to have an objective moral good (and we can have that without believing in a God).
- This means that if we find a cure for contagious diseases then fucking dead animals becomes okay
- “Shared moral framework” sounds like a fancy word with no actual logical backing behind it
- How do we decide which deviant behaviour is acceptable and which is unacceptable
2, The shared moral framework is how we know that it’s rude to pop an airphone in and start playing a youtube video while someone is talking to you.
3, I’ll be the only one deciding if you refuse to participate.
Could you decide that having sex with the same gender, or with a different race, is wrong then if it’s just whatever you, or mainstream society, thinks? Those things were definitely condemned by the mainstream once, but there’s actually nothing wrong with them.
This means that if we find a cure for contagious diseases then fucking dead animals becomes okay
Yes. It’s ok. It says a LOT about the person doing it though.
Just like you CAN stand on the street corner and shout about flat earth and aliens. But it says a lot about you and we judge you for it.
And let’s be real. If you’re okay with intentionally killing a cow to then cut it up, jam it in your face hole and swallow, how can you be against accidentally killing a deer and not cutting it up, and using its hole instead. Let’s be consistent folks.
(sigh) I can’t believe I have to say this twice on the same site.
Fucking a dead deer is just as immoral and dangerous as fucking a live one. Their bodies will still be host to a variety of potentially dangerous infectious diseases that may cross the species divide and become human-transmissible. This is a threat to your own health as well as public health.
For the love of any god that still might care, do not fuck roadkill. We do NOT need another HIV.
Not what this is about, it being dangerous does not make it immoral, those are two completely unrelated planes.
It just feels wrong to violate a deceased animal. Poor thing already meet a terrible fate, and you will violate it’s corpse on top of that.
Same for fucking roast chicken/food porn.
Fucking animal corpses is wrong. Chewing them up and turning them into poop is right!
Not saying eating meat is wrong, it’s just a funny to “digest” what a pretty normal use of an animal corpse actually is.
Immoral: morally wrong, or outside society’s standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behaviour
I argue that with the knowledge of it being dangerous and potentially a serious risk factor for an epidemic or pandemic it is indeed immoral. Not to mention that it is probably, if not definitely, outside most societies standards of acceptable.
Fucking hell, by that logic teaching religion is immoral along with sex education. Get with the programme and enjoy the parameters of the initial premise.
MUNCH DOWN ON THAT CAN OF WORMS, COMMENT SECTION, YOU FUCKS
Well that escalated quickly!
You need a break, buddy
The “as well as public health” bit is the important one.
Humans are a social species. Most human infectious diseases require social contact in order to spread.
We lived through 2020. I think that fucking dead deer is unethical, for the same reason that not getting vaccinated and not quarantining is unethical. It is a hazard to yourself AND others.
"Look, I’m not saying you should drive around at night time with your high beams on looking for deer to run over. That would be wrong.
BUT
If you’re just out, driving along, minding your own business, and you accidentally hit a deer or maybe you find one that’s already been run over, well… I mean, no sense in letting perfectly good deer poon go to waste, right? Like, if it’s still warm and everything, it’d almost be rude NOT to fuck it, know what I mean?"
Yea untill accidently one time your driving on pcp and you hit a pedestrian thinking it’s a deer and boom you have not just necrophilia charges but rape charges because he wasn’t quite dead when you started.
Checkmate atheists!
Dang, you got me there. Good thing you replied before my nightly pcp cruise, I could have done a sin
I avoid two things while on PCP, orangutans and driving.
You never know when it’s actually just a retarded kid.
Does this logic also apply to human corpses? Like if I go to a morgue…
corpses are dead and cannot receive a moral injury.
(setting aside the potential to cause a plague outbreak, which is a morality issue IMO)
you could morally treat dead human relatives and friends as a shared property. Desecrating property aka. vandalism is not allowed. Every living owner of said property would then have to agree, which would have to be decided by let’s say guardians of a corpse selected in the body’s last will. Out of practicality it would be opt-in with following examples: I consent (giving rights to state), I don’t (default, giving rights to the people), I will leave the decision up to <name(s)>. Not consenting option would be almost impossible to clear as there would always be somebody wanting their shared property to not be desecrated unless outside of civilization where nobody else can exercise their rights in a arbitrary time window. It is an distinction between morality and practicality. While fucking a corpse by itself would mean nothing others would be still deeply mentally hurt, but this legal framework would clearly set boundaries of this is not your fucking business.
