[Godstud]

There are no real damages. That's the issue.

Only according to you deviant mind. The law and society thinks differently, and rightly so.

How do you put a price on this?

You can't. That's why it can be an arbitrary sum. Boy, you're dense.

[Potemkin]

Looks like @Puffer Fish can’t resist doing a victory dance….

[QatzelOk]

What you think is irrelevant.

Then there's really no point in thinking, is there.

What the law thinks and what moral human beings think, is.

*What the law thinks* and *what moral human beings think* - these are exactly the same thing, aren't they. (for non-thinkers)


By the way, have you ever eaten a dead mammal? Was the mammal specifically killed so that you could eat it?

Would it have been immoral to have sex with the veal cutlet instead of stuffing it into your mouth? Would having sex with the veal cutlet cause damage to the family members of the murdered mammal?

[Godstud]

@QatzelOk People decide what the laws are. Your opinion of your intellect is too high.

Your opinion on facts is irrelevant. It doesn't actually change the facts. It's sad that you can't critically think and understand that.

That you try to compare humans to animals that we eat only shows how stupid your line of thinking is. Pathetic.

[QatzelOk]

@QatzelOk People decide what the laws are.

Which people? Is there an education campaign and referendum before each law is introduced?

Your opinion of your intellect is too high.

Your opinions are based on data and trying to virtue-signal as 'normal.' Domesticated animals do this, and they're not terribly useful for a vegetarian like myself. They just cause ecological disasters with their mute munching of grass.

Example: you came into this thread with 'the law says...' and that is what created your 'opinion.' As if THE LAW can answer all questions regarding morality. If the thread was about 'Talahassee is the capital of Florida,' then, yes, there is a correct way to FEEL about the subject.

But in the case of an economic fine for having engaged in necrophilia, the subject demands some deeper thinking about morality. If you're not capable of this, just leave a list of exclamation marks as your post in this thread. Or a pic of a well-dressed Patrician lady clutching her pearls.

[MistyTiger]

@Puffer Fish Have you never heard about respect for the dead? Knowing that someone raped one of your family members, even if dead, it's very distressing and disrespectful and hurtful. People can bring civil lawsuits if they feel offended.

How do you put a price on this?

The judge and jury gets to decide the price the criminal will pay. The judge might have a price list in his office, who knows? He's/she's the one making the final judgment. Power to him or her!

[wat0n]

I'm pretty sure there are laws or at least sentencing guidelines on how to make those awards.

[QatzelOk]

I'm pretty sure there are laws or at least sentencing guidelines on how to make those awards.

Of course there are laws regarding the treatment of dead bodies. What does it contribute to the discussion in this thread to keep reminding people of this obvious fact?

But are these laws helpful in preserving life itself?

Does our current legal structure - our current judeo-christian laws - do they promote a real kind of morality that is useful for our survival?

I mean, we're not allowed to have sex with animals or dead humans, but we're allowed to drive both of these to extinction via hyper-consumption. What good does our morality do if it doesn't protect future generations?

"Protecting dead bodies" (so they can float off to heaven unscarred?) is more based on superstitions than it is based on survival or harmony.

[MistyTiger]

Of course there are laws regarding the treatment of dead bodies. What does it contribute to the discussion in this thread to keep reminding people of this obvious fact?

But are these laws helpful in preserving life itself?

Does our current legal structure - our current judeo-christian laws - do they promote a real kind of morality that is useful for our survival?

I mean, we're not allowed to have sex with animals or dead humans, but we're allowed to drive both of these to extinction via hyper-consumption. What good does our morality do if it doesn't protect future generations?

"Protecting dead bodies" (so they can float off to heaven unscarred?) is more based on superstitions than it is based on survival or harmony.

Hyper-consumption all comes down to gluttony, waste and just wanting to hog all the food supply. How can you make laws to successfully curb all that hyper-consumption? I agree that it's a major problem but something in human nature has to willingly change. A law can try to prevent, but the human is the only one who can decide to change or not change, abide or not abide by the law.

The purpose of the punishment is to say, "Hey, be respectful towards others or else." That is the least that the law can do at this point because the disgusting behavior already happened. It is kind of like repayment for trespassing. If you are doing something you should not do, that is a sort of trespassing. There need to be limits on behavior, boundaries.

