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
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
Excuse me what
That’s THE BEST ?
Fucking hell…
I mean they did say best logical fallacy. And their logic is indeed fallacious.
And maybe even fellatious depending on the carcass.
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.
I think the hypothetical doesn’t have much to do with morality. There is no moral reason not to. But there are other reasons.
Actions don’t have to be immoral for them to be judged or questioned. People who’d have sex with a dead deer aren’t hurting anyone, but they are making choices that would ordinarily lead one to be sceptical of them as a person and be weary of other choices they might have made you are not aware of and if the choices they will make in the future.
wary*
Is that the best argument you’ve got, my god fearing friend?
^(non-native speakers are gone non-native speak. Appreciate the correction, but people make mistakes on the internet all the time. It’s quite a job to take on to correct all of them.)
That dirty doe, I’d make her hooves curl.
It also cannot consent, and I am big into consent, though
Douglas Adams actually explored this. In The Restaurant at The End of the Universe, Arthur is waited upon by a sentient bovine creature whose species wants to be eaten and spend their lives conditioning themselves to be as succulent as possible.
Arthur was preeetty fuckin weirded out by that.
Yeah, is it consent if you are genetically forced to be consenting?
I loved that part of the book, fellow hitchhiker.
Is it consent if everything is deterministic and free will is an illusion???
Okay, I am going to go drink some whiskey
genetically forced
Dude is deep as the 10th circle of hell.
Cuz like are they forced? They were spawned by the infinitely possible universe. Implying that free will itself is fundamentally constrained by biology, or perhaps the deterministic nature of the universe itself.
It reminds me of the lyrics,
Are we not good enough?
Are we not brave enough?
Is the violence in our nature
Just the image of our maker?
Now you are quoting Rise Against!? Are you me?
<3
I don’t think objects without a subjective experience need to give or are capable of giving consent. I don’t think anyone needs to ask their fleshlight for consent, e.g.
If it were a living deer, then it would need to give consent but be unable to. (I think it’s reasonable to say any supposed communications from the deer is less trustworthy than “Facilitated Communication”, and not sufficient consent.)
I mean, it’s not like we care about consent when it comes to the animals we eat, or whose secretions we drink. Weird to draw the line at sex/rape, but not at killing/murder.
Weird fact, killing in movies will give you a PG-13 rating, but nudity will land you in the land of R-Rated
deleted by creator
It’s like that book is used to engineer the culture, which is our operating system. Hey, lemme just make sure of something; are you aware that the New Testament describes a decentralized autonomous organization of secret police at an eighth grade reading level? The shit that’s encoded in that good book is what makes the police state about two thousand years old. But you know Trump and Epstein and the Clintons and Hunter Biden are all cops, right? You’re not retarded because you are so attached to your identity that you can’t see what is intentionally “hidden?”
“Occult” literally just means “hidden.” What don’t you know?
deleted by creator
Listen, momma ain’t right all of the time. I KNOW it’s a time to open a case of whoop-ass and my ass knows I can do it! I can do it all night long! But that’s just what the prophets say.
Well the living deer run too fast.
I don’t think so
The argument the joker Garfield is trying to make is that, in a standard proof format, can you define your ethics in an axiomatic system? He thinks that’s important, and it is to a degree, but our intuition also tells us details about reality that our pure logic brain is ignorant of. Pure logic makes the Borg. Pure intuition stays in Eden, being as Lilith was. Logic and intuition together make the Federation of Star Trek.
The most baffling aspect of religious-thinking, to me, is the argument that “if you don’t have these texts telling you what is right and what is wrong,” how do you know / from where do you learn? It’s pretty goddamned easy, friend. I don’t treat others in ways that I wouldn’t want to be treated. I don’t need anyone telling me to act this way.
-
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 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.
deleted by creator
“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.
