• PlasmaSnake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago
      1. This means that if we find a cure for contagious diseases then fucking dead animals becomes okay
      2. “Shared moral framework” sounds like a fancy word with no actual logical backing behind it
      3. How do we decide which deviant behaviour is acceptable and which is unacceptable
      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        23 hours 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.

      • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day 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.

        • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day 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.

          • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 hours 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.

    • zloubida@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day 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?

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours 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.

        • zloubida@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 hours 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).