this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
972 points (97.9% liked)

Atheism

6230 readers
440 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

The actual answer is that it violates the dignity of animals and humans. It's so disgusting and grotesque that nobody even wants to read about this stupid hypothetical. Not even as a shitpost, nor as a snarky rejoinder to a shitpost. It's literal gore. What the fuck is wrong with you OP.

That and health issues.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I'd be willing to bet 90% of the people in this comment section wouldn't find it disgusting to drain that deer's blood, skin it, flay it, cook it, and eat it. Personally I don't see how one of these things violates the deer's dignity while the other doesn't.

Not to mention the fact that the milk and cheese we consume necessitates the manual impregnation of living cows, and the slaughter of those cows' babies. Oops, I mentioned it

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I don't disagree that it's unethical to eat sentient creatures, but there is a difference. It's part of our evolution. We evolved as hunter gatherers and like many other animals evolved to do pretty brutal things. This becomes nature and is part of "human nature". Hunting, killing, preparing and consuming meat is something that will always be part of us. It's unethical and unnecessary today so we shouldn't do it, but you can't argue it away. Hunting is not against our human or the animals "dignity", it's not a violation because it's part of our brutal mother nature.

It's why I play video games and still my bloodthirsty urges to slaughter my prey there.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

Rape and murder are also part of our evolution, but nobody ever makes excuses for those. We can overcome the parts of our nature that are ethically wrong.

Idunno dude, I feel like If you're against fucking a dead deer on the deer's account, you should be against raping a living cow on the cow's account. If you're ok with raping living cows on the human's account, you should be ok with fucking a dead deer on the human's account.

What we evolved to do doesn't factor into it. Both of those are unnatural.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

Hi commie. Cool to see you're still committed to always being on the wrong side of every possible issue.

Definition of rape.

Unless you think the cows are consenting, forced impregnation is definitionally rape.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word's meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer's role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like rape, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.

--

marriam webster

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I've never seen someone simultaneously acknowledge that dictionaries are inherently descriptive, while using that as an argument in favor of their own prescriptive definition. I totally support your effort to find new and unique ways to be wrong about literally everything

Why did you link to the definition of racism???

[–] spud@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago

I linked the source of the quote.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

it's absurd to discuss consent from something that can't be informed.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Yeah I'm not surprised that you aren't concerned with animals' ability (or lack thereof) to consent. You're so consistently wrong on everything that being pro-animal-sexual-abuse actually seems right up your alley

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'm not pro animal sexual abuse.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Weird that you're defending it then

[–] spud@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 hours ago

artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it's not rape

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Many of our stories are cautionary tales about rape and murder, it's always been aberrant behavior and our species could not survive if everyone was like that. It's always been opposed, despite being human nature.

But nobody, absolutely nobody ever had anything against hunting and eating animals for the first 99% of our species. Hunting was necessary for survival and is universal behavior, you see everywhere in nature, unlike rape and murder.

I do oppose killing sentient animals for food, I'm also for banning industrial meat production and forcing veganism - simply because climate change mandates it. But I see no purpose in demanding that people "overcome their nature" or to be an asshole about this.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I mean, the animals we've been killing and eating might have disagreed. This logic only works in this particular discussion if you take an explicitly anthropocentric view of morality. In which case, the dignity of the animal is not a factor in the first place.

I'm not trying to be an asshole about this, I'm having a discussion about the foundations for our morals, and the justifications for thinking something is morally good or bad. Your initial comment intimated that you think the situation in question is morally bad because you think it's grotesque and violates the animal's dignity. If dignity is a factor in the morality of it, then raping cows to produce milk is also bad.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 20 hours ago

IDK those zoosadist freaks from a couple years ago would probably get a chub hearing about this shit. Mind you those sub-humans deserve the blood eagle for their actions and potential threat but that's beyond the point, at least the living ones deserve it since unlike them I have no interest in the dead.

Regardless this is actually a fine example of how cultural and biological morality works, as a rule it's a stupid idea to fuck around with corpses due to biological reasons so we have an instinctual ick towards it. As a result of that instinct we reinforce it with massive amounts of taboo because we instinctually know that fucking with corpses is a bad idea. Hence we make it so those that mess with corpses are made pariah, exceptions like grave diggers or certain medical practices.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Also, what a bizarre take! "Let's not discuss morality, because my morality is so absolute that I refuse to acknowledge any other take on it!"

It's almost zealous in its dogma. That's not how philosophy works, that's how fanaticism works. That's how religious extremism works. That's how racism works, and sexism, and homophobia. Is that the kind of crowd you want to find yourself in?

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

"Dignity" is solidly within the moral philosophical domain, and boy, let me tell you, that is a deeper hole than any road killed deer can ever hope to provide.

Yeah I really wish this was tagged as NSFW at the very least...