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.
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.
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 🤦🏻♂️
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.
Why are there so many posts about necrophilic bestiality lately
We finished all the conversations about beans
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 feel like im having a stroke deciphering those messages in grey.
Is it moral to continue being part of an organization that rapes children?
Dont let them play distraction tactics.
What does the US government have to do with this?
The church.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t pull the lever so there’s no witnesses.
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
- 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
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.
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.
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).
Instead of having to contemplate about fucking some poor, deceased deer…how about I dress up as a deer, and you all fuck me instead?
It’s more ethical that way.
Do you have a plan to accurately replicate the aroma and muscular tension of roadkussy with early rigormortus?
I already got the aroma of roadkill down 👍
Why does “roadkill roleplay” somehow manage to sound worse than actually fucking roadkill…
“Said her name was Bambi and I said, “Well that’s a coincidence darlin’, ‘cause I was just thinkin’ about skinnin’ you like a deer.” Well she smiled, had about as much teeth as a Jack-O-Lantern, And I went on to tell her how I would wear her face like a mask As I do my little kooky dance. And then she told me to shush. I guess she could sense my desperation. 'Course, it’s hard to hide a hard-on when you’re dressed like Minnie Pearl.”
-Ballad from the late 20th century
Because I’m an ex /r CursedComments regular.
It not being immoral has nothing to do with it being dangerous and disgusting. Asking about morality of fucking roadkill is basic strawman does nothing to checkmate anything.
It’s immoral because this is how you get an RFK Jr. It’s disgusting for the same reason.
Morality doesn’t even matter here. The act is just disgusting. I wouldn’t be surprised that such reaction somewhat evolutionary.
That being said I don’t think morality even applies here. That’s why I originally worded my comment: not immoral. An act can be neither in which case it’s pointless to argue any side.
(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.
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.
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
You need a break, buddy
Well that escalated quickly!
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.
This just puts the image in my head of a religious person seeing someone having sex with a dead deer on the side of the road and their first reaction being “Oh my god he’s sinning!” and not “Why the fuck is that freak fucking a dead deer on the side of the road”
The difference between those thoughts is sort of vague.
the difference is one requires a prerequisite (religion) while the other one doesn’t require anything except…idk, common sense, or having more than one brain cell?
Is it sinning? Is there a specific prohibition in the Bible about dead animals?
In a sense, yes.
Leviticus 5:2 condones touching a dead creature:
“‘Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether it is the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and he is unaware of it, he also shall be unclean and guilty.”Relevant note that doesn't include deer
Leviticus 11:29-31 states that “creeping” creatures result in uncleanliness, but only until evening, so unless “evening” is an abstract term meaning “nearing the end of your life”, you’re only gross until tomorrow:
“‘These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and the large lizard after its kind; the gecko, the monitor lizard, the sand reptile, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are unclean to you among all that creep. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening.”And the passages that mention sex with a creature, regardless of a heartbeat, include Leviticus 18:23. And as a bonus, their god is said to be talking to Moses with the intention of passing the message to all Israelites, it also slanders men being gay in the previous line (but as this was also to be delivered to women, I guess this implies rather that sexual acts suitable for a woman partner should never be done with a male partner.) :
“22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.”It seems to say you would be unclean to touch a dead animal. That means you need to take a bath and wait until evening to be clean again. No harm, no foul.
And Christians can always pull out their get out of jail card, “Jesus fulfilled the law so OT rules don’t apply.”
So I think only true Christians could morally have sex with a dead deer.
It seems to say you would be unclean to touch a dead animal. That means you need to take a bath and wait until evening to be clean again.
I think this is before the invention of soap, so being ritually unclean meant that other people aren’t allowed to touch you for a certain number of days (and then you need to offer a sacrifice in the temple or something), or in some cases like touching a leper, the priest has to examine you at the end of the unclean period to declare you clean.
Note that 18:22 is heavily debated because its been translated as male, but more nuanced translations decribe same-sex rape, not necessarily homosexuality as whole.
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/
The very fact of the whole text being:
- In my skeptical opinion, likely invented by ramblings of a nutter, and the book was written as an attempt to write history by those who listened to the town crazy;
- (Western editions) Translated multiple times - (roughly) Hebrew ‘Torah’ (the ‘Nevi’im’ and ‘Ketuvim’ came later) to Greek ‘Septuagint’ then to Old Latin ‘Vetus Latina’, then revised using the ‘Septuagint’ and translated directly from the ‘Hebraica Veritas’ to make the ‘Vulgate’, and into modern languages (true English, French, and German originally) ‘Bible’ by multiple groups;
- As well as many translators there are countless individuals who either evangelise or simply read for themselves, each with their own unique interpretation of every verse;
makes me suspect that every single translation has some error, and because I cannot read Hebrew I’ll never truly know. Even what used to be the most trusted digital translator, Google Translate, now uses AI to interpret and adjust the wording, making the translate service more useless than it already was. FWIW, whenever I need to consult the English Bible I prefer the King James Version (1769 revision, not the NKJV), not only because I love the language style, and that it is in a language I can read, but it is translated into English from Hebrew (Old Testament), Latin (Apocrypha) and Greek (New Testament), and in my opinion if there are deviations from the Hebrew ‘Masoretic Text’, the KJV will have less errors than others.
