Chicken, dead (No harm done to it)
The one having sex with it, happy with himself.
How do you view this specific act? Irrespective of you calling it a disgusting thing to do, do you call it immoral or not?
Having Sex With A Dead Chicken- Moral or Immoral?
Posts
Total:
34
-->
@Safalcon7
Having Sex With A Dead Chicken- Moral or Immoral?
depends on how you define right and wrong. Some ethics have quite a lot to say about the whys and hows of sex but my personal ethos (which prioritizes humans over animals but encourages a sustainable ecology for all species) would call the act morally neutral.
Tf is this thread lmfao
-->
@Safalcon7
happy with himself.
You've just wipe3d out over half the population by that claim. Women can't have sex with a chicken, alive or dead?
Frankly, I think excluding women for this perversion is appropriate, because it is perverse for men, as well. MNre than that, just plain stupid, more so than using a tree's knothole. If that's what gets a guy's rocks off, he has more problems than poor sex partners. Lacking rational thought, for one. Like I said: stupid.
I SUPPORT THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT OF ALL MEN TO FUCK DEAD CHICKENS
-->
@fauxlaw
interesting when you say "lacking rational thoughts". Thoughts can be tied to ethics too sometimes in terms of considering the motivation of thoughts turning into realization. So, you would say, rationale of an act can be morally evaluated? So, plain question, moral or not?
-->
@oromagi
So, what youre saying is that the act of sex with dead chicken is okay- morally (okay as in neutral okay) but the question would rise within the spectrum of reasons the corresponding person might have behind engaging?
-->
@Safalcon7
No - I wouldn't say its right. Before you start, don't think its necessarily wrong - I think any sexual activity with any individual without consent is morally abhorrent. Dead things can't give consent..... so - yeah. However, the reason for that is each individual's right to sovereignty over their body, as well as obligating to not do harm to others.
So - on one hand - its very bad - but the reasons that the thing is bad aren't a thing - so - its not abhorrent, just not good. I wouldn't call it neutral either though.
-->
@Theweakeredge
The factor of consent comes into play when there is a point where you "can" essentially provide consent for. A dead chicken has lost it's value of being a living thing- thus anything done to it's body has no impact on its individuality anymore.
-->
@Safalcon7
It would be interesting to see peoples thoughts/reactions when it comes to deciding where to draw the line, such as between a ready to eat chicken and a freshly dead one. If there’s one for them to draw. What about a piece of stake or pork?
-->
@Reece101
I'm waiting on the same sort of opinions. Also, those advocating for "consent" to be an essential element to demoralize (because it cant) or moralize (because its dead so it cant) the act, howabout a live chicken? How do you retrieve the information which is giving consent in this case from a live chicken?
-->
@Safalcon7
--> @oromagiSo, what youre saying is that the act of sex with dead chicken is okay- morally (okay as in neutral okay) but the question would rise within the spectrum of reasons the corresponding person might have behind engaging?
That's correct- right and wrong are individual judgements made according to circumstance. If you are maintaining a kosher lifestyle, sex with a dead chicken is always the wrong choice. If sadists tell you they will free a captive child for each dead chicken you fuck, then maximizing poultry sex is most moral. If you are a vegan, then you may be concerned about whether the chicken was slaughtered in captivity or died of natural causes.
-->
@Safalcon7
I would think the answer was obvious, given both the immoral exclusion of women, and the immoral choice of the object of the man's attention.
-->
@Safalcon7
That's the point bud. It can't provide consent.
-->
@Theweakeredge
What about for you eating it?
Wait, this is not r/cursedcomments?
Either way, it is not immoral. The dead chicken had no soul and no method of consent so essentially it is just a really weird sex toy.
However, Would you want to do that? Probably not. It’s got bacteria and it can make you sick.
Ethically, yes.
-->
@Reece101
Same thing. I am an ethical vegan.
-->
@Theweakeredge
oxymoron.
-->
@Safalcon7
Chicken, dead (No harm done to it)The one having sex with it, happy with himself.How do you view this specific act? Irrespective of you calling it a disgusting thing to do, do you call it immoral or not?
