It
not being immoralbeing 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.It’s immoral because this is how you get an RFK Jr. It’s disgusting for the same reason.
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.
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.
Why does “roadkill roleplay” somehow manage to sound worse than actually fucking roadkill…
Because I’m an ex /r CursedComments regular.
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.
Is it moral to continue being part of an organization that rapes children?
Dont let them play distraction tactics.
What does the US government have to do with this?
The church.
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!”
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.
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.
I don’t pull the lever so there’s no witnesses.
Why are there so many posts about necrophilic bestiality lately
We finished all the conversations about beans
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Yeah, my family has hunters, and none of them would in no way describe it as “horny”. Though they kill for food, so I do not know how trophy hunter people are. And if someone kills just for their enjoyment, well… they are already kind of messed up, really. I do not think it is common, but I would also not be surprised if someone…
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.
Unfortunate typo lol
Well I have to lave it.
I think someone was messing with you
Oh, I was not even part of that conversation (luckily). I just happened to read it (sadly).
(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.
Not what this is about, it being dangerous does not make it immoral, those are two completely unrelated planes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
You need a break, buddy
Well that escalated quickly!
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.
What if you cooked or pasteurized the roadkill
Is it immoral to fuck a cheeseburger if you still eat it?
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.
Consult several physicians
I think you spelled psychiatrists wrong there
"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?"
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!
Dang, you got me there. Good thing you replied before my nightly pcp cruise, I could have done a sin
I avoid two things while on PCP, orangutans and driving.
You never know when it’s actually just a retarded kid.
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”
The difference between those thoughts is sort of vague.
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?
Is it sinning? Is there a specific prohibition in the Bible about dead animals?
The Bible includes passages that condone murdering a cheating wife, so maybe don’t use that as your yardstick.
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.”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.
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.
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/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/
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.
Meh, even if taken literally from the king james translation, doesn’t matter much since it’s old testament. One can shift the meaning to whatever they want.
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
I don’t know. Much like most modern day Christians I haven’t actually read it
Morally wrong? No. Disgusting and disrespectful? Absolutely.
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.
Depends on who you define as the party consenting. The person is dead, the vessel in which the person existed is no longer that person.
The complicating factors is religious belief of the deseased, and the other people that might be affected by the action. If neither is of consequence, then nothing is morally wrong.
Still gross as hell, and I do not condone it.
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.
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?
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.
since it can still reproduce
UT OH
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
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
So then if I consent to someone fucking my corpse after I’m gone, it becomes morally OK for them to do it.
If someone writes in their will that their dick shall be made into a dildo so that their partner can keep having sex with them, they can do that. I find it gross, but not immoral.
Pretty sure you can’t. I’d bet that most countries have specific laws against owing human body parts.
Well yea I guess if I go tell shawty she can ride my hog after I get the death erection and she does it I can’t really be mad at her can I
I don’t even know how to approach that but you do you I suppose
With regard to the corpse, maybe.
There’s possibly a virtue ethics argument against the person doing it? Like, it’s a little weird that they want to, right?
Weird from a cultural perspective where any sort of non-medical interference with a corpse is frowned upon, so we’re trained from a very young age to find any of that stuff icky/morbid. Other cultures may not have that same aversion.
Kinda in the same vein as we in North America have a very conservative opinion on being naked in public where other cultures couldn’t care less.
I’m already a moral relativist.
What I’m asking is if a person who wants to and does have sex with corpses, knowing that this is socially profane and must be kept secret, is this a trustable person?
Also, respect for the dead often involves rituals that are non-medical. I think disease obviously played a part in how these rituals were formed, but I don’t think that disease is the primary reason people care.
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.
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.
Exactly, you can construct what ever moral framework you want to, sky daddy or not.
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?
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.
Also it’s likely to make you sick and then you become a liability to your community = immoral.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t see any moral difference between the contaigen and smoking
I don’t understand what you mean.
