Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists

a month ago by 7ai to c/lemmyshitpost

robocall 71 points a month ago

What does this have to do with atheists?

path: 0 24774380, hotness: undefined, score: 71, children: 19

NateNate60 90 points a month 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.

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.

path: 0 24774380 24774598, hotness: undefined, score: 90, children: 17

ccryx 21 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24775250, hotness: undefined, score: 21, children: 4

PlasmaSnake 13 points a month ago

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?"

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24775250 24775309, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 2

Frozengyro 5 points a month ago

Many would.

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24775250 24775309 24776633, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1

NateNate60 4 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24775250 24775352, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

Chozo 16 points a month 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.

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24775192, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 2

UntimedDiffusion 14 points a month ago

Well obviously they don't think about fucking horses, that would just be weird. Children, on the other hand...

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24775192 24775887, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 0

kkj 4 points a month ago

Tons of other violent crimes, too. Asking someone why they don't commit mass rape if they don't think they're being watched is wild.

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24775192 24781505, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

FishFace 10 points a month 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.

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24776127, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 5

NateNate60 3 points a month ago

I would argue that the assertion "there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others" is absolutely 100% correct. People's moral compasses are informed by what the people around them think and culture that they live in. I just argue that there's nothing wrong with that.

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24776127 24786499, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 4

FishFace 1 point a month ago

Is it wrong to murder a loner with no family if you don't make them suffer?

Most people don't actually believe the boo-hurrah theory of ethics (as it's called by its detractors).

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24776127 24786499 24786683, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 3

Grail 0 points a month 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.

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24774860, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 2

7ai 2 points a month ago

I'm afraid to ask. Why are kangaroos and bees an exception?

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24774860 24778268, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

Grail 6 points a month ago

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/...

https://www.reddit.com/...

path: 0 24774380 24774598 24774860 24778268 24779689, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

catsarebadpeople 2 points a month 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.

path: 0 24774380 24796629, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Thatuserguy 49 points a month ago

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"

path: 0 24776954, hotness: undefined, score: 49, children: 12

abc 6 points a month ago

The difference between those thoughts is sort of vague.

path: 0 24776954 24780044, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1

87Six 7 points a month 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?

path: 0 24776954 24780044 24786882, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0

Blue_Morpho 3 points a month ago

Is it sinning? Is there a specific prohibition in the Bible about dead animals?

path: 0 24776954 24778165, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 9

Passerby6497 10 points a month ago

The Bible includes passages that condone murdering a cheating wife, so maybe don't use that as your yardstick.

path: 0 24776954 24778165 24779203, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0

lyralycan 5 points a month 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."

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."

path: 0 24776954 24778165 24779792, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 6

erev 4 points a month ago

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/...

path: 0 24776954 24778165 24779792 24781472, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 3

kkj 5 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24776954 24778165 24779792 24781472 24781635, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1

lyralycan 2 points a month ago

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

path: 0 24776954 24778165 24779792 24781472 24782473, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Blue_Morpho 4 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24776954 24778165 24779792 24785665, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

davidagain 3 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24776954 24778165 24779792 24785665 24793666, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

Thatuserguy 2 points a month ago

I don't know. Much like most modern day Christians I haven't actually read it

path: 0 24776954 24778165 24779492, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

tacosanonymous 42 points a month ago

Morally wrong? No. Disgusting and disrespectful? Absolutely.

path: 0 24776856, hotness: undefined, score: 42, children: 35

Passerby6497 13 points a month 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.

path: 0 24776856 24779092, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 20

kkj 15 points a month 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.

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24781591, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 3

QuinnyCoded 4 points a month ago

since it can still reproduce

UT OH 🫪

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24781591 24783175, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

Passerby6497 3 points a month 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).

A dildo was never alive, and a carrot is not a sentient creature.

Ability to consent is something we require from conscious beings, but we generally don't require it from objects, and corpses blur the line.

Why does a corpse blur the line? Or is this DnD logic and a corpse is just an object? A corpse should be treated like the person it was, so it still needs consent otherwise you're still raping it.

but it isn't actually that easy to come up with a consistent justification for that condemnation.

It absolutely is: a sentient (not even sapient, but sentient) being's bodily autonomy is inviolable without their consent.

Extending your logic to make my point, if a corpse is blurring the line, what about brain dead coma patients, especially ones that are infertile? Are they ok to rape? They're alive and can't reproduce, so what's the difference, right?

