What does this have to do with atheists?

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"

Morally wrong? No. Disgusting and disrespectful? Absolutely.

As an atheist… the fuck did I just read?

The one time I saw a post about bestiality and necrophilia, someone was saying it is common for hunters to fuck their kills, because the adrenaline of the hunt and all, makes them horny and crazy. No reason to bring it up here, though, I just want you all to suffer with me.

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

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!"

"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?"

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.

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

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.

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

Dont let them play distraction tactics.

I mean there's a lot of arguments for the act to be wrong that have nothing to do with any god. Most believers will reach for consequence or virtue themselves.

1. Allowing people to fuck animals, alive or dead, may normalize the behavior. Fucking animals is a high risk activity. Allowing you to fuck an animal may indirectly cause someone to get sick. You could even become patient zero for a zoonotic plague, in which case you could hurt a lot of people.
2. Behavior so far outside the shared moral framework is corrosive. In doing somethig so radically taboo you damage the fabric of society. We, as inhabitants and builders of society, have a moral obligation to uphold rules that allow polite society to function. Rules like "don't fuck dead animals".
3. Do you really wanna be the kinda guy that can honestly say he's fucked a dead deer? Engaging in deviant behavior erodes your dignity and makes it more likely for you to continue to behave antisocially in the future.

Thisbcommebt was a waste of time but I had fun writing it

Edit: you guys these are examples of arguments that have nothing to do with god, I will not debate you on the ethics of having sex with animals. Personally, I ain't about that shit. I don't need a formalized, airtight reason to abstain. You do you tho. Preferably far away from me.

Why are there so many posts about necrophilic bestiality lately

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.

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

(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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

1. If you find the dead deer and had no influence in any way on its death, fucking it is moral (or not immoral)
2. 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.

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.