Smoking isn’t contagious. Smoking might be socially contagious, but that’s a different kind. Smoking and the resulting cancer would be the kind of disease that people “choose” to take on, which is different from being accosted by influenza.
You might be thinking about this on a societal level? I meant interpersonally. Showing up to an event while sick and without a mask is a little fucked up. And covid touches on the societal, but my chief moral complaint is really with people who were neglectful of the community effort to minimize harm during a pandemic, who would choose possibly killing somebody’s grandma so that they could go to the beach. I’m not really thinking about… taxes.
Whether it is ethical for people to “overuse” the medical services their society provides I think depends ultimately on what it is fair to ask people to do, and what the actual consequences of not doing them are.
Like, is it immoral to get a dildo stuck up your arse? Because you’re wasting a doctor’s time. I feel like we might be touching on such austere efficiencies that we’re beginning to lose sight of what a doctor is for.
Yeah, that’s basically it.
Harm is harm. If my recklessness gives you covid, that’s harm. I harmed you. If my wanton habits strain the Healthcare system such that they’re expending money on my emphasima instead of more MRIs, and the lack of MRIs mean the diagnostic delays kept you from finding a brain tumor before it became inoperable, that’s harm too. I harmed you.
It’s comfortable to hide behind layers of abstraction. That’s just morality laundering.
If I give you covid, and you die, that’s bad.
If I give you covid, and you spread it to your grandma and she dies, that’s bad.
If I give you covid, and you give someone else covid, and THEY give it to THIER grandma and she dies, that’s bad.
And if I give… etc etc etc etc. How far down this chain do I gotta go before you say “ah ok, no morality issue there”?
Does it matter if you expose people but none actually get it? Does it matter if people get it, but as a result of the chain reaction nobody dies?
Probably not, right? The irresponsibility of the act has already established that it was wrong, regardless of the dilution along a chain and regardless of the actual outcome. You don’t KNOW what will happen, you just have statistical models.
You might never know WHICH bean made you fart. It doesn’t matter. The collective effect produced a result.
And what if spending money on the MRI for the guy with the brain tumor delays a study on Alzheimer’s disease? And what if that Alzheimer’s study took money that could have been used to further develop gene therapy?
I don’t really understand the point of this.
If a guy has a dildo stuck up his arse, he needs help. …There’s no follow up point, he just needs help.
I would find a medical industry that harbors contempt for the indignity of having to help this guy… pathetic. Like, it’s silly.
[edit] Let me amend one thing, 'cause I reread the original comment.
I think that neglectfully spreading an illness is more morally objectionable than recklessly contracting one. A known one, anyway. Covid is somewhat special because disease vectors and not actually knowing if you had it or how it spread was more on people’s minds.
Does this touch on anything you’re saying?
- 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.
What does this have to do with atheists?
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.
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.
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?”
Many would.
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…
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.
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 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.
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).
I’m almost certain that the society the killer belongs to would answer “yes” to that question.
Unless, of course, that loner with no family is suffering from an incurable disease that is making their life pure misery, and resides in a place where medical euthanasia is legal. Then the answer might be “no”.
It’s a great example of how morality is relative.
Society will never find out, so they will have no opportunity to answer the question. Are you saying that what matters is not actual disapproval, but hypothetical disapproval?
Anyway, like I said, there are multiple ways of attacking the argument. Accepting the unpalatable logical conclusion of total relativism is one of them.
Uh, yeah, that’s how rules work. If you do something that’s against the rules, you’ve broken the rules, regardless of whether anyone ever finds out about it. Morality isn’t a concrete thing that exists. It’s an abstract set of rules which are a creation of human society.
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.
I’m afraid to ask. Why are kangaroos and bees an exception?
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/wiki/Kangaroo_meat#Kangatarianism
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/108w7tt/the_great_honey_debate_is_honey_vegan/
As an atheist… the fuck did I just read?
Unholy christian text, avert your eyes from the depravity my dear follower of logic and common sense
