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:
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.
Who decides what is moral?
EXACTLY. And you're for damn sure not Him.
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.
How am I being angry? Why the obsession with what happens to corpses?
I am not angry, I am fearful. I will not fight for freedom only to have new monsters take the place of the old monsters.
Do you genuinely think that using the objective morality of God to ban consensual sex with corpses makes those of us who would do so “monsters”? It’s such a strange argument: “why obsess over what happens to corpses”. This is the whole point! As a non-Libertarian, I don’t want to look the other way on necrophilia. Saying “why do you care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms” when that means sex with corpses doesn’t work for me. I would want it banned, even if it violates the non-aggression principle. I am also opposed to public nudity for the same reason, which Libertarians also support.