-
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 mean… let’s be honest.
Virgins suck in the sack.
Actually. They probably don’t even suck. They’re just boring.
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.
Hooray! I made a brand new sentence!
-
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 removed. 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.
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.
“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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.”
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
[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.
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.
Since the deer is dead, it can’t consent, which is rape. That is what an atheist would say.
Good Christian: Yeah but why didn’t your atheist god tell you not to fuck it?
(Starts dry humping the dead creature)
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.
Do you hear how ridiculous you sound?
“Somebody stop him, he RAPED A TREE!”
It can’t consent when it’s alive either.
Sure, “an atheist” might say that. Being an atheist doesn’t stop you from making hilariously bad arguments.
I’d say rape is the violation of consent, which a dead body has none of.
RFK is in the chat
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.
I’m saying that moralilty is just another word for Empathy.
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
How do you fuck your deer then?
First I fawn over them…
Depends on which end got damaged the most from the truck.
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.
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.
Yeah I really wish this was tagged as NSFW at the very least…
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.
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.
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.
Unless you think the cows are consenting, forced impregnation is definitionally rape.
artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it’s not 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.
–
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
