If pedophilic necrophilia doesn't hurt anybody then why is it illegal?
Because "eww lol XD"
and muh desecration muh sacrilege
>>29637167
I would think it's disrespectful to fuck someone's dead body, especially a child's.
>>29637177
If having sex with a corpse is wrong then should it be made illegal to take someone's trash out of their bin and ejaculate on it in your home too?
Imagine a case where a kid is about to be cremated. Does it really matter? Does it really have to be illegal?
>>29637221
>someone's dead child is comparable to trash
thats not even autism anymore i dont even know what the fuck is wrong with you
>>29637254
You're right
The trash is more valuable because it has a soul. Oh, you want me to prove it? It's invisible and you can't test for it!
>>29637167
Dead people can't consent.
And it does hurt somebody. It's hurting you. It's going to mess you up in the head. Humans aren't meant to do that. It damages their psyche. I don't want more fucked people like that in society. I'm already a shut in because of all the other stuff.
>>29637294
if i were religious or something i'd pray for you anon, you've clearly damaged your psyche in ways that cannot be reversed doing god knows what, i pity you more than anything and thats coming from a robot who usually hates everyone
>>29637167
How come I can't fuck a live cow, but there's nothing illegal about killing it, cutting it up into little pieces, and fucking a steak?
Because life is unfair, that's why.
>>29637384
to be fair that cake looks pretty good
but this thread is reverse psych shit to make pedos seem evil
dont take the bait
>>29637254
>>29637347
>muh sacred body
Bodies are rotting pieces of meat anon. "Respecting a body" and so forth is just societal customs--there's no logic or reason to it like there is behind banning rape and murder.
>>29637573
There is a logic behind it. Religious stuff about dead bodies being unclean helped curb disease and infection from touching corpses.
If protected incest sex between two consenting adults doesn't hurt anyone, then why is it illegal?
>>29637611
So stuff that can potentially curb disease should be made illegal?
>>29637714
Not necessarily, I'm saying that there is logic and reason behind the customs.
>>29637757
Let me qualify my statement then:
There's no logic behind continuing to make it illegal, since the same reasoning (it can lead to disease) can be applied to other sexual practices that are not illegal.
>>29637167
Pedophilia in no way factors into your argument
>>29637167
>that picture
This needs to be illegal. WHY is this not illegal?
>>29637947
This image will only become more relevant
>>29638004
I agree with this pic, but maybe not for the reason you think
>>29637302
>self-harm needs to be illegal
get out
>>29638180
I think it should, to some extent. Mostly because I'm pretty leftist and believe in universal healthcare. People can't be injuring themselves too much, it's expensive!
>inb4 libcuck
STFU, the nazis had universal healthcare too somewhat I think.
How is self-harm not "degenerate"?
>>29638277
The problems are
>a.
Where do you draw the line for what's "harmful" and what's not? i.e. is it harmful to drink a soda?
>b.
It goes against the way laws are set up, meaning taking away others' liberty. It shouldn't be against the law to be a stupid fuck who only harms themselves (which is why drugs need to be legalized and seat belt laws are dumb except for kids)
>>29638277
great opinion there libcuck. you sure convinced me with those hot arguments
>>29638277
What if we had universal healthcare but made people pay a fine when they hurt themselves and required medical services?
>>29638372
>Where do you draw the line for what's "harmful" and what's not? i.e. is it harmful to drink a soda?
It's difficult to draw the line for sure.
But yes, I would ban sodas too. But I guess I'm probably being a bit extreme.
Actually I wouldn't outright ban them; it's not necessary. Maybe just outlaw sodas that have too much sugar built-in, and you would have to add your own sugar. That way people would know what they're doing to themselves. And information campaign in schools to let people know how bad this is for them, etc.
>It shouldn't be against the law to be a stupid fuck who only harms themselves
I understand where this comes from, and I don't like the idea of restricting people's liberties. But I disagree with that.
People are not rational about their own well-being. They're only human. They can be free in any other ways they want, but not like that. There could be A LOT more dangerous stuff in our everyday lives and I'm thankful many of them were outlawed or regulated to be safer, because a lot of people would suffer otherwise (even if it would arguably be their own damn fault).
I don't want things to turn totalitarian either; mostly just heavily discourage it.
>>29638400
Nominal fees for every visit and a small fine for needless visits and wasted time could prevent a lot of the abuse, but I don't like it in principle. Maybe if there were provisions to protect the poor from them. Ideally I wish it would just be considered a mental health issue and there would be help available for that. But we're really far from this being realistic, and often people don't want to be helped.
Universal healthcare services would have to protect itself from abusers and it might be necessary to be somewhat harsh on those who threaten it, for the greater good. Hopefully conditions would improve over time.
>>29637254
i wouldn't fuck trash..