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24781591 24796347, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

kkj 1 point a month ago

A corpse is not a sentient creature. Former sentience is not the same as sentience.

A corpse should be treated like the person it was, so it still needs consent otherwise you're still raping it.

That's your opinion, and it's completely valid, but what's your justification for why someone else should agree?

Extending your logic to make my point, if a corpse is blurring the line, what about brain dead coma patients, especially ones that are infertile? Are they ok to rape? They're alive and can't reproduce, so what's the difference, right?

Well, they're alive, for one. Corpses by definition are not. And what we think of as "brain-dead" is the long-term and potentially permanent loss of consciousness and therefore sapience, but sentience is a bit harder to disprove.

Your standard seems to be "current or former sentient beings," which is consistent, but you haven't given a justification for the "or former" part. Current sentient beings experience suffering, so that's a pretty good reason, but corpses don't.

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24781591 24796347 24797349, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

HeHoXa 15 points a month 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

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24780117, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 9

abysmalpoptart 14 points a month ago

But this is actually why we decide whether or not we participate in postmortem organ donation while we're alive - we make the conscious decision ahead of time. Which is still then consistent with the consent argument

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24780117 24780829, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 8

Omgpwnies 6 points a month ago

So then if I consent to someone fucking my corpse after I'm gone, it becomes morally OK for them to do it.

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24780117 24780829 24781356, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 7

remon 2 points a month 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 be wrong.

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24779232, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2

Passerby6497 6 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24779232 24779260, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1

remon 2 points a month ago

Exactly, you can construct what ever moral framework you want to, sky daddy or not.

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24779232 24779260 24779297, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

ComradePenguin 1 point a month ago

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24796829, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

brown567 1 point a month 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?

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24781547, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

Passerby6497 1 point a month ago

A plant is not an animal, and is also not a sentient creature. A bone is a part of an animal harvested and used as a tool, not the animal itself.

It's a simple line to draw.

path: 0 24776856 24779092 24781547 24796389, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

tias -1 points a month ago

Also it's likely to make you sick and then you become a liability to your community = immoral.

path: 0 24776856 24778528, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 13

Windex007 7 points a month 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.

path: 0 24776856 24778528 24779110, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 12

petrol_sniff_king 3 points a month ago

When I read liability, my instinct was contagion. There is absolutely a moral obligation to minimize contagion—we did a whole covid-lockdown thing about it.

Being obese is too self-contained an issue, if it is an issue, I think. The only one suffering, if they are suffering, would be the obese person, and the only externalization of that would be financial costs that are too abstract for people to take personally.

path: 0 24776856 24778528 24779110 24783437, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 10

Windex007 1 point a month ago

I have the great privilege of living in a society with socialized Healthcare, so these questions do come up from time to time.

The lifetime Healthcare costs for people who have conditions which can be mitigated by lifestyle choices is a real thing. Smoking, being an obvious example much less touchy than obesity. Even if I'm extremely comfortable with the slice of my taxes that go to Healthcare... wouldn't it be great if we got to spend less on smoking-related issues, and could instead buy more MRI machines. Merely pay for more doctors? Nurses? Expand the treatments we can even offer?

Just because they're abstract, doesn't make it any less of a question of morality. I don't see any moral difference between the contaigen and smoking from the perspective of the personal responsibility of maintaining the overall health of your society. One is just accepted by society.

path: 0 24776856 24778528 24779110 24783437 24786610, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 9

tias 0 points a month ago

I think you're strawmanning this. I didn't say you are obligated to maximize your health. But that's different from knowingly making yourself ill.

In Sweden we spend a lot of resources treating people for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) which is almost exclusively the result of smoking. I think it's wrong to smoke given how much it costs fellow tax payers and how it takes away resources from people who suffer from ailments that are not a result of their actions.

That said, everyone deserves compassion and it's also wrong not to help people who are suffering regardless of the reason. But that's part of what makes it bad to knowingly hurt yourself - you're imposing an obligation onto other people.

path: 0 24776856 24778528 24779110 24793021, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

TheFunkyMonk 41 points a month ago

As an atheist… the fuck did I just read?

path: 0 24775615, hotness: undefined, score: 41, children: 1

87Six 4 points a month ago

Unholy christian text, avert your eyes from the depravity my dear follower of logic and common sense

path: 0 24775615 24786833, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

kolmaskommentoija 39 points a month ago

path: 0 24783592, hotness: undefined, score: 39, children: 8

chiliedogg 24 points a month 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.

path: 0 24783592 24786860, hotness: undefined, score: 24, children: 5

salvaria 17 points a month ago

Unfortunate typo lol

path: 0 24783592 24786860 24787017, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 1

chiliedogg 9 points a month ago

Well I have to lave it.

path: 0 24783592 24786860 24787017 24788512, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0

kolmaskommentoija 8 points a month ago

path: 0 24783592 24786860 24792171, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 1

WorldsDumbestMan 4 points a month ago

The workers that process pigs from alive to dead, tend to be abussive to the pigs as well.

