Deep Sight: It was a living person that made the decision as to what should be done with his property - his body - when he dies. That is just as valid as a Will is - because it is exactly the same: a living person making a decision on his property before he dies. Simple.

In fact, it is a normal practice for people to make wills donating their organs for scientific research or medical use when they die. Is it therefore wrong for a living person to donate his body for research on necrophilia when he dies?

Does the consent lapse at death? If it lapses at death, then all Wills also become void at death for the same reason.

Deep Sight: It was a living person that made the decision as to what should be done with his property - his body - when he dies. That is just as valid as a Will is - because it is exactly the same: a living person making a decision on his property before he dies. Simple.

In fact, it is a normal practice for people to make wills donating their organs for scientific research or medical use when they die. Is it therefore wrong for a living person to donate his body for research on necrophilia when he dies?

Does the consent lapse at death? If it lapses at death, then all Wills also become void at death for the same reason.

mkmyers45:

Logicboy's argument just as you has pointed out is rather pointless....

Although can we say it is right when such a decision is made for one in proxy? E.g when you sign off the authority of end of life decision to someone else

Logicboy03:



Consent is not transfer of property. There is also a limit to what can be done to your dead body asper your will. Just as you cant write will saying that your dead body should be buried in the presidential palace, you can ask for your dead body to be f4ked!


Keep conflating two separate areas of law.


Fake azz lawyers; DeepShite and Uyi Irelevant

Uyi Iredia:

You still IGNORE the means by which this is circumvented. A person giving his consent before death. You don't want to argue against wills so you simply state the dead can't give consent. That's not the case. Consent can and is given in advance by stating what you want done at a later time with or without your presence. It is that consent to necrophilia can be given before death. Two, you didn't counter the argument that minors give consent. I am waiting for you to actually bring an argument. So far you have not toppled the posit that consent to necrophilia can be given before death as an extension of the legal principle of carrying out the wishes of the dead which they stated whilst alive.

Logicboy03:



Consent is not transfer of property. There is also a limit to what can be done to your dead body asper your will. Just as you cant write will saying that your dead body should be buried in the presidential palace, you can ask for your dead body to be f4ked!


Keep conflating two separate areas of law.


Fake azz lawyers; DeepShite and Uyi Irelevant

Uyi Iredia: ^^^This is a red herring. The presidential palace is public property for an elected public office holder. Not so for a dead body which is private property. You simply play blind and sidestep cogent points. I simply would not even argue that consent of a person can be carried out upon death by the instrument of will.

Logicboy03:


Shut up and accept you are wrong. This whole thing is pissing me off.

I detest ignorant pride with a passion.




You dont even see how you make my point. Your will/dead body is limited by other areas of law.Just as your will can not have "jurisdiction" in laws regarding the housing and safety of elected officials, your dead body/will has no jurisdiction in "sodomy" laws and laws regarding consent.


Simple and short. You conflated two separate laws

Uyi Iredia:

Why should jurisdiction be restricted as regards a will clearly allowing for necrophilia ? Try to answer that without being circular.

Uyi Iredia: Lol . . . Escapism.

You have argued that consent is instanteneous and that dead people give no consent. I stated that wills are a means for such. You bring a red herring by sayin a dead person cannot will to be buried in a presidential palace. I countered this by saying that is a public property and that wishes of the dead wrt their body and properties are routinely executed via wills. Your response . . . 'Just agree you are wrong' Logicboyism at work. I'll advise you to try countering my argument with the claim of slippery slope fallacy. Rationalwiki alludes to this. Or find a better argument or do what you're good at_logicboyism.

Kay 17: Consent is a legal criteria, not necessarily a moral one. Its important we have that in mind. Some cultures condone it even in the absence of consent of the deceased.

Logicboy03:


Anything legal is also moral.

However moral doesnt always translate to legal.

Logicboy03:


i guess this is what happens when someone is desperate to win an argument.

Uyi Iredia:

BARF ! From no one but the bane of logic. The latter statement is correct but the former is asinine. Mr logicboy, are the laws in the Pentateuch (which you consistently use to castigate The Book) moral ? Were the Jim Crow laws moral ? Do you regard the Nigerian laws on gay marriage and polygamy as moral ?

Uyi Iredia:

Okay then, you won. Seriously, I wasn't able to make a case for necrophilia TO YOU. Can we agree on that ?

Writing a will does not change the fact. An alive person can withdraw consent during sex. A dead man can not withdraw consent to a necrophiliac.

Logicboy03:


What case for necrophilia?


Necrophilia is wrong because of consent. Dead men can not give consent. Same thing with bestiality- animals can not give consent.


