Forums → WEPR → Cannibalism

So?

International Medical Community sees cannibalism fetish as a threatening health hazard? So who cares about the international medical community, they don't know what they're talking about clearly.

Why would you assume that I would or that this is in any way related to cannibalism? It's like when some creationists ask "why do you hate God?" instead of providing a counter-argument. It doesn't explain anything.

Because cannibals suffer from an ICD (excluding those in survival situations). But then again who cares what the international medical community thinks right?

So?

Yeah, who cares if someone hurts themselves as long as it's out of sight and out of mind. This is clearly the foundation of which society was based upon.

They also aren't related to cannibalism in any way whatsoever.

Cannibalism is an ICD and so are they. If cannibalism is okay with the same logic those would be okay with consent. They aren't really okay with consent.

Are you saying we should tie them to stakes and fling them into an active volcano?

Are you saying we should let people tie themselves to stakes and fling themselves into an active volcano?

Should we force a jaywalker to stand in a tank full of leeches on the third Sunday in epiphany, or leave them be?

Should we let a person eat hotdogs topped with crushed chips because its a trendy thing to do?

Is the Ptolemaic Solar System correct because it fit the assumptions at the time?

Does the use of blatant red herrings in this thread acceptible because they're being phrased as questions?

1. Police have been cracking down on jaywalking inside of cities a lot harder than before actually.

2.That has nothing to do with cannibalism as a "moral" or a "fact".

3.Scientific theory vs. Historical Event where people were killed in mass, compare the holocaust to evolution. Wait that doesn't make sense nor does your point.

4. ... wut?

International Medical Community sees cannibalism fetish as a threatening health hazard?

Because cannibals suffer from an ICD (excluding those in survival situations).

Wait that doesn't make sense nor does your point.

Canniballistic fetish isn't cannibalism. I thought we'd been over this already.

No, they don't. Verophiliacs do.

After your Chewbacca defense, you're complaining about it not making sense?

Acting on a cookie eating fetish also isn't eating a cookie then.

Prove it.

Nice straw man you have there. I especially like how you managed to use sarcasm while demonstrating your association fallacy by inverting the groups of an otherwise valid analogy. Now, if I'm not mistaken, the topic of this discussion is cannibalism. If you want to discuss ethical questions about sexual disorders, you can make a new thread for that.

ICD-10

Why I never. Eating a cookie as a sexual act is most definitely not equal to eating a cookie as an act of hunger nor is eating a cookie because the cookie has offended you, as long as you eat the cookie in a certain way you are not actually eating a cookie. Only someone using fallacy would think other wise.

I. Cannibals delude themselves into thinking that by eating another human they will either gain power or have a part of that person forever.

II. Cannibals that eat other humans to have a part of them forever suffer from ICD-10 F32.

III. I don't need to point out why thinking you will obtain power from eating a human makes someone mentally.

I don't need to point out why thinking you will obtain power from eating a human makes someone mentally.

id like to add this: even if it cant be proven scientifically, or actually, even if its disproven, having this belief doesnt make you mentally ill.

most religious people in the world would stick to their beliefs regardless of scientific proof or any logical argument. it disgusts you and its not the norm, so you judge it like this. but thinking you have some kind of part of someone you just ate does make more sense then cleansing your soul in water or eating bread that magically turned into the flesh of a human/god.

hey wait a minute, those people do actually believe they eat and drink the flesh and blood of jesus. i wonder, why wouldnt they see themselves as canibals? kind of a trolling move from me but still is a point to think off.

when its comfortable, people disregard any sort of logic. when its uncomfortable, any excuse to try and argue against it.

You're still missing the point.
What I'm saying: an act of X ≠ a mental disorder which may cause an instance of X.
What you're saying: an act of X ≠ an act of X caused by a mental disorder.