Weird question - but what are the hierarchy of rights here? Is fu#$% a chicken lower or higher on this hierarchy than killing it or destroying it or owning it as a slave producing eggs for your lunch?
Sex without consent in this situation is assault. Eating is assault. locking it up without consent is assault.
I think the bigger question - is do chickens have rights? Or rather does a dead chicken have rights? And what are these rights? I would suggest that possibly live chickens have the right to be treated without cruelty. Yet, a dead chicken - has none. None at all.
Yet the question is not about the rights of the chicken - really - it is about the morality or not of a sexual act by a human with a dead chicken? Would it be immoral for a rooster to have sex with a dead chicken? I doubt anyone would entertain the question for long. What a spider eating the male spider while copulating with it?
Who determines what is moral or not? Is it our culture? Possibly. And if this is the case - then our culture still currently would suggest it is immoral - which is why we have laws again having sex with animals.
So the answer is while the culture we live in - says it is immoral - then it is immoral. It is both subjective and objective.
-->
@Timid8967
Nope, not really.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yep, like military intelligence.
-->
@Timid8967
"ethical" and "vegan" and "military" and "intelligence.." uhuh - look dude, I happen to hate the military, but they necessarily have to be intelligent, not necessarily right, but certainly intelligent. Now, please substantiate your claim.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Vegans wear shoes don't they? Shoes made out of leather?
How can that be ethical?
just saying that so called ethical vegans kill lot of things in order to live as "ethical vegans".
-->
@Timid8967
Do you just... do no research?
"According to Forbes, most vegan leather goods are “made with polyvinyl chloride or polyurethane,” although, “vegan leathers, synthetic leathers, or leather alternatives include everything from apple peels to lab-grown spider silk.” Real leather shoes have historically been considered more durable, comfortable, and long-lasting than faux alternatives, but that’s starting to change, thanks to a few quality-focused brands."
You have no idea what you're talking about, lmao - but just to argue against your general position - being an ethical vegan means that you believe that killing animals for mere ease of use or food is bad, and that is the reason that you don't eat animal products. It doesn't necessarily mean that you don't use animal products, it means that whenever you can you don't.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Actually, the different sites go further than you - it says using an animal produce as a commodity is the issue - not just when you can.
Point is - many vegans do wear leather shoes - and other items of clothing and use vaccines which contain animal traces.
Of course I am incorrect to say it is unethical - it is just their own ethics - which don't necessarily relate to the rest of humanity.
-->
@Timid8967
Um... cool. I don't care. Plus you havne't sourced your view, please substantiate a single assertion you've made
-->
@Theweakeredge
Ethical veganism, on the other hand, is the basis of the animal rights movement. It is a movement that maintains that animal rights mean literally nothing if we claim it is ok to kill animals and use them as commodities. Ethical Veganism - Ethical Vegan Educationethicalveganeducation.com/ethical-veganism/
-->
@Timid8967
Uhuh - and you realize the difference between using animal products when you have to and being against the idea right?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Of course I know the difference. Duh!
Yet it is an issue of morality - not pragmatics.
If I think it is wrong to kill animals - then I think it is wrong to kill animals full - stop - not just because it is convenient to do so.
Look, I initially made my comment as a bit of humor. Yet, it seems that died in the arse. My apologies.
-->
@Timid8967
Okay let's put you in a scenario - you're starving - you think that stealing is generally bad - but you do so in order to survive, does that mean that person isn't against stealing? No - it means that person acted in desperation - it isn't "if it's not convenient" you have entirely missed the words "HAVE TOO" in the qualifier their bud. Yes it is a moral view that says you shouldn't do it all, but just as all moral views make extremely clear IF ITS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT THEN YOU DO YOUR BEST.
For example - would the fact that a Christian lied once make them not a Christian? Would the fact that a Christian sinned at all somehow make them not a Christian? No....because its a FRAMEWORK and even if you don't apply to it at all, the fact that you accept it to be the correct moral framework means you accept it.