[QatzelOk]

How can you make laws to successfully curb all that hyper-consumption?

This is the question that humankind ought to be asking.

Instead, most people in this thread have found a witch to burn, and their questions revolve around what time to start the pyre, and who is bringing the kindling.

"Hey look! Some necrophiliac dude! Looks like we gotta another witch-burning event to sell tickets to!"

The purpose of the punishment is to say, "Hey, be respectful towards others or else."

When the State itself is the cause of most of humankind's problems... this isn't the main purpose of punishment at all.

(Example of thinking that the state never pursues: What causes humans in our societies to sexually desire corpses? Is the State partially responsible... perhaps its invasive sexual-regulation, social manipulation, and the resultant alienation are responsible for this and many other problems of biological needs gratification? What could the state do to ensure that its slave classes are able to achieve the satisfaction of its biological needs? Or does the state prefer unsatisfied slaves because they're easier to control?)

The main purpose of punishment is *to make it look as if* the State has things under control.
The State *needs to appear to be doing something* about the problems that the State causes.
It's all about optics and marketing and power maintenance ... by the State.

The State can never admit guilt (for social problems) and then agree to change in profound ways because the State is really just a way of funneling money to oligarchs. Any horrors that appear along the way are treated as witch-burning events, or "thoughts and prayers" events when there is no witch to burn.

This is why the State is often destroyed by its subjects when they realize how much harm it does.

[QatzelOk]

Hyper-consumption all comes down to gluttony, waste and just wanting to hog all the food supply. How can you make laws to successfully curb all that hyper-consumption?

Or an even better question to pursue:

"What is it about civilization's rules and social order that pushes so many people into morbid over-consumption?"

The answer is likely to point to the sublimation of natural human behavior that is *required* in all human zoos (aka. civilizations).

[MistyTiger]

Or an even better question to pursue:

"What is it about civilization's rules and social order that pushes so many people into morbid over-consumption?"

The answer is likely to point to the sublimation of natural human behavior that is *required* in all human zoos (aka. civilizations).

Thinking back to our humble roots, I think it's part of the hunter-gatherer mindset of must stock up and hoard items because we don't know if the supply will still be there tomorrow. But the food supply is not in danger of becoming scarce. But the more people hoard, the more that the scarcity scenario becomes more and more likely. So in a way, it's the self-fulfilling prophecy at work. But human nature is selfish. Sharing is an unnatural condition. Even I struggle at times with the concept of sharing. Selfishness is not helpful though.

[Tainari88]

Thinking back to our humble roots, I think it's part of the hunter-gatherer mindset of must stock up and hoard items because we don't know if the supply will still be there tomorrow. But the food supply is not in danger of becoming scarce. But the more people hoard, the more that the scarcity scenario becomes more and more likely. So in a way, it's the self-fulfilling prophecy at work. But human nature is selfish. Sharing is an unnatural condition.Even I struggle at times with the concept of sharing. Selfishness is not helpful though.

That is not true Misty. We do have societies in human history that shared everything. And that actually helped them enormously survive. Selfishness is something that the capitalists wanted to sell as natural. If they could convince communal cultures of giving up on their communal sharing ideas and instead compete against each other instead and make a work environment or a personal community environment hostile to cooperation? They could divide and conquer the lower classes and keep power going longer in their hands. That is what neoliberal economic policies is all about. That human beings are selfish and never are interested in sharing. But that is patently false.

In order to survive as a species all mothers have to be unselfish enough to carry that baby to term, feed it and care for it till adulthood. The family unit has to cooperate all the time or there is no real community that is viable. All children rely on a lot of people. To work together to make something work for children.

It is the same with workplaces. You got to have teams working. Capitalism though can't have large groups of workers dictating power to them. They need to break them apart in order to squeeze more and more profit out of them. The same with property. Make it harder for all. In order to continue to control more and more of all wealth and property. It will come to a head someday. And the entire selfish theory is going to be scrapped because no one can really live alone or with constant lack of support. It is anti-human. Though they keep telling us that selfishness is our natural condition. It is a choice and a way of life. But you can change. Humans are malleable and adaptable to change. If that were not true where would we be now? The same level of technology and civilization as thousands of years ago.