A good read of the women involved in one translation: Paula and the Latin Vulgate
It’s heavily disputed whether those translations are more accurate rather than just reading nuance where none exists. Some translations also interpret it as specifically about pedophilia, but again, they may or may not be more accurate than simply translating it as all M/M sex.
Meh, even if taken literally from the king james translation, doesn’t matter much since it’s old testament. One can shift the meaning to whatever they want.
The Bible includes passages that condone murdering a cheating wife, so maybe don’t use that as your yardstick.
I don’t know. Much like most modern day Christians I haven’t actually read it
I’m going to take this shit post seriously for some reason. Sometimes people confuse morality with practicality. Or associate ick factor with immorality, or even things associated with something gross with immorality. Yet, they are all related for a reason.
We have an inherent revulsion to fucking dead things. This is because dead things spread diseases, and therefore we instinctually avoid it. Also culturally it is disrespectful and gross. Practically, it is best to decide as a society to not allow that, and shun people who do it. If you practice safe sex with the corpse, and nobody legitimately knows or is hurt by this action, is it morally acceptable? Maybe, but what are truly the chances of a freak who would fuck a corpse wearing a condom because he’s concerned for future sexual partners? If he is a necrophiliac, what are the chances that this wouldn’t extend to killing to achieve this, or stealing bodies, which would be traumatic for the people related to the people whose bodies he acquired? If he is wired differently and doesn’t get this ick factor from fucking dead things the way regular humans do, either his brain is a little messed up, he has gone through some traumatic,personality changing experiences, or he has specifically sought our to desensitize himself from shame. Do you want to trust such a person in society? Or correct deviant behaviors before they become a problem. There’s a lot more context than a specific example in a vacuum.
Incidentally, this is what some people don’t get about pedophilia/related philias. An ex girlfriend of mine once had a discussion with me that people were obsessed with age gaps online. While true, I didn’t agree with her because she went on to say “when I was a teenager, I remember going to a concert for my favorite band and wishing I could fuck the lead singer. If that had happened, I would have been happy and still talk about it today, not yap about how it was abuse.” And yeah, maybe, in that instance, it would have been fine. Or maybe he would have pulled a Steve Tyler and became her legal guardian so he could fuck her all the time and been abusive and controlling, and derailed her future by taking her out of school and on tour with him and getting her pregnant then leaving. Is it POSSIBLE to have someone underage consent? Maybe (and a big maybe at that) but really what are the chances that it is a completely healthy and fulfilling relationship that will be positive for both people in the long run? Stigmatizing inappropriate age gap relationships only benefits society. 18 is an arbitrary line, to be sure. Is 17 or 16 OK? Multiple developed countries think so. 15? Not so sure, maybe focus on the actual size of the age gap there, which most countries do. But at some point we have to draw the line as a society to just say “no, sexual activity with this child is not allowed” to not allow for abuse of trust, because kids don’t know what is best for them and what they want yet. And is it then morally wrong to violate what society has decided the arbitrary line is? Yes, at least in most cases. Legal does not mean moral, but to completely disregard society is not a way humans are meant to live.
This nuance is hard for people to understand. Even in organized religion, where God presumably has all the “right” answers, there is not always an absolute answer. In Christianity, Paul for example writes to focus on doing what’s right for the most amount of people, and not flexing your “rights” on others even if it bothers others. Mysteriously, this part of the bible tends to not be remembered, and religious people instead veer towards absolutism.
As an atheist… the fuck did I just read?
Unholy christian text, avert your eyes from the depravity my dear follower of logic and common sense
Please don’t fuck dead things. You will likely get an infection. No one else wants to put up with your infected silly bad decisions. That’s the morality of it.
What if you cooked or pasteurized the roadkill
Consult several physicians
I think you spelled psychiatrists wrong there
Is it immoral to fuck a cheeseburger if you still eat it?
Really, as long as it doesn’t go to waste. As long as a consenting adult eats the cheeseburger, you’re in the clear. You could probably get away with composting it too I guess.