And research I have seen before, showed that sadists often get this hig, or tingle.

That is very reminiscent of someone getting their rocks off.

Someone making people cry, might actually be getting off it.

path: 0 24783592 24786860 24792171 24793639, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

Bytemeister 1 point a month ago

path: 0 24783592 24786860 24796523, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

sangeteria 16 points a month ago

I think someone was messing with you

path: 0 24783592 24786128, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 1

kolmaskommentoija 7 points a month ago

path: 0 24783592 24786128 24792122, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0

Dookieman12 37 points a month 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?"

path: 0 24779990, hotness: undefined, score: 37, children: 3

HertzDentalBar 11 points a month 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!

path: 0 24779990 24781729, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 2

Dookieman12 12 points a month ago

Dang, you got me there. Good thing you replied before my nightly pcp cruise, I could have done a sin

path: 0 24779990 24781729 24783038, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 1

HertzDentalBar 3 points a month ago

I avoid two things while on PCP, orangutans and driving.

You never know when it's actually just a retarded kid.

path: 0 24779990 24781729 24783038 24784996, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

AccoSpoot1 30 points a month 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!"

path: 0 24786139, hotness: undefined, score: 30, children: 5

evadersnack 7 points a month ago

I don’t pull the lever so there’s no witnesses.

path: 0 24786139 24790331, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0

Fedizen 3 points a month 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, then fuck the trolley, I guess.

path: 0 24786139 24797726, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 3

wolframhydroxide 3 points a month 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.

path: 0 24786139 24797726 24797980, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

echodot 2 points a month 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

path: 0 24786139 24797726 24809159, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

Fedizen 2 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24786139 24797726 24809159 24813430, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

saltesc 30 points a month ago

Well it's not going to fuck itself, clearly.

path: 0 24775802, hotness: undefined, score: 30, children: 1

Rivermoonwolf 1 point a month ago

You clearly haven't watched enough hentai

path: 0 24775802 24785160, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

unemployedclaquer 21 points a month 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.

path: 0 24783853, hotness: undefined, score: 21, children: 5

sangeteria 7 points a month ago

What if you cooked or pasteurized the roadkill

path: 0 24783853 24786127, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 4

malformed3955 14 points a month ago

Is it immoral to fuck a cheeseburger if you still eat it?

path: 0 24783853 24786127 24787359, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 1

Bytemeister 4 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24783853 24786127 24787359 24796635, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

unemployedclaquer 4 points a month ago

Consult several physicians

path: 0 24783853 24786127 24786193, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

boonhet 7 points a month ago

I think you spelled psychiatrists wrong there

path: 0 24783853 24786127 24786193 24788479, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0

r1veRRR 20 points a month 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.

path: 0 24787661, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 0

remon 19 points a month ago

So ... is that what they mean when they say "use every part of the animal"?

path: 0 24776890, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 4

FatVegan 7 points a month ago

You fuck every hole of that animal, otherwise it's a waste.

path: 0 24776890 24778158, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 3

onnekas 3 points a month ago

And since its already dead you can even make more holes if you got a knife!

path: 0 24776890 24778158 24778428, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

troglodytis 2 points a month ago

Then it's a fucking waste of you're not fucking its waist.

path: 0 24776890 24778158 24778428 24780235, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Agent641 2 points a month ago

Roadkill gangbang it is then

path: 0 24776890 24778158 24779703, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

GalacticGrapefruit 18 points a month 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.

path: 0 24785042, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 9

ddplf 15 points a month ago

Not what this is about, it being dangerous does not make it immoral, those are two completely unrelated planes.

path: 0 24785042 24786473, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 7

GalacticGrapefruit 12 points a month 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.

path: 0 24785042 24786473 24786809, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0

BigBrainBrett2517 5 points a month 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.

path: 0 24785042 24786473 24786914, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 3

