top 82 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 108 points 3 months ago* (3 children)
  1. It is plainly a biological hazzard.

  2. Most people generally feel no attraction to a dead animal so maybe talk to a therapist about that.

But technically not moral issues, sure. You got us there, corpsefucker. Though, if it were capable of expressing its desire to not be fucked as a corpse before it died, we would want to respect that as part of the same social contract wherein we don't want our corpse fucked.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not sexually attracted to living deer either. Being religious sounds confusing as hell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 104 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    Show me in the Bible or Quran where it says I can't fuck roadkill and I'll stop fucking roadkill. And don't cheat with some "defile corpses" type of language. It's just a cream filling.

    As truckers say, it's nature's pocket pussy. Brb I have to make America healthy again by eliminating vaccines and also removing any protections that prevent the spread of parasitic brain worms

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'm no parasitic brain worm expert but this does seem like something that a brain worm riddled person would say.

    Can anyone who's fucked roadkill but is definitely not infested with parasitic brain worms care to give us their opinion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. (Leviticus 18:23)

    “‘Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ (Deuteronomy 27:21)

    Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death. (Exodus 22:19)

    The Quran doesn’t say anything that I can find, but there are hadith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    “Abu Dawud said: This is not a strong tradition.”

    They’re arguing against The Prophet? Or agreeing more likely?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    The thing with Hadith is that they are stories/sayings attributed to his companions. That kind of commentary is about how trustworthy it is - how close to the original source, who relayed it… same as any historical analysis. It’s a scholar saying the evidence isn’t in the sayings favor for being historical.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    "Without god, what's to stop you from committing all the rape and murder you want?"

    I already commit all the rape and murder I want, which is none.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 86 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I've met Christians that think like this. I think the "logic" goes something like this:

    • God says not to do a lot of things because they're wrong
    • I try not to do those things, and some of them are totally gross
    • Atheists don't believe in God, so there's nothing stopping them from doing those things, including the gross ones

    The just totally miss that atheists generally don't want to do those things any more than they do. It reminds me of what Penn Jillette said in an interview:

    The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The sad part is the hypocrisy. They throw the book at you to explain why they are "non violent" and "love" their neighbors. Then when you point out the millennia of rape and killings the Church committed against their neighbors, they say it was in service of God. Which fucking thing is it: god makes you a good person, or god ordains killing and raping (reserved for Christians only)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Extremist members of every religion have gone on holy wars to exterminate non-believers at some point. Christians get the most attention because they were the most successful, but they're by no means the only ones. Even if Christians didn't exist, extremists of the next biggest group would step up to do the exact same thing.

    Every major world religion is built on holy texts that advise people to love one another. Inevitably, extremists will (sometimes willfully) misinterpret these texts to lend justification to atrocities. This tendency belongs to humans, not religion. Religion is the means to the end, but it isn't inherently harmful. Just as knives don't stab people, religions don't go on crusades; people do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Christians just do whatever they want, their "belief" in God doesn't factor into any decisions they make. They just use it as a thought terminating cliché, an excuse to have the opinions and beliefs they have, with no regard for their biblical basis.

    My favorite example is that God said plainly and clearly, with no room for interpretation, "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." Every "Christian" I've ever met seems to think the next verse says "unless they're a homeless guy in the Kroger parking lot, because he'll probably use that spare change to buy drugs."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 3 months ago

    What the fuck did I just read?

    Look at my user name and post history. I repeat my comment. What the fuck.

    I thought my brain rot had shriveled my brain to the size of a raisin, and yet Christians beat me handily.