Fucken christ can you imagine this guy answering the Trolley Problem?
“Okay so there’s a trolley”
“I fuck the trolley!”
“No, wait- so there’s a trolley and it’s gonna run over either one person or three-”
“Oh! I wait for it to run everyone over and then I fuck their lifeless corpses!”
Since we brought up the trolley problem why isn’t the solution ever to pull the lever back and forth so the rails are in a state where it might derail the trolley entirely?
Kill the goddamn trolley, then fuck the trolley, I guess.
The trolley problem is one of those philosophical questions where you’re not supposed to actually think about it in the context of a real world situation. Because the obvious solution to the trolley problem is to yell “look out for the speeding trolley, why you standing still in the road you idiot?”
But generally they don’t accept that answer.
I’m convinced that one of the main reasons that people don’t really like philosophy is because it’s full of got you trick questions like that
Well the trolley problem is at its heart a metaphor for the exercise of power and the responsibility of decision makers. It works fine for that.
However as a meme on the internet its always more of a cute ‘got you’ question which is why its worth murdering the metaphor. And the trolley too. Metaphorically.
This is similar to Michael’s solution to it in The Good Place. If you haven’t watched it, it’s basically a Moral Philosophy course, with hilarious and beautiful examples. Also with giant, flying cocktail shrimp.
I don’t pull the lever so there’s no witnesses.
Why are there so many posts about necrophilic bestiality lately
We finished all the conversations about beans
Well it’s not going to fuck itself, clearly.
I feel like im having a stroke deciphering those messages in grey.
Don’t Buddhists use a similar loop hole to eat meat? In theory, they shouldn’t be killing and eating animals because of the non-violence. But if they launder it via some other hunter, that’s fine.
Well if you ask that to an atheist than because there’s no god that moral injustice no longer exists because an atheist sees that moral injustice as a religious moral injustice that only God believers see. The religious moral injustice being disrespecting life after death.
☝🏻 However, anyone sane would see an animal alive or dead and know that it’s wrong to fuck an animal.
Omg you may be right… Is there really no other source of the stigma other than personal faith-based beliefs?.. The social moral rule not to fuck a dead animal clearly stems from the religious one, and/or diseases contracted resulting in a rule based on the need for good health… But “Don’t, you might die” is far different from the more common “Don’t, it’s wrong”… Wow I spent far too long analysing this
Ikr it’s pretty fucked up. It took me a day to come to that conclusion. I was like they have to know that fucking an animal is wrong nmw, in any state of being, so what else could there be and then I’m like you know what there’s a disconnect here because of the no God thing so what does it matter if there’s no God because of its no longer a sin to fuck an animal and to them that would mean any state of being so like… I guess in a fucked up way yeah it would come down to the semantics of the situation. That is, if you were to equate basic human common sense, to religious morals and guidance on how to exist as a better being rather than being decisive.
Like it’s fucked up but I can get where that individual drew that conclusion from; Yet, I’m still hoping no matter what that they know that fucking an animal in any state of being, is wrong.
Man this is so fucked up to talk about 🤦🏻♂️
The disconnect here is that many atheists were former theists so their core beliefs are rooted in religion and they have difficulty separating the two.
The reality is that for atheists there is no such thing as morality. Things are not inherently right or wrong. A theists might ask if it’s morally wrong to have sex with roadkill but a true atheist would simply ask why would you even do that? Atheism is understanding that actions don’t really have meaning they only have consequences. You can choose to do anything but you have to reckon with those consequences.
This is where theists get hung up. “If nothing matters why wouldn’t I just rob everyone I meet and have sex with everything?” They can’t fathom the idea of deciding for themselves because they would have to accept that no matter the outcome they made the choice and can’t shift blame to the man in the clouds.
In short it’s not wrong to fuck a dead deer, it’s just gross.
