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”
Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists
Submitted 2 weeks ago by 7ai@sh.itjust.works to [deleted]
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/334d514b-0df5-415c-a850-417b205c27da.jpeg
Comments
Thatuserguy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
abc@suppo.fi 2 weeks ago
The difference between those thoughts sort of vague.
87Six@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
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?
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Is it sinning? Is there a specific prohibition in the Bible about dead animals?
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The Bible includes passages that condone murdering a cheating wife, so maybe don’t use that as your yardstick.
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
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.”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."Side note
Lev 11:42-43 states that their god promotes veganism, but not because their lives have just as much meaning as human lives, but because of the exact opposite; their lives are scum. Hot take.:
“Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth—these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination. You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, lest you be defiled by them.”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.”Thatuserguy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I don’t know. Much like most modern day Christians I haven’t actually read it
tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
Morally wrong? No. Disgusting and disrespectful? Absolutely.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
A dildo also isn’t able to consent. A carrot isn’t able to consent and is more alive than the roadkill (since it can still reproduce). Ability to consent is something we require from conscious beings, but we generally don’t require it from objects, and corpses blur the line.
I definitely get the “ick” feeling from necrophilia, so my knee-jerk reaction is to consider it immoral, but it isn’t actually that easy to come up with a consistent justification for that condemnation.
HeHoXa@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
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
remon@ani.social 2 weeks ago
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 wrong.
brown567@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
What if it’s a plant instead? It once was alive, and is incapable of consent. Is it morally wrong to make a dildo out of wood? What about bone?
tias@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
Also it’s likely to make you sick and then you become a liability to your community = immoral.
Windex007@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
kolmaskommentoija@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
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.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
kolmaskommentoija@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
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…
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’ve shot a lot of animals through the years. “Horny” is now how I would describe the aftermath.
Absolute worst time for a typo.
sangeteria@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I think someone was messing with you
kolmaskommentoija@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Oh, I was not even part of that conversation (luckily). I just happened to read it (sadly).
TheFunkyMonk@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
As an atheist… the fuck did I just read?
87Six@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Unholy christian text, avert your eyes from the depravity my dear follower of logic and common sense
Dookieman12@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
“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?”
HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
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!
Dookieman12@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Dang, you got me there. Good thing you replied before my nightly pcp cruise, I could have done a sin
AccoSpoot1@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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!”
evadersnack@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
I don’t pull the lever so there’s no witnesses.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
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.
echodot@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
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
saltesc@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Well it’s not going to fuck itself, clearly.
Rivermoonwolf@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You clearly haven’t watched enough hentai
GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
(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.
ddplf@szmer.info 2 weeks ago
Not what this is about, it being dangerous does not make it immoral, those are two completely unrelated planes.
GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
BigBrainBrett2517@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
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.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
My body my choice /s
r1veRRR@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
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.
unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
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.
sangeteria@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
What if you cooked or pasteurized the roadkill
malformed3955@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Is it immoral to fuck a cheeseburger if you still eat it?
mr_satan@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
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.
sleet01@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
It’s immoral because this is how you get an RFK Jr. It’s disgusting for the same reason.
mr_satan@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Morality doesn’t even matter here. The act is just disgusting. I wouldn’t be surprised that such reaction somewhat evolutionary.
remon@ani.social 2 weeks ago
So … is that what they mean when they say “use every part of the animal”?
FatVegan@leminal.space 2 weeks ago
You fuck every hole of that animal, otherwise it’s a waste.
onnekas@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
And since its already dead you can even make more holes if you got a knife!
Agent641@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Roadkill gangbang it is then
Wataba@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Is it moral to continue being part of an organization that rapes children?
Dont let them play distraction tactics.
remon@ani.social 2 weeks ago
What does the US government have to do with this?
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The church.
chunes@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Why are there so many posts about necrophilic bestiality lately
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Had to finish all the conversations about beans first
flamingos@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Does this logic also apply to human corpses? Like if I go to a morgue…
decolo@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
corpses are dead and cannot receive a moral injury.
(setting aside the potential to cause a plague outbreak, which is a morality issue IMO)
KernelTale@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
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.
RedIce25@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Wtf, do they think necrophilia/bestiality is morally acceptable?
yermaw@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
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 a corpse ye faithfulle”
Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
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.
BladeFederation@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
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. 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 gap 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.
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.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
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.
abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Why does “roadkill roleplay” somehow manage to sound worse than actually fucking roadkill…
humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Do you have a plan to accurately replicate the aroma and muscular tension of a deceased roadkussy with early rigormortus?
5ha99y@lemmus.org 2 weeks ago
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.
groet@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
- If you find the dead deer and had no influence in any way on its death, fucking it is moral (or not immoral)
- If you killed the deer (accidentally) it is only moral to fuck the deer if you are a person that wouldn’t fuck a dead deer. Because if you are, you were subconsciously less likely to avoid killing the deer.
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
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
Pacattack57@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
KernelTale@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
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.
MasterNerd@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
No, we often have to proscribe 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?
hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
You’re talking about the legal system. Our laws are pragmatic, and account for things like lying.
OPs post is a philosophical question. The premise is whether it’s moral for you to fuck roadkill based on whether you killed it or now. Concerns like lying to a courtroom or to the people around you, are out of scope.
So philosophically:
them doing it intentionally and claiming it was an accident
This would be immoral, since they still killed the animal to fuck it.
echodot@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Yeah because the reason I’m not having it off with roadkill is due to my religion.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 weeks ago
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.
Vespair@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Such as if you paid a friend to run it over.
That’s still you committing a roadkill, just second hand.
ConstantPain@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
robocall@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
What does this have to do with atheists?
NateNate60@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
ccryx@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
I think there are (at least) two things wrong with the argument:
Chozo@fedia.io 2 weeks ago
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.
FishFace@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
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.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 weeks ago
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.
catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
It’s not about the argument. It’s about portraying atheists as people who fuck dead animals. As with every religious argument it’s completely founded in bad faith whataboutism because the religious know they don’t have any actual arguments to make. The goal is noise so that you can’t hear about the absolutely moronic basis of their beliefs.