    Wow.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I don't really think of this scenario as a morality issue. It's just gross.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    Exactly. We're free to do whatever in this world, as long as it doesn't negatively affect other beings. That one dude from years ago who likes to stand in people's poop tanks? Sure! Just don't force any of that on anyone or anything. side eyeing religion

    Plus, fucking dead animals is arguably less bad than what the food industry does to living beings. It might be dangerous and spread disease, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago

    RFK is in the chat

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago

    Could be projection, but it's more likely that christians think atheists are nothing but nihilistic hedonists that fuck and kill everything and anything. looks at bible oh yeah, that's also projection.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    If the only reason you aren't a necrophiliac rapist is because your god says not to, you are not a good person, you are a necrophiliac rapist on a leash.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago*

    Sorry what exactly are you raping. Is fucking a couch or flesh light rape now? Its dead it is a piece of meet nothing more unless you think its soul is their or something. And no I don't want to fuck a dead deer bit calling it rape is just odd.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Good point, it might not be immoral

    It is, however, fucking disgusting and that's one good reason not to do it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not talking morals with someone who has a moral codex from 2000 years ago.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'll never get over the slavery angle. Like, right after delivering your people from generations of slavery would have been the perfect opportunity to go "We're not doing that shit again."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    No no you don't get it, God had to allow slavery because there was no way the humans in that time would put up with not having slaves. He had to make some concessions. Telling everyone to cut off their baby's foreskin though, that's fair game

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    That's the thing that bothers me about religious people, the only thing stopping the lot of them from committing heinous crimes is the fear of eternal damnation. It's like they have no morals at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago

    Has my guy never seen the sheep intestine condoms? You can fuck a dead animal while fucking someone else at the same time!

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago

    I grew up in a very cultist region, and I remember having similar arguments at 8-13 years old already. Well, not about corpse fucking but murder and such. When I made the same argument, "I'm currently murdering as many people as I want which is 0", the holier than thou counter-argument always was "well that's only because you grew up in a Christian culture even if you're now deciding to not believe!" Which often wasn't just that, it often went further into pretty racist assumptions that if I was like a "wild human living somewhere in Africa", I'd be murdering and eating human meat.. That tells quite a lot about the whole love-thy-neighbor act I think.

    And this wasn't somewhere in the 70's, it was in the 2000-2010.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I just don't want maggots on my dick. Simple.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    necrophelia, beastility are often the trifecta of phelias with pedophelia. often found done by evangelicals/conservatives, .. they are probably also attributing "Aethism" to that as well, but they arnt saying ti out loud.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    Conservatives on another level, subhuman.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    It's neither morally "right" or "wrong". It's just creepy. Creepy like christianity and it's creepy followers. I'm never shocked by the creepy thoughts of xians, obsession with sex and other people having sex, and now sex with roadkill. Was this a post by RFK Jr??? Did you eat it's penis bob?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It isn't morally wrong but it is disgusting. For most of us, that's enough to never do it, or even think about doing it. But I admit for some, they do need religion to keep them from fucking roadkill, apparently.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The part that gets me is that they think it's wrong because it's disgusting. It's the same reason why they think that LGBTQ people are immoral. All of those things make them go "eeww".

    I'm trying to imagine having a values system that isn't predicated upon things like consent or sentience. It's based upon what makes you go "yuck".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Why do you think it is wrong to fuck roadkill?

    No answer. Of course. It's like people want to be morally outraged based on semantic hair splitting but when challenged it turns out they weren't all that savvy with the consequences of semantics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    Unlike you, I do not get a boner from road kill. Maybe you should see a therapist about your necrophiliac beastiality.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Is humanity this far gone?

    I don't think much can be accomplished by discussing the moral and ethical nuance of roadkill fucking.

    For some reason we can't get morally squared away on fucking kids. No need to get distracted with hypothetical "I-40 Bambi" scenarios.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    Personally I think it's valuable to suss out the source of our moral beliefs. If you can't explain why you think it's morally wrong to have sex with a roadkill deer, then you either don't think it's morally wrong, or you're letting your disgust response dictate your moral beliefs. There's a huge difference between "I refuse to do this because I think it's gross," and "I think someone should be jailed for doing this because I think it's gross." I think the latter is far more harmful than the former. See: all the morally neutral things Christians want outlawed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    Do they not know your own feelings can be a factor? I know the dead deer won't feel anything, that's not what the issue is lol

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    Is it morally wrong? I think it's extremely gross, but it isn't harming anyone. I think if we are going to say it's morally wrong, it'd have to be because of the rights an animal has in death to its corpse not being desecrated - but we have no problem with mutilating and eating animal corpses, so this only differs in terms of its disgustingness and depravity.

