Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1285 - Sexual activity with a corpse bill 2017 Watch

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Saying that we have "lost all sense of logic and reason" is an assertion, not a statement, it is not an objective fact because I dispute it. Therefore the logical fallacy is relevant.

    I am currently in Year 13 but I'm predicted 2A*s 2As in my A-Levels, make of that what you will.
    Lool, I forgot being pedantic is another reason MHOC is so out of touch too.

    Oh really? Your GCSEs dont look so good do they?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Some people think gay sex is ew, should we ban that?
    (Original post by Connor27)
    People used that exact argument about gays in the 60s, it's not logically valid.

    Use reason to explain to me why it should not be ok, emotionalism and social stigma is just the naturalistic fallacy, I do not accept it as a refutation of the bill.
    It's a dead body, guys, and disrespectful to their families to let it be used as a ****-buddy. For Christ's sakes, let it be buried or cremated or donated to science, and let them rest in peace, not be violated as such.

    Accept my refutal of the bill. I respect your opinions and why you have presented this bill. Honestly, if that's what you want to do, go ahead. Just don't expect to see me joining in, boys. Thanks.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tyrell221)
    Lool, I forgot being pedantic is another reason MHOC is so out of touch too.

    Oh really? Your GCSEs dont look so good do they?
    They could've been better, but still statistically well above average for the UK, what's your point?

    And, please make it quick, you're cluttering the thread with irrelevant nonsense about my academic credentials (which is yet another logical fallacy [appeal to authority] btw, if you are going to use that as part of your conclusion.)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The proponents of these recent bills are just going through the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and finding the most edgy sections to oppose.

    (Original post by Airmed)
    Oh, haha, very funny. :lol:

    If someone wants to **** a dead body, that's just not ok. This isn't about politics, liberal attitudes, or whatnot. It's just ****ing ew.
    To be honest, that is a pretty poor argument. Such logic could be applied to fat ugly people having long and sweaty sex. I don't find it particularly palatable, but it is not a reason to have the act proscribed.



    (Original post by Airmed)
    It's a dead body, guys, and disrespectful to their families to let it be used as a ****-buddy. For Christ's sakes, let it be buried or cremated or donated to science, and let them rest in peace, not be violated as such.

    Accept my refutal of the bill. I respect your opinions and why you have presented this bill. Honestly, if that's what you want to do, go ahead. Just don't expect to see me joining in, boys. Thanks.
    What if you got the person's consent beforehand? As to its being disrespectful to the families, so is the person's choosing to take part in pornography or certain other degrading acts. Protecting the families from awfulness is not the bedrock of our criminal justice system.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I support the premise of the bill. But I'll have to vote against this, it's very poorly written and doesn't even work towards creating provisions for consent.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    It's called freedom, give it a try sometime.

    You're just as bad as those in the 60s and 70s who said homosexuality is unnatural and therefore should be illegal, you have no right to define what is and isn't natural behaviour, and neither do any of us.
    Where do I even begin with you?

    "Freedom" should have limits for a healthy, functioning society. Which is why we don't have legal freedom to just murder whoever we please, or force sex unwillingly onto anyone we like.

    Ad hominems, despite complaining about another user using one. Hmm. I didn't actually even say it was 'unnatural', I said that a corpse can't consent, ergo could be considered rape. But yeah okay, I'm as bad as those people in the 60s.

    I can see why people dislike the MHOC if this is what it's like all the time.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    To be honest, that is a pretty poor argument. Such logic could be applied to fat ugly people having long and sweaty sex. I don't find it particularly palatable, but it is not a reason to have the act proscribed.
    Hey, look at what I said below. Truly, I do believe that the authors are writing such bills to rile people up. And, at this point, I'm ****ing over it. Sigh.

    (Original post by Airmed)
    It's a dead body, guys, and disrespectful to their families to let it be used as a ****-buddy. For Christ's sakes, let it be buried or cremated or donated to science, and let them rest in peace, not be violated as such.

    Accept my refutal of the bill. I respect your opinions and why you have presented this bill. Honestly, if that's what you want to do, go ahead. Just don't expect to see me joining in, boys. Thanks.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airmed)
    It's a dead body, guys, and disrespectful to their families to let it be used as a ****-buddy. For Christ's sakes, let it be buried or cremated or donated to science, and let them rest in peace, not be violated as such.

    Accept my refutal of the bill. I respect your opinions and why you have presented this bill. Honestly, if that's what you want to do, go ahead. Just don't expect to see me joining in, boys. Thanks.
    Ew isn’t a refutal.

    Insinuating that I have something psychologically wrong is also not a refutal and I would expect better from you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CastCuraga)
    I said that a corpse can't consent, ergo could be considered rape.
    With this logic organ donations should be banned.