Writing a will does not change the fact. An alive person can withdraw consent during sex. A dead man can not withdraw consent to a necrophiliac.

Logicboy03:



Dumbazz,

Morality is simply defined as what people deem to be good or bad.

Laws are official statements on what is deemed to be good or bad or acceptable in a society. Infact, law is an official statement on morality of a society.


Law is a small part of morality.

That is the point I was clearly making.


But you are too anti-logicboy to even notice

Uyi Iredia: ^^^Liked. I do respect Dawkins and Dillahaunty,
one for his boldness one for articulate (though I'm no longer as impressed). I had this idea since
atheists were all about reason I should see ONLY
REASON, no inconsistency or fallacy in whatever
arguments they make. 3 years after, I can CONFIDENTLY state that atheists, at least can be
and do, display irrationality. This applies to deists
as well since I disagree with some of their
arguments, beliefs, or even where I agree, the
method of presenting it. Seeing logicboy, I was
like 'okay, lemme try to be as logical as possible
since he presumably is logical.' That was when I
first encountered him last year. Now . . . I know
him for logicboyism (professing to be reasonable
while being most unreasonable). Seriously, the
dude is gonna marry, have kids and wealth and
write a WILL as to what should be done to all
(including his corpse) after his demise (and his
own logicboyism, maybe his daughter will have
her version) expecting that his consent as enshrined in the WILL would be executed. Nothing prevents necrophilia from that except a thing which he doesn't want to 'fess up to. Good day.

Deep Sight:
Sometimes I wonder why the emptiness of this fellow's head still surprises me.

The example of a will is open and shut- a living person making a decision on what is to be done with his private property when he dies. And this fellow counters that with the puerile and assinine shout about presidential palaces. I think he needs to be urgently hospitalized.

People donate theit organs through wills for medical research. What is Illegal or immoral about willing your dead body to be used for medical or psycological research on necrophilia.

Then he talks about capacity to withdraw consent. Yourr body is your property and it is as ridiculous to speak of your house withdrawing consent as it is to speak of your dead body doing so or lacking the capacity to do so. In fact the mofo does not realize that this comment of his betrays a belief in the afterlife.

Deep Sight:


Then he talks about capacity to withdraw consent. Yourr body is your property and it is as ridiculous to speak of your house withdrawing consent as it is to speak of your dead body doing so or lacking the capacity to do so. In fact the mofo does not realize that this comment of his betrays a belief in the afterlife.

Deep Sight:

And why should a dead man want to or have to withdraw consent WHEN AS YOU CLAIM HE DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE AND THE BODY IS AS DEAD AS A ROCK? ? ?

Only the living make decisions according to you, no? Decisions are only relevant for th living, no? So it only counts when a living man makes a decision. You cannot claim that the dead dont exist and then cry about their lack of capacity to give or withdraw consent and then use that in an argument about the rights of the non existent dead!

You are so d.umb, you do not even realize that your argument betrays a belief in the afterlife.

Uyi Iredia: ^^^Liked. I do respect Dawkins and Dillahaunty,
one for his boldness one for articulate (though I'm no longer as impressed). I had this idea since
atheists were all about reason I should see ONLY
REASON, no inconsistency or fallacy in whatever
arguments they make. 3 years after, I can CONFIDENTLY state that atheists, at least can be
and do, display irrationality. This applies to deists
as well since I disagree with some of their
arguments, beliefs, or even where I agree, the
method of presenting it. Seeing logicboy, I was
like 'okay, lemme try to be as logical as possible
since he presumably is logical.' That was when I
first encountered him last year. Now . . . I know
him for logicboyism (professing to be reasonable
while being most unreasonable). Seriously, the
dude is gonna marry, have kids and wealth and
write a WILL as to what should be done to all
(including his corpse) after his demise (and his
own logicboyism, maybe his daughter will have
her version) expecting that his consent as enshrined in the WILL would be executed. Nothing prevents necrophilia from that except a thing which he doesn't want to 'fess up to. Good day.

Uyi Iredia:

Kayi ! (mr whargarbl ©) What a marvellous bait-and-switch. Almost fell for the hook to. That was not your point. You said "Anything legal is also moral " That is DIFFERENT from the point you made now which defines law and morality (correct definitions BTW). Your point on anything legal is moral is what you must justify. Going by that logic Jim Crow, the laws in the Pentateuch and the 'anti-gay marriage law' and 'polygamy law' in the Nigerian constitution are moral.

Logicboy03:





The point I was making s that anything legal is a moral issue. The laws of the land reflect what the leaders of the society feel to be right.


You can talk nonsense all you like but that doesnt change the facts