    I actually don't think the bible has a compelling stance on this subject. The only relevant things the bible had to say that I can think of are that sex is restricted to marriage and the stuff about not spilling seed. So... the reason a Christian couldn't have sex with roadkill is because they aren't married to it or because it can't get pregnant? That's a pretty weak argument. And if there isn't anything else in the Bible about it... then we're left with soemthing like "necrophilic beastiality is gross" - which, while true, is not a strong moral claim and not something Jesus is recorded as having said, believe it or not.

    Too frequently people conflate feelings of disgust with proof of unethical/immoral behavior - in this case it happens to work because the act in question is extremely repugnant, but it's also similar to how religious people justify all sorts of bad actions and bigotry even when their own religious dogma is silent or unclear on the morality of specific things.

    It is a normal human impulse to want horrible and disgusting things like this to be immoral, but we do need actual, consistent reasons that make sense if we are going to call something immoral.

    Secular ethics are better able to handle this because they can easily include things like animal rights extending beyond death - or we can be comfortable saying this is a disgusting and depraved act, worthy of punishment even, that doesn't have moral weight due to the lack of harm or rights violations (if we say animals don't have rights to dignity in death).

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    A compelling moral argument could be made in the case where they have human sexual partners; I would not consider having sex with road kill to be especially safe from a communicable disease standpoint, and engaging in this behavior endangers the partner’s life.

    I’m willing to bet the partner doesn’t know, too.

    That said, pretty sure the whole spilling seed things comes from a pretty blatant misunderstanding of genesis 38:8–10. It’s part of the story of Judah and Tamar.

    Tamar was given to Er- Judah’s first son, who got offed by god for some undisclosed wickedness.so Judah tells his other son- Onan- to fulfill his obligation as Er’a brother and get Tamar preggers.

    The idea here is that Onan would give Er and heir, who would inherit most of Judah’s shit. Onan, being not entirely stupid understood that if Tamar never gave birth to a son, then the greedy fuck would instead inherit Judah’s shit.

    So Onan gamed the system with his pull out game, and god was like, “you little shit!” And smoked the greedy fucker. It had nothing to do with Onan pulling out and everything to do with him being greedy. If he tried the rhythm method, he’d have still gotten smoked...

    And all this because the best social safety nets for single mother’s they could come up with was “hey. If the brother gets her pregnant, a son could be an heir and then she could take care of everything until the son is old enough!” Because women were property and couldn’t inherit anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Funnily, this drives at a niche thought experiment in vegan circles: "Is eating roadkill vegan?" That is, is veganism not fully a subset of a plant-based diet*? The Vegan Society's definition is roughly what most vegans would go by even if they've never heard it:

    Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment.

    To be absolutely clear, no vegan takes this thought experiment seriously. Vegans would prefer the animal be left alone to be consumed by e.g. other animals, and some hypothetical vegan delusional enough to pull that card would be ostracized immediately and plausibly worse than if they'd bought meat to eat for themselves.


    * Notably, no, it isn't. Regardless of this particular scenario, there are edge case scenarios you can come up with that vegans would consider vegan but are definitionally not plant-based – because veganism stipulates "as far as is possible and practicable" while a PBD is a bright line.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago*

    I saw another similar post to this earlier and my first thoughts were:

