That's exactly how I feel
(media.gab.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
What if people donated their bodies to a business that allowed necrophiliacs to have sex with their corpses? The person donating their body would get a big payday for their family, the necrophiliacs would get what they want (sex with a corpse), and the business makes money as the go-between.
This does not violate the Libertarian non-aggression principle in any way. No one has been aggressed against and “why do you care, it doesn’t affect you”. Or, “Hey man, don’t push your antiquated values on me, this is a free country!”
So how do you stop it? The only grounds are moral. If enough people say they don’t want a necrophiliac whorehouse in their city, do they have to justify it beyond that?
Yep, but this one makes Libertarians pause so it works. I don’t think they have a counter-argument, and this one works better than “allowing sex with children”, because they will say “age of consent bro”. With bestiality, they say, “The dog can’t consent bro.” But this one they don’t have the consent argument because consent is there.
Every time I think this board is starting to elevate itself on an intellectual basis, someone comes along and proves me wrong. It never fails.
Thank you for making one of the most absurd, extreme arguments in an attempt to demonize the founders of this country and those who tolerate behavior that they themselves don't approve of but recognize that judging and/or legislating the behavior of others is nothing less than tyranny.
Thank you for reminding me that there are no shortage of people on this board who want the Cabal to be defeated simply so that they can assist in implementing their own brand of authoritarianism.
But mostly I want to thank you for reminding me of my nightly musings when talking to God, where I wonder if we deserve to be saved from the slavery we all endure.
But can it handle absurd and poorly researched? There's multiple court cases that have set precedent that desecration of a corpse is never okay because the person that owned that corpse can never give proper consent in their current state.
Using an absurd extreme as an argument is rarely an argument made in good faith. It's simply a rationalization to have one's way. The desire to control the behavior of others is rarely good and just. Persuasion seems to have become forgotten by some.
But I guess we can add another tally to the "new brand of tyranny" side of the board.
You are cheapening the example by putting an old argument in its place. I said, this is a business where consent is provided before the person dies. And don’t say it’s absurd either, because there are plenty of people who would sign away their corpse if it meant a big cash out while they are alive.
I think your angry reaction is because you know the non-aggression principle would not prevent this in a libertarian world.
String of nasty insults aside, you avoided the argument. How do you stop necrophilic consent using the non-aggression principle? You can’t.
The only way to say this is wrong is the objective morality of God. The non-aggression principle gets you about 75% of the way towards a working moral code in the same way that “Treat others as you want to be treated” does, but it is not enough. You still need a moral authority for an objective (shared) right and wrong.
Subjective morality CANNOT be used to stop this example. That is why the first and only principle of Satanism - “Do as thou wilt” - is an appeal to subjective morality. From that, all evil follows, some aggressed, and some non-aggressed.
Perhaps you have misunderstood the example and think I am the one who is pro-necrophilia? I am not. I’m arguing against it, but using the objective morality of God to do so.
Not sure why you feel the need to attack everyone else here either.
Nasty insults? You're the one obsessed with necrophilia.
Again, there's a segment of this board that only wants freedom so that they can implement their own version of tyranny. Just own it.
I don’t think you really have an argument here. You must be a Libertarian who has been shown the limitations in your philosophy and you’re lashing out at me because of it. And yeah, I would absolutely violate the non-aggression principle to ban consensual sex with corpses, for sure. I would also ban Drag Queen Story Hour and educators pushing transgenderism and gender confusion on children. I also think people should be legally required to cover their genitals in public, which also violates the non-aggression principle.