    It's entirely possible for someone to consent before death.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    They could've been better, but still statistically well above average for the UK, what's your point?

    And, please make it quick, you're cluttering the thread with irrelevant nonsense about my academic credentials (which is yet another logical fallacy [appeal to authority] btw, if you are going to use that as part of your conclusion.)
    You're really trying to bait me into making this an argument. Which it is not. So no fallacies have been made.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Ew isn’t a refutal.

    Insinuating that I have something psychologically wrong is also not a refutal and I would expect better from you.
    Take a joke, Joe :lol: I don't actually think there is something wrong with you! :rofl: Holy ****, I'll just repeat my last line to you again, ok?

    (Original post by Airmed)
    Accept my refutal of the bill. I respect your opinions and why you have presented this bill. Honestly, if that's what you want to do, go ahead. Just don't expect to see me joining in, boys. Thanks.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CastCuraga)
    Where do I even begin with you?

    "Freedom" should have limits for a healthy, functioning society. Which is why we don't have legal freedom to just murder whoever we please, or force sex unwillingly onto anyone we like.

    Ad hominems, despite complaining about another user using one. Hmm. I didn't actually even say it was 'unnatural', I said that a corpse can't consent, ergo could be considered rape. But yeah okay, I'm as bad as those people in the 60s.

    I can see why people dislike the MHOC if this is what it's like all the time.
    Of course freedom should have limits, but ejaculating in or on an inanimate, insentient, object is not morally equivalent to murder or rape of conscious, sentient people who have rights established by the law. I am a classical liberal, I believe in maximising freedom to the greatest extent possible, surely you see the benefits to this approach?

    Also, conflating your argument to another, similarly constructed one to illustrate moral equivalence is not an ad hominem, mentioning the opponent or their views in an argument does not, in itself, constitute a fallacy.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Ew isn’t a refutal.

    Insinuating that I have something psychologically wrong is also not a refutal and I would expect better from you.
    It isn't a refutal at all because the word is bloody refutation. You people are conflating refute with rebuttal and it is not OK.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CastCuraga)
    Where do I even begin with you?

    "Freedom" should have limits for a healthy, functioning society. Which is why we don't have legal freedom to just murder whoever we please, or force sex unwillingly onto anyone we like.

    Ad hominems, despite complaining about another user using one. Hmm. I didn't actually even say it was 'unnatural', I said that a corpse can't consent, ergo could be considered rape. But yeah okay, I'm as bad as those people in the 60s.

    I can see why people dislike the MHOC if this is what it's like all the time.
    Do you think that sex dolls should be illegal? They can’t consent
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Utterly disgusting. I think the proposers need to get their priorities in life straight.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CastCuraga)
    Where do I even begin with you?

    "Freedom" should have limits for a healthy, functioning society. Which is why we don't have legal freedom to just murder whoever we please, or force sex unwillingly onto anyone we like.

    Ad hominems, despite complaining about another user using one. Hmm. I didn't actually even say it was 'unnatural', I said that a corpse can't consent, ergo could be considered rape. But yeah okay, I'm as bad as those people in the 60s.

    I can see why people dislike the MHOC if this is what it's like all the time.
    Rape is an offence solely for living people, hence sexual activity with a corpse having its own section in the SOA.

    Again, quite poor logic. If having sex with a corpse is rape, stabbing a corpse is murder. Ultimately, they're not equivalent because the thing is a corpse.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Also I like how I called this edgy nonsense, and now I am defending it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    Rape is an offence solely for living people, hence sexual activity with a corpse having its own section in the SOA.

    Again, quite poor logic. If having sex with a corpse is rape, stabbing a corpse is murder. Ultimately, they're not equivalent because the thing is a corpse.

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Also I like how I called this edgy nonsense, and now I am defending it.

    Indeed, proves that when you actually give it a few minutes of rational thought, the logic makes sense.

    Would you like to join the MHOC by the way? It seems as though you'd fit in well with my party, the Libertarians, based on your views here.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry guys its a no.

    I know I will be told "not liking something is no excuse to vote against it"

    Well, its disgusting, vile and I sure as hell wont be voting for it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I have a question, why does this section of TSR exist? Threads debating religion are taken down constantly but threads about shagging dead bodies are ok?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SomeWelshGuy123)
    I have a question, why does this section of TSR exist? Threads debating religion are taken down constantly but threads about shagging dead bodies are ok?
    These threads are more intellectual.

    (Original post by Connor27)
    Indeed, proves that when you actually give it a few minutes of rational thought, the logic makes sense.

    Would you like to join the MHOC by the way? It seems as though you'd fit in well with my party, the Libertarians, based on your views here.
    Flattering offer. You make some interesting arguments, but not really a Libertarian at heart.

    Keep up the edgy posts though.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 16, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.