    1. Similar to the shooting the baby that's immortal when wearing the cross necklace scenario, what the actual fuck is wrong with you for even coming up with these types of scenarios in the first place!
    2. I don't need any God, Goddess, or deity to tell me not to fuck animals, dead or alive, because we as humans kinda collectively decided a very long time ago that it's wrong in so many ways to have sex with anything that isn't human. And that's a worldwide thing that humans decided on, regardless of what religion was practiced.
    3. If you need a God/Goddess/Deity to tell you not to do something the rest of the world has already deemed a heinous crime against nature, you are probably only following that holy instructions out of fear of not reaching whatever your religions heaven equivalent is. And I am a firm believer that if there is a heaven, those who do/don't do things only with the thought of getting into that place in the afterlife certainly ain't getting in, I'd hope. I wouldn't wanna somehow end up in Heaven only to find nobody actually did good for the sake of good and instead selfishly only thought about themselves when doing good deeds.
  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Getting any part of one’s body inside a dead carcass has nothing to do with morals…. It’s fucking DISGUSTING! Remember that piece of meat is currently being eaten and digested by billions of bacterias. All eating and defecating everywhere inside and out.. flies have burrowed eggs in it, worms are crawling everywhere, and all this is releasing toxic gases from all the rotting and digesting…. Also all the sphincters have released so the bowels are leaking out ..! Nope…nope….nope….!!!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    Remember that piece of meat is currently being eaten and digested by billions of bacterias. All eating and defecating everywhere inside and out… flies have burrowed eggs in it, worms are crawling everywhere, and all this is releasing toxic gases from all the rotting and digesting

    A proper Appalachia Orgy

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    "Who hasn't fucked a deer corpse or two?"

    • This guy apparently
  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I love how the poster suggests giving the atheist a logical fallacy...

    They sure did...

    Multiple...

    (Also an ethical dilemma is not the same thing as a fallacy)

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Also the use of an actual logical fallacy would undermine any attempt to argue God exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    I am not an expert on every verse of the Bible, but I don't recall there being a passage that forbids a believer from fucking roadkill. And even if there is, I'm confident that he doesn't know about it, either. So, I suspect that the actual reason that guy doesn't fuck roadkill is nearly the same reason that I don't fuck roadkill.

    I don't fuck roadkill because I don't want to. He, on the other hand, also doesn't want to, but he goes the extra step to say that because he doesn't want to, and it's sexual, then actually it's God that doesn't want him to do it.

    In my experience, Christians do this frequently. They have some feeling, and then assume that God must want them to feel that way. I can only say that the thought itself must be blasphemous. And when you look at it in that light, it's actually pretty blasphemous if that Christian doesn't stop to fuck all of the roadkill he comes across. Who is he to guess the mind of God? Even if he doesn't want to, he's got to go pump his meat into that dead deer.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago

    So, I suspect that the actual reason that guy doesn’t fuck roadkill is nearly the same reason that I don’t fuck roadkill.

    Bold of you to assume that guy doesn't fuck roadkill.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago* (6 children)

    I am not an expert on every verse of the Bible

    You don't need to be an expert to a) have read it or b) just look it up before writing a lengthy, uninformed comment:

    Exodus ["Laws for a Just Community"]:

    [22:19] Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.

    Leviticus:

    [18:23] And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. [...] [20:15–16] If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

    Deuteronomy [Moses speaking]:

    [27:21] “‘Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

    If you can read and claim that the above doesn't prohibit it, then you're arguing in bad faith. You can make plenty of solid arguments about e.g. consistency with laws of the Torah (e.g. mixed fabrics, shellfish); this one ain't it, chief.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    But it's it still lying with an animal if it's dead?

    More importantly, are we saying everything in Leviticus is immortal/unethical, including those you cite at the end? Because most Christians don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    This exact question is why I added the line: "If you can read and claim that the above doesn't prohibit it, then you're arguing in bad faith." I didn't commit to citing it specifically, though, because I secretly hoped Lemmy could restrain itself.

    Because yes, this obviously prohibits dead animals too. It says "animals". You may as well be asking "well does it prohibit green animals?" Even if you take the Leviticus passages about the animal being put to death and warp it in wildly bad faith in order to assume that means the animal must be living, the Exodus passage spoken by Moses and the Deuteronomy one just say that lying with an animal is cursed/to be punished by death.

