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 pussy. 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.”
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
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.
I grew up in a very cultist region, and I remember having similar arguments at 8-13 years old already. Well, not about corpse fucking but murder and such. When I made the same argument, “I’m currently murdering as many people as I want which is 0”, the holier than thou counter-argument always was “well that’s only because you grew up in a Christian culture even if you’re now deciding to not believe!” Which often wasn’t just that, it often went further into pretty racist assumptions that if I was like a “wild human living somewhere in Africa”, I’d be murdering and eating human meat… That tells quite a lot about the whole love-thy-neighbor act I think.
And this wasn’t somewhere in the 70’s, it was in the 2000-2010.
That’s the thing that bothers me about religious people, the only thing stopping the lot of them from committing heinous crimes is the fear of eternal damnation. It’s like they have no morals at all.
Some of them don’t. Even facing “eternal damnation”, they’ll still commit terrible crimes.
If it’s actually stopping them, I will support their continuing to believe.
Recently, I was introduced to Wikipedia’s List of individual cats.
Among them is Jack, who was lost in luggage by American Airlines. He was found 61 days later, still alive, dehydrated and malnourished and beyond recovery, Jack was put down.
That’s one incident. In nature, shit like that happens every single day.
I don’t think there’s a god, especially the Greek notion of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.
But if one did exist, to us, it is a monster…
…and to It, we are irrelevant.
Are you familiar with the heresy of the Cathars? The God of the Old Testament is actually evil, and the God of the New is the ‘good’ guy. Cathars were burned at the stake, because Catholics didn’t like the implication that their version of God might actually be evil.
There are various heresies like this, including at least one where God and Satan are literally the same dude, just wearing a different name tag. Shit gets fascinating. Obviously, still nuts, but fascinating.
Debates were way easier for religious folks when they could just burn the other side
“Lean not upon your own understanding” is a goated debate strat tbh
Getting any part of one’s body inside a dead carcass has nothing to do with morals…. It’s fucking DISGUSTING! Remember that piece of meat is currently being eaten and digested by billions of bacterias. All eating and defecating everywhere inside and out… flies have burrowed eggs in it, worms are crawling everywhere, and all this is releasing toxic gases from all the rotting and digesting…. Also all the sphincters have released so the bowels are leaking out …! Nope…nope….nope….!!!
Remember that piece of meat is currently being eaten and digested by billions of bacterias. All eating and defecating everywhere inside and out… flies have burrowed eggs in it, worms are crawling everywhere, and all this is releasing toxic gases from all the rotting and digesting
A proper Appalachia Orgy
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.
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.
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
artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it’s not rape
Yeah I really wish this was tagged as NSFW at the very least…
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 just don’t want maggots on my dick. Simple.
Coward
Excuse me what
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.
How do you fuck your deer then?
First I fawn over them…
Depends on which end got damaged the most from the truck.
It’s not morally wrong, it’s just disgusting. And it is morally wrong to fuck a human corpse because the corpse belongs to the family of the deceased, or the state if no family. It’s not morally OK to fuck other people’s property, or to distress them (in the case of the family) by doing so. Just like how it’s OK to fuck your own couch, but not your parent’s one.
Dammit, now I need to carry around a little note in my wallet, so that violent busybodies don’t steal my corpse from the necrophiliacs who found it fair and square.
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)
It can’t consent when it’s alive either.
I’d say rape is the violation of consent, which a dead body has none of.
Sure, “an atheist” might say that. Being an atheist doesn’t stop you from making hilariously bad arguments.
Putting aside the “why the hell would you want to do that?” aspect, let’s assume that you’re the guy in the picture and you do. It would be morally wrong even if the deer were alive because a non-human animal cannot give consent. It’s wrong after it’s dead because it’s disrespectful to the deer, which was once a living being. Don’t need religion to understand that.
It’s wrong after it’s dead because it’s disrespectful to the deer, which was once a living being.
But people eat the deer with zero moral qualms. Are you really going to tell me that yanking something’s skin off, cracking its bones, gouging out its internal organs, and processing its meat into sausages for roasting is a sign of respect?
If the animal represents your only available food source, consuming it is required to continue living.
You aren’t going to die if you fail to rape a dead animal, but you might if you fail to eat one.
For how many people do you think animals are the only viable food source? How many in this thread? Like 10%? Sure hope anyone with options therefore doesn’t…
is it true that anyone rich enough to eat deer meat need it, or any kind of meat at that, to survive?
I just thought it was really funny to read “rich enough to eat deer meat” because deer is pretty much the only thing that the broke rednecks in my neighborhood eat!
I don’t think you’ll get consensus on the “it’s disrespectful” reasoning. It might not be inherently religious (although most religions I’m aware of expand upon it to specific procedures or prohibitions) but “respecting” the vessel which once contained a life seems very much tied up in sentimentality and woowoo more than sound reasoning or pragmatism. It’s just engrained into social norms at this point but, purely speculation, burial and burning were probably done for the same reasons other animals do it - you don’t attract other predators or suffer the scent of death inviting maggots, flies and other vectors for disease. It probably became more ritualistic and religious over time. If I’m dead someone can dangle my lads from their rearview like a pair of fuzzy dice for all I care - which will be not at all because I’m dead.
well, why is it we shouldn’t disrespect? don’t get me wrong, i agree that we should respect, but many customs of respect like this one seem to have origins nearly as arbitrary as faith
I mean there are evolutionary reasons most humans feel disgust towards things, in this case mainly the spread of disease. If none of these were problems, there isn’t really a good moral case to be made against it unless you believe in some sort of afterlife.
