"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?"
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 🤦🏻♂️
Morally wrong? No. Disgusting and disrespectful? Absolutely.
Morally wrong? No.
Is it not? I’m not religious, but I still find it morally wrong to have sex with something that didn’t consent to it.
Whether the animal is alive or dead, it isn’t able to consent. And since the animal cannot consent, it is therefore rape, making it morally wrong.
I cannot fucking believe I’m going to participate here…
… but when you’re talking to someone about organ donation, you’d typically say something like “You can’t take them with you. That isn’t you anymore. You’re dead. It’s just meat now.”
… and that’s as much as I’m going to say because gross
but I still find it morally wrong to have sex with something that didn’t consent to it.
That makes it immoral in your framework. But you can simply construct one that doesn’t require consent, then it wouldn’t be wrong.
Sure, but I can also construct a moral framework in which it’s ok for me to murder anyone I don’t like because my not-mental-illness-sky-daddy said so.
Moral relativism is bullshit and can be used to justify anything.
Exactly, you can construct what ever moral framework you want to, sky daddy or not.
Also it’s likely to make you sick and then you become a liability to your community = immoral.
The idea that you’re morally obligated to maximize your own health to minimize your burden on society usually doesn’t stand up well to follow up questions.
Realistically, the societal health costs of being obese would be statistically higher than fucking roadkill. I think most people would find themselves pausing before suggesting to an obese person that thier obesity is more morally problematic than fucking roadkill.
There is something to health of an individual in a society and morality, it’s pretty hard for me to ignore that intuition. I just don’t know a real formulation which doesn’t introduce more issues to a system of morality than it resolves? Curious if anyone had one.
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.
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.”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
So … is that what they mean when they say “use every part of the animal”?
You fuck every hole of that animal, otherwise it’s a waste.
Roadkill gangbang it is then
And since its already dead you can even make more holes if you got a knife!
Then it’s a fucking waste of you’re not fucking its waist.
deleted by creator
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.
Well it’s not going to fuck itself, clearly.
As an atheist… the fuck did I just read?
Green is fucking a dead animal afterwards, because it fits greys explanation and is the morally allowed one. That’s why green explicitely needs to msntion that they are proud.
Wtf, do they think necrophilia/bestiality is morally acceptable just because “atheist”?
Because theres no “harm” being done. Its already dead so it doesn’t care, nobody is around together traumatised so they dont care.
Its obviously wrong but without Daddy God telling you its naughty its not so easy to explain why. I kinda want to see the Bible passage that says “dont fuck an animal corpse ye faithfulle”
You just need to point at the reasoning and ask “so it is legal to do that with human too?” Because the reasoning is the same and then ask the people if they can to live in a world where it is moral that someone digs out the person’s mother and do that and put her back.
I am confident that person will realise really quickly why it would be wrong.
For all I care fuck a dead deer. We already slaughter and rape animals on an industrial scale. Pretending to have a morale high ground is a hypocrisy. That’s why I respect vegans or people who strive to become them as they are only ones somehow consistent without being brainwashed by religion and still against this while religious people only think of it as disgusting but happily participate in torture when they don’t see it, because they are brainwashed into stripping other creatures of self.
What does this have to do with atheists?
This is a common “gotcha” argument that floats around the Internet. Essentially, it posits that under the teachings of a given religion (typically Christianity), there is a source of morality which is absolute. That might be the religion’s holy text, deity, or the religious authorities of that religion. In either case, there is one authoritative source which dictates what is morally correct and not correct for the entire universe from now until eternity.
So, the argument goes, if one is to reject the teachings of this or all religions, as irreligious people do, it necessarily means accepting that morality is inherently relative and that there is no absolute standard for mortality that is universally applicable. Therefore, as the argument goes, since one would have to accept that morality is relative, it can be framed relative to anything or nothing, and therefore there is no act which can be immoral relative to any reference frames in a context without religion. And therefore, nothing can be said to be immoral because whether it is moral is relative.
That’s the end of the argument.
To its credit, there isn’t anything wrong with this argument. But I do believe the argument posits that conclusion to be far worse than it really is. Suppose I am an irreligious person. Why is fornication with roadkill immoral? Well, because I think it is. It makes me feel bad and the reward gained isn’t worth the risk (the embarrassment of being seen in the act or catching some disease from it). Therefore I don’t do it. Is it possible that some person could think that it is moral? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn’t matter, because even if relative to one person’s moral compass an act is moral, doesn’t mean that people in general can’t just collectively reject that perspective and condemn the act as a group. In fact, human societies imposing their views on what is and is not moral relative to their own experience describes pretty much the entirety of human history.
Edit: To sum up, my counter argument is that yes, all morality is relative. I don’t see how this is a bad thing. Humans have the ability to reason and reject moral viewpoints which they collectively find repulsive. They do not have to accept it just because someone else thinks that way.
More succinctly, the argument is: without religion, there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others. Acts that have no chance of being discovered would therefore not be subject to any moral judgment and must be permissible, even if clearly wrong.
This is a contradiction with those acts being clearly wrong.
There are multiple ways of attacking this naive argument.
I think there are (at least) two things wrong with the argument:
- it assumes that there can be no source of absolute morality aside from religion, ignoring centuries if not millennia of moral philosophy/ethics (which at least tries to answer the question seriously).
- even if nonreligious sources of morality don’t exist, the argument assumes that religion is a source of absolute morality. since conflicting religions exist, the religionness-property alone is not enough to validate religion as a source of absolute morality.
It doesn’t assume that there is no source of absolute morality. It says that religious people are incorrect to derive their absolute source of mortality from a deity, whether it exists or not
I prefer to frame the argument like this:
“If you found out your God didn’t exist, would you go around killing people? Why not?”
Many would.
At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.
The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.
It sounds an awful lot to me like Christians want to fuck horses. Or at the VERY least, they spend a concerning amount of time thinking about fucking horses.
Well obviously they don’t think about fucking horses, that would just be weird. Children, on the other hand…
I think fornicating with an animal is no worse than voring it, and I know dozens of people who vore animals. Personally, I’m vegan, except for kangaroos and bees.
I’m afraid to ask. Why are kangaroos and bees an exception?
Kangaroos will overpopulate and destroy habitats of other animals through overgrazing if they aren’t hunted. The government sets a hunting quota, and if it isn’t reached, they organise cullings. Culled kangaroos are dumped in ditches or mass graves to rot. It’s better for them to be hunted so someone benefits from all that death.
Bees can fly and make intelligent decisions about where to put their hive, so beekeeping is kinda consensual. As much as a bee can consent, anyway. If a nest location is unsuitable, bees will swarm and find a new nest. They’re used to planning ahead by months and judging local resource conditions. However, some beekeepers clip the queen’s wings to prevent swarming, and I think this is completely unethical and inexcusable. But outside of that, the way beekeepers prevent swarming is by helping their bees and giving them a good life. In fact, taking honey can even be good for the bees! Sometimes bees will fill all of their comb with honey and won’t have enough space to raise eggs. It’s called being honeylogged. Honeylogged hives will swarm to go find a new nest, just cause they had too much honey!
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_meat#Kangatarianism
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/108w7tt/the_great_honey_debate_is_honey_vegan/
deleted by creator
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.
- 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.
deleted by creator
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.
I feel like im having a stroke deciphering those messages in grey.