GelatinGeorge 3 points a month ago

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

path: 0 24785042 24786473 24786914 24787070, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 2

ddplf 4 points a month ago

You need a break, buddy

path: 0 24785042 24786473 24786914 24787070 24791956, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

BigBrainBrett2517 2 points a month ago

Well that escalated quickly!

path: 0 24785042 24786473 24786914 24787070 24789171, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

WorldsDumbestMan 5 points a month 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.

path: 0 24785042 24786473 24793657, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1

Bytemeister 6 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24785042 24786473 24793657 24796594, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

Bane_Killgrind 1 point a month ago

My body my choice /s

path: 0 24785042 24806798, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

mr_satan 18 points a month ago

It not being immoral being moral or 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.

path: 0 24793643, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 2

sleet01 3 points a month ago

It's immoral because this is how you get an RFK Jr. It's disgusting for the same reason.

path: 0 24793643 24797609, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

mr_satan 1 point a month ago

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.

path: 0 24793643 24797609 24798056, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

chunes 18 points a month ago

Why are there so many posts about necrophilic bestiality lately

path: 0 24787040, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 2

tigeruppercut 16 points a month ago

We finished all the conversations about beans

path: 0 24787040 24788851, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 0

WorldsDumbestMan 1 point a month ago

path: 0 24787040 24793614, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Wataba 17 points a month ago

Is it moral to continue being part of an organization that rapes children?

Dont let them play distraction tactics.

path: 0 24788571, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 2

remon 8 points a month ago

What does the US government have to do with this?

path: 0 24788571 24792191, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 1

Bytemeister 4 points a month ago

The church.

path: 0 24788571 24792191 24796482, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

flamingos 17 points a month ago

Does this logic also apply to human corpses? Like if I go to a morgue…

path: 0 24774121, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 2

decolo 9 points a month 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)

path: 0 24774121 24775272, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0

KernelTale 2 points a month 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.

path: 0 24774121 24777866, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

RedIce25 16 points a month ago

Wtf, do they think necrophilia/bestiality is morally acceptable just because "atheist"?

path: 0 24775760, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 2

yermaw 17 points a month 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 an animal corpse ye faithfulle"

path: 0 24775760 24776191, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 1

Tartas1995 3 points a month ago

You just need to point at the reasoning and ask "so it is moral 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.

path: 0 24775760 24776191 24777006, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

DisasterTransport 13 points a month ago

path: 0 24775164, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 9

PlasmaSnake 14 points a month ago

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

path: 0 24775164 24775285, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 5

DisasterTransport 1 point a month ago

path: 0 24775164 24775285 24776205, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

surewhynotlem -1 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24775164 24775285 24777569, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0

petrol_sniff_king -4 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24775164 24775285 24775481, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 2

TheLeadenSea 6 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24775164 24775285 24775481 24775647, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1

petrol_sniff_king 1 point a month ago

Yes. As proof of this, I offer this sentence: "Those things were definitely condemned by the mainstream once, but there's actually nothing wrong with them."

If you want being gay or trans or black or disabled to be morally acceptable, you have to fight for them. These things were hard won by activists over decades because they managed to change our culture, and now we dominate over racists and bigots. Forgetting this means you could lose it.

path: 0 24775164 24775285 24775481 24775647 24782689, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

zloubida 7 points a month ago

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?

path: 0 24775164 24776215, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 2

Jax 1 point a month ago

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.

path: 0 24775164 24776215 24779291, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

zloubida 0 points a month ago

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).

path: 0 24775164 24776215 24779291 24781637, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

BladeFederation 12 points a month ago

I'm going to take this shit post seriously for some reason. Sometimes people confuse morality with practicality. Or associate groas 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 bodies. 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 should we perhaps 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 condemning 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. So are you going to be a normal guy that can take the "hit" of not dating under 18, or are you going to be the creep flirting with high schoolers and yapping about Romeo and Juliet laws?

