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.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
96 points (97.1% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
40814 readers
4523 users here now
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:
1.Memes
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
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Well it's not going to fuck itself, clearly.
As an atheist… the fuck did I just read?
Wtf, do they think necrophilia/bestiality is morally acceptable just because "atheist"?
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.
- 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.
- 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".
- 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
- 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
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.
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.
I feel like im having a stroke deciphering those messages in grey.
What does this have to do with atheists?
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
Well obviously they don't think about fucking horses, that would just be weird. Children, on the other hand...
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.
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.
Does this logic also apply to human corpses? Like if I go to a morgue…
corpses are dead and cannot receive a moral injury.
(setting aside the potential to cause a plague outbreak, which is a morality issue IMO)
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.
Such as if you paid a friend to run it over.
That's still you committing a roadkill, just second hand.