NationStates

Qazox wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property?

If I want my bones sold after my death, then so be it.

Too bad once you're dead, you have no legal standing. (Which rips my point in my previous post to shreds, BTW ). There is NOTHING, not a will/trust that can give a corpse legal standing. You can make a will, don't mean that anyone has to follow it.

A will designates your inheritors.
That should be upheld as a property right. Asking the inheritors to then do or not do something with the property is, I accept, largely unenforcable.

Reggae Magmia wrote:"Women has sex with skeleton:"
Dafuq?!

"May go to prison:"
Dafuq?!

OK, it's some sick shit, but prison? There isn't something better to be dealing with?

Indeed.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Grenartia wrote:Yes, because marrying a living member of the same gender is the exact same thing as fucking a dead body.

There's a joke here about beating dead horses, but I can't quite grasp it. It'll come to me, I'm sure.

Lets see...

There's beating off dead horses...

Chinamerica wrote:She violated a dead person for Christ's sake...

Given that it's dead, it's not really a person.

Augarundus wrote:

Chinamerica wrote:She violated a dead person for Christ's sake...

Given that it's dead, it's not really a person.

And because dead bodies don't have the ability to consent unless specified in their wills while they were living people, it's obvious that necrophilia shouldn't be a crime.

Oh wait, that's just loony. It would be scary that "Ignore" has more votes than "Prosecute," but I've realized that you should always expect the unexpected on NS.

Chinamerica wrote:She violated a dead person for Christ's sake...

I very much doubt it was for the sake of Christ.

If she was caught riding a class skeleton would there have been charges filed? Doubt it.

Tmutarakhan wrote:

Chinamerica wrote:She violated a dead person for Christ's sake...

I very much doubt it was for the sake of Christ.

The Lord moves in mysterious ways.

I think he might be a crab.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Tmutarakhan wrote:I very much doubt it was for the sake of Christ.

The Lord moves in mysterious ways.

I think he might be a crab.

So a case of crabs would be a divine miracle?

Gauthier wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
The Lord moves in mysterious ways.

I think he might be a crab.

So a case of crabs would be a divine miracle?

Seems legit.

Tmutarakhan wrote:

Chinamerica wrote:She violated a dead person for Christ's sake...

I very much doubt it was for the sake of Christ.

Sigging this.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Tmutarakhan wrote:I very much doubt it was for the sake of Christ.

The Lord moves in mysterious ways.

I think he might be a crab.

So does this mean that polytheists have crabs?

Grenartia wrote:So does this mean that polytheists have crabs?

Serves 'em right, those damn spiritual sluts.

She deserves it. That skeleton belongs to whoever their family is. That's immoral and disgusting. May the hammer of law hit her hard.

Landeros Socialist States wrote:She deserves it. That skeleton belongs to whoever their family is. That's immoral and disgusting. May the hammer of law hit her hard.

Is the hammer the judge's penis?

I guess that's why they called it a boner.

Landeros Socialist States wrote:She deserves it. That skeleton belongs to whoever their family is. That's immoral and disgusting. May the hammer of law hit her hard.

The thing about morality is that it's subjective. So no.

The thing about "disgusting" is that it's subjective. I find pasta bake disgusting. This does not mean that pasta bake needs banning.

The worst thing that this woman has done is (potentially) steal someone else's bones.

I will try to be serious: If she is digging up people's bones it's a crime. What she does with them after that is irrelevant. Also eeewww.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

Landeros Socialist States wrote:She deserves it. That skeleton belongs to whoever their family is. That's immoral and disgusting. May the hammer of law hit her hard.

Is the hammer the judge's penis?

I'd rather not be in that courtroom if he has to call order.

I'd be honored to know that Swedish babes were all over my corpse.

Gauthier wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Is the hammer the judge's penis?

I'd rather not be in that courtroom if he has to call order.

Objec-hmfff!

United Worlds wrote:And because dead bodies don't have the ability to consent unless specified in their wills while they were living people, it's obvious that necrophilia shouldn't be a crime.

Oh wait, that's just loony. It would be scary that "Ignore" has more votes than "Prosecute," but I've realized that you should always expect the unexpected on NS.

"That's loony" isn't an argument. Just because logic takes you to conclusions with which you may be uncomfortable does not mean those conclusions should be rejected.

Dead bodies are merely objects - they have no Will with which they may consent. Frankly, I'm not sure as to how wills (as in, last will an testament, etc.) should be evaluated from an anarchocapitalist viewpoint (since the dead are merely matter - no consciousness/Will - must their "rights" be honored postmortem, given that they cease to have rights once they cease to have a Will?), so you may probably morally screw a skeleton even if its prior owner (in life) was against it. I suppose the family probably owns it, so they can exercise property rights to prevent necrophilia, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it (even violating the dead man's prior wishes).

Tmutarakhan wrote:

Chinamerica wrote:She violated a dead person for Christ's sake...

I very much doubt it was for the sake of Christ.

I don't know, he keeps asking us to eat his dead ass, that's pretty kinky.

Rocopurr wrote:I'd be honored to know that Swedish babes were all over my corpse.

There should be a way to consent to this sort of thing pre-posthumously. Because, well, I'm not using it; it would make me happy to know that I was able to bring some joy to a perverts life.

Landeros Socialist States wrote:She deserves it. That skeleton belongs to whoever their family is. That's immoral and disgusting. May the hammer of law hit her hard.

I don't know, I don't think ownership of bones is that simple, plus that apparently in some places there a means of legally purchasing human bones.

If she stole them from a grave she committed a crime, if she obtained them in a non-illegal fashion...

Xathranaar wrote:

Tmutarakhan wrote:I very much doubt it was for the sake of Christ.

I don't know, he keeps asking us to eat his dead ass, that's pretty kinky.

Brobably it gave her a boner