Humanity is about adaptation and change that is about learning in group format. Not selfish isolationism. That is a fact.

Never believe we can only be selfish. If you do? You will become that which you believe. And being selfish only is not a productive life.

[MistyTiger]

That is not true Misty. We do have societies in human history that shared everything. And that actually helped them enormously survive. Selfishness is something that the capitalists wanted to sell as natural. If they could convince communal cultures of giving up on their communal sharing ideas and instead compete against each other instead and make a work environment or a personal community environment hostile to cooperation? They could divide and conquer the lower classes and keep power going longer in their hands. That is what neoliberal economic policies is all about. That human beings are selfish and never are interested in sharing. But that is patently false.

In order to survive as a species all mothers have to be unselfish enough to carry that baby to term, feed it and care for it till adulthood. The family unit has to cooperate all the time or there is no real community that is viable. All children rely on a lot of people. To work together to make something work for children.

It is the same with workplaces. You got to have teams working. Capitalism though can't have large groups of workers dictating power to them. They need to break them apart in order to squeeze more and more profit out of them. The same with property. Make it harder for all. In order to continue to control more and more of all wealth and property. It will come to a head someday. And the entire selfish theory is going to be scrapped because no one can really live alone or with constant lack of support. It is anti-human. Though they keep telling us that selfishness is our natural condition. It is a choice and a way of life. But you can change. Humans are malleable and adaptable to change. If that were not true where would we be now? The same level of technology and civilization as thousands of years ago.

Humanity is about adaptation and change that is about learning in group format. Not selfish isolationism. That is a fact.

Never believe we can only be selfish. If you do? You will become that which you believe. And being selfish only is not a productive life.

Well I was thinking about siblings and sharing parental attention. Some siblings like to be the center of attention. I remember that my sister loves to have people paying attention to her. But when I'm around, she knows she has to share attention with me and she doesn't like it.

Or some people want all the candy on the table, when each person should get one piece of candy from the bowl. Some people think more is better. Some people just want and want and want, nothing is ever enough for them. These people are the problem.

[Tainari88]

Well I was thinking about siblings and sharing parental attention. Some siblings like to be the center of attention. I remember that my sister loves to have people paying attention to her. But when I'm around, she knows she has to share attention with me and she doesn't like it.

Or some people want all the candy on the table, when each person should get one piece of candy from the bowl. Some people think more is better. Some people just want and want and want, nothing is ever enough for them. These people are the problem.

Your sister suffers from mental illness. Many mentally ill people are excessively self centered in many situations. But, how responsible are they for their behavior if they got mental illness? I think everyone has had to sacrifice a lot in your family over your sister and it is tough.

But your parents cooperate for each other and for your benefit too. Some people do not know how to have limits and that is why others need to tell them--you got to change. Your behavior is not acceptable. When we grow up as children we learn limitations. That is the process of socialization.

To learn behavior that is appropriate or not.

Each culture and each history of both the family and the society at large has patterns that people follow. It is your learning environment. It affects us all.

I have read you for years. You should do what makes you happy Misty. No matter if others tell you that you have to choose something practical. Practicality is fine if you are married and have kids, and you need to bring home the bacon. But if you are single lady? You can do a lot of things that are about what YOU would LIKE and LOVE to do with your life!

Make yourself happy Misty. Choose all the things that have always brought you happiness and rediscover your dreams and desires.

You need to start being joyful in being YOU.

You are very intelligent, and smart, and dedicated. And you are a good person. Never question that.

I hope your family always realizes that you are the daughter that brings them love and pride and freedom. Your sister is stunted in ability to give. Due to her condition. You are not. So exercise that freedom every day with your family and cultivate your interests and dreams.

Viva tu vida Misty. Tienes el mundo por delante.

[QatzelOk]

Some siblings like to be the center of attention.

When you grow up in an isolated bungalow staring at screens all day, being "the center of attention" looks like a noble goal.

But a century ago, children got a lot more attention by playing on the street and interacting with dozens and dozens of adults, older children, and peers.

The modern way that we have altered out environments to sell products and to survey and control communities... has created a prison-like environment for children who get the bare minimum of upbringing and childhood.

In our system where dollars vote, children have no power whatsoever to protect themselves. Neither do non-human species.