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 for example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10 to avoid practices that make others uncomfortable or more likely to hurt their conscience, even if God doesn't specifically condemn said practice, and to avoid flexing your "rights" on others if it bothers them. "All things are lawful but not all things are helpful." Mysteriously, this part of the bible tends to not be remembered, and religious people instead veer towards absolutism.

path: 0 24777501, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0

WorldsDumbestMan 11 points a month 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.

path: 0 24793593, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 5

abigscaryhobo 6 points a month ago

Why does "roadkill roleplay" somehow manage to sound worse than actually fucking roadkill...

path: 0 24793593 24796634, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2

WorldsDumbestMan 4 points a month ago

Because I'm an ex /r CursedComments regular.

path: 0 24793593 24796634 24797803, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

Chaotic_Altruist 2 points a month ago

"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

path: 0 24793593 24796634 24807297, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

humorlessrepost 5 points a month ago

Do you have a plan to accurately replicate the aroma and muscular tension of roadkussy with early rigormortus?

path: 0 24793593 24806783, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1

WorldsDumbestMan 2 points a month ago

I already got the aroma of roadkill down 👍

path: 0 24793593 24806783 24808183, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

5ha99y 11 points a month 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.

path: 0 24776169, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0

groet 9 points a month 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.

path: 0 24783736, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0

Hueristic_Autistic 9 points a month 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.

path: 0 24778880, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 6

lyralycan 6 points a month 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

path: 0 24778880 24779341, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2

Hueristic_Autistic 5 points a month ago

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 🤦🏻‍♂️

path: 0 24778880 24779341 24780495, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1

lyralycan 1 point a month ago

Cursed philosophy lmao

path: 0 24778880 24779341 24780495 24781792, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Pacattack57 3 points a month 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.

path: 0 24778880 24782213, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 2

Hueristic_Autistic 1 point a month ago

It is wrong to fuck a dead deer. It is wrong to fuck another animal that is not of your own species. Dead or alive. It's not just gross it's wrong. Horses don't fuck hippos, giraffes don't fuck wild boar, seagulls don't fuck eagles.

A majority of people no matter what you beleive in, know it's wrong to fuck an animal that is not of your own species. You can remove religion and a majority of people with common sense know that it's wrong, not just gross.

That's why it's part of one of the many reasons why it's fucked up because that means that somone decides to them looking at the situation at hand, in that moment in front of them and decides for themselves, which I don't disagree we should all make our own choices in life but..... When the choice goes against the common sense of the species you're fucked up.

Animals don't fuck dead animals. The animal thing is to eat, shit, survive another day and continue the species. Not fuck the dead ones!!!!! There's no value to it in the animal sense. There's nothing okay with it in the human sense. You wouldn't get anything out of it besides fucking a dead animal which is deranged.

I just can not express it enough, that it's not okay to fuck an animal that is not of our own species. Dead or alive.

I also can not express it enough that having sex with the dead is fucked up in general

path: 0 24778880 24782213 24790196, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Hueristic_Autistic 1 point a month ago

You can choose to do anything but you have to reckon with those consequences.

In other words: "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."

path: 0 24778880 24782213 24790210, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

JackFrostNCola 8 points a month ago

I feel like im having a stroke deciphering those messages in grey.

path: 0 24775152, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0

MasterNerd 6 points a month ago

No, we often have to prescribe 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?

path: 0 24781420, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1

hirihit640 1 point a month 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.

path: 0 24781420 24787888, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

echodot 5 points a month ago

Yeah because the reason I'm not having it off with roadkill is due to my religion.

path: 0 24809115, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

KernelTale 3 points a month 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.

path: 0 24775786, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

Grail 3 points a month 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.

path: 0 24774845, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 6

Vespair 2 points a month ago

Such as if you paid a friend to run it over.

That's still you committing a roadkill, just second hand.

path: 0 24774845 24775765, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 5

Grail 0 points a month ago

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".

path: 0 24774845 24775765 24776451, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 4

Vespair 2 points a month ago

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.

path: 0 24774845 24775765 24776451 24780445, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 3

Grail 1 point a month ago

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.

path: 0 24774845 24775765 24776451 24780445 24780622, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2

ConstantPain 1 point a month 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.

path: 0 24807937, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Hueristic_Autistic 1 point a month ago

path: 0 24778809, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

lemmyshitpost

@lemmy.world

login for more options

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!

Rules:

1. Be Respectful

Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...

2. No Illegal Content

Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...

3. No Spam

Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...

4. No Porn/Explicit

Content

-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...

5. No Enciting Harassment,

Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts

-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...

6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.

Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)

Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

go to feed...

lemmyshitpost

@lemmy.world

login for more options

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!

Rules:

1. Be Respectful

Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...

2. No Illegal Content

Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...

3. No Spam

Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...

4. No Porn/Explicit

Content

-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...

5. No Enciting Harassment,

Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts

-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...

6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.

Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)

Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

go to feed...