>>17434141
Corpse desecration has always been an extremely vile and foul act.
Why do you think most cultures burried the dead?

>>17434141
>t. necroromancer

>>17434141
>The only problems it's that is gross, and it's "destruction of property" since the body belongs to said family of the individual, outside of that there's nothing morally wrong.
you answered your own question on why it's wrong.

>>17434141
it might also lead to more animal suffering (killing an animal in order to have sex with it)

>>17434141
I'd really like to know where you're getting that necrophilia is not rape, because that is blatantly false. Necrophilia is the act of sexually arousing yourself, or someone else, from the corpse of another being. Which means you're violating that corpse's autonomy, thus consent.

>>17434250
not him but this is retarded,
that's like saying a couch can be violated.

>>17434248
why would u do that 3:
dead dogs are not only horrifying but also literally can't knot u whats the fucking point :<

>>17434269
I wouldn't do that, I'm saying other gentlemen would, like they've demonstrated in the news.

>>17434141
It’s wrong because I don’t want my tax dollars going to treating your rotting dick after you catch several diseases. Plus, even ignoring morality, it’s gross and people don’t like to associate with freaks like you.

>>17434141
Respecting our loved ones, regardless of them being alive or dead, is one of the telltale signs of humans being social animals.
There absolutely is something wrong with necrophilia, and we evolved to find it disgusting, as it's showing that the individual doesn't share the same connection to the rest of the group. Someone who tries to justify it or actually takes part in it, is showing that they're defective on a genetic level, and should be jailed/exiled/killed. I'd say they should be killed, but that can be negotiated if others in my group would prefer one of the other two options. If jail, it needs to be until death though.

>>17434250
>you're violating that corpse's autonomy, thus consent
how many corpses consented to be burried? Or get discarded in some other way? Or moved at all. Maybe they just want to stay where they died until they rot away

>>17434308
>how many corpses consented to be burried
Unless the person says they want some other type of funeral(ashes at sea, turned into a diamond, etc), literally everyone consented to it. We know our funeral rituals from a young age.
Even other social animals have their own type of "burials". Elephants will put a bunch of stuff on-top of their dead elephant family member, it's not a below ground burial like humans, but a burial none the less.
>Or get discarded in some other way
It happens, but unless the person specifically requests it, the burial is the assumed default preference.
>Or moved at all
Sometimes that does happen. Wars, natural disasters, etc Not normal circumstances though.
>Maybe they just want to stay where they died until they rot away
That does occasionally happen if the person doesn't have anyone to check on them, and they die in their house and alone. After a few months, someone will notice, and the remaining remains get buried then.

I'm not sure why you don't understand that humans are social animals, and have funeral traditions/rites that we do to show love/respect to the person who died.
Do you have autism or are you a psychopath/sociopath or have some other mental detect?
Otherwise you're deliberately ignoring all the questions you asked when you were a child, to be a retarded edgelord.

>>17434141
It doesn't violate the NAP (shouldn't be illegal) but it's unvirtuous bc of diseases. Like smoking tobacco.