    Objection overruled, Attorney Sam-I-Am.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    By your logic that means the Bible thinks it's okay to have sex with a dead human.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Yeah, I can't disagree there's no explicit passage against human necrophilia, although my logic didn't preclude that. It is, however, made clear to a reasonable person given a combination of Leviticus' condemnation of "sexual immorality", the way it treats simple inadvertent touching of unclean things, and the way Numbers (immediately proceeding Leviticus) specifically in detail talks about human corpses as unclean:

    Leviticus:

    [5:3–6] When [someone] inadvertently touches the uncleanness of a human being, whatever his uncleanness that made him unclean may be, when he himself comes to know about it, he will be guilty. When a person has sworn inadvertently by what he has said, whether for evil or good, whatever it was that the person spoke, when he comes to understand what he said, he will incur guilt by one of these things. When a person is guilty of one of these things, then he is to confess whatever sin it was and bring compensation to the LORD for the guilt that he committed: a female from the flock whether a lamb or goat for a sin offering. Then the priest is to make atonement for him.

    Numbers [the Lord speaking to Moses and Aaron]:

    [19:11–16] "Whoever comes in contact with the body of a dead person is to remain unclean for seven days. He is to purify himself on the third day and he will be clean on the seventh day. But if he can't purify himself on the third day then he can't be clean on the seventh day. Anyone who comes in contact with a dead person (that is, with the corpse of a human being who has died), but who does not purify himself, defiles the LORD's tent. That person is to be eliminated from Israel, because the water of impurity wasn't sprinkled on him. He remains unclean and his uncleanness will remain with him. This is the procedure to follow when a man dies in his tent: Everyone who enters the tent and everyone in it is to remain unclean for seven days. Every open vessel that has no covering fastened around it is to be considered unclean. Whoever is out in an open field and touches the body of someone who was killed by a sword, or a dead body, or someone's bones, or a grave, he is to be considered unclean for seven days. [insert cleaning ritual] [19:20] The person who is unclean but who doesn't purify himself is to be eliminated from contact with the assembly, since he has defiled the LORD's sanctuary and the water of impurity wasn't sprinkled on him. He is to be considered unclean as a continuing reminder to them.

    Thus, there's technically no specific rule about fucking a human corpse, but Leviticus and Numbers so heavily emphasize cleanliness and so heavily condemn "sexual immorality" (including so much as having sex with a menstruating women, which results in both parties being "eliminated from contact with their people") that this is obviously prohibited. It's "I can't believe they closed my restaurant down; where was the rule about turning the raw chicken into a fleshlight? I had a plastic glove over it!" The lawyering would have to be around what the punishment would be, not if the Bible obviously considers it wrong.

    Also, this is beside the point, but I found the rawest fucking quote while looking into this:

    [Leviticus 20:6] “I’ll oppose and eliminate from contact with his people whoever consults mediums or familiar spirits, thereby committing spiritual prostitution with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    You don't need to be an expert to a) have read it or b) just look it up before writing a lengthy, uninformed comment:

    It was the very next sentence after the one you quoted that is critical, and that you clearly didn't read. You know, the one that says it doesn't really matter what the bible actually says because a guy who makes such a bad argument probably doesn't know any more than I do.

    You wrote a lengthy, uninformed (because you didn't read enough to understand the context) comment while complaining about me doing the very same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Recently, I was introduced to Wikipedia's List of individual cats.

    Among them is Jack, who was lost in luggage by American Airlines. He was found 61 days later, still alive, dehydrated and malnourished and beyond recovery, Jack was put down.

    That's one incident. In nature, shit like that happens every single day.

    I don't think there's a god, especially the Greek notion of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.

    But if one did exist, to us, it is a monster...

    ...and to It, we are irrelevant.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Are you familiar with the heresy of the Cathars? The God of the Old Testament is actually evil, and the God of the New is the 'good' guy. Cathars were burned at the stake, because Catholics didn't like the implication that their version of God might actually be evil.

    There are various heresies like this, including at least one where God and Satan are literally the same dude, just wearing a different name tag. Shit gets fascinating. Obviously, still nuts, but fascinating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Its not, you do you, friend. I don't think your god cares either. Follow your bliss.

    Just, um, let me get far enough I don't need to see/hear it, and I will never eat venison from you again.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Listen... Necrophilic beastiality might just be the best death metal song name ive heard

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Logical fallacy.

    Jeez.

    Guy, just heard that term and ran with it.

  • source
  • Tell you what: You fuck the rotting deer corpse, I'll stream the video on all your social media.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Excuse me what

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›