No, they don't. Do you even read these links before posting? Clinical depression has nothing to do with cannibalism or any form of animism/spiritualism.
From what I can gather from the discussion so far, you regard a cannibal as an unnatural (page 6), unprogressive, and uncivilized (page 5) rapist/murderer who suffers from vorarephilia (page 4), PTSD-related symptoms (page 6), major depression, and psychotic delusions (page 7), and subjects others to cruel/inhumane/degrading treatment (page 5) in order to obtain either power or some lasting part of that individual (page 7), and also eats human flesh/organs. You also appear to believe that starvation both is and isn't a reason for cannibalism at the same time.

id like to add this: even if it cant be proven scientifically, or actually, even if its disproven, having this belief doesnt make you mentally ill.

most religious people in the world would stick to their beliefs regardless of scientific proof or any logical argument. it disgusts you and its not the norm, so you judge it like this. but thinking you have some kind of part of someone you just ate does make more sense then cleansing your soul in water or eating bread that magically turned into the flesh of a human/god.

Now I want to ask you something. Is it okay to find Attack on Titan sexually appealing and see it as a hentai?

... To every man his... err...
... no comment.

Now lets look at the graceful history of cannibalism and all that cannibalism as given to us and how we benefit from it!

Now lets look at the graceful history of cannibalism and all that cannibalism as given to us and how we benefit from it!

Now lets look at the graceful history of cannibalism and all that cannibalism as given to us and how we benefit from it! <3

Prehistoric
-The Cheddar Man, a human skeleton dating from around 7150 BC, may have been a victim of cannibalism.
Our ancestors were clearly more intelligent than we are today.

Middle Ages
-Crusaders practised cannibalism during the Siege of Ma'arra.
Nothing like starving to near death while waiting to fight in the front lines again to most likely be used as cannon fodder.

1600s
On 20 August 1672, a mob lynched and ate parts of Johan de Witt.
Clearly the proper way to show a politician that the people aren't happy.

1700s
The accounts of the sinking of the Luxborough Galley in 1727 reported cannibalism amongst the survivors during their two weeks on a small boat in the mid-Atlantic.
Drawing straws to decide who gets eaten first! What a fun game (drawing straws is seriously the inspiration to a children's game and nursing song though).

1800s
-Boone Helm, also known as "The Kentucky Cannibal", was an American mountain man, serial killer and fugitive, who ate human flesh on several occasions between 1850 and 1854, often out of necessity in extreme conditions. He made no secret of the fact, and is reported to have said: "Many's the poor devil I've killed, at one time or another ... and the time has been that I've been obliged to feed on some of 'em".
He seems like a likely fellow.

1900's
-Cannibalism was widespread during the famine of Ukraine in 1932-3,[42] forcing Soviet officials to commission posters saying: "To eat your own children is a barbarian act".
Parenting at it's finest.

2000's
-In July 2002, four Ukrainians were arrested in Kiev for killing and eating a teenage girl. They were suspected of killing at least 6 people. Evidence showed that the murders may have been influenced by satanism.
And this is why the Church of Satin is afraid the Order of the Nine Angles. It's like how the the Al-Qaeda is afraid of ISIS.

Weird, it seems like the site deletes everything that isn't the first sentence when you edit a comment.

onsidering that the only unmodernized state(s) continue with cannibalism as tradition it is more than safe to say that it is unprogressive.

Aside from the fact that you are not proving this in any way in your post, you are actually proving the opposite, unless you define "modern" in a different way than us. By saying this:

In July 2002, four Ukrainians were arrested in Kiev for killing and eating a teenage girl. They were suspected of killing at least 6 people.

Unless if modern for you means only the United States and some European nations, then I dare say that your point is false and thank you for disproving it for me yourself (Ukraine is a "modern" nation, not everyone is a 19th century farmer)

Yes they do, read my links, I even pointed out once or twice that cannibals 'may' carry out the act because of depression and other psychological factors. "major depression, and psychotic delusions".

I like how you've marked the word "may"... You've been talking about clinical psychiatric conditions as if they are the major cause of cannibalism all this time.

Aside from the fact that you are not proving this in any way in your post, you are actually proving the opposite, unless you define "modern" in a different way than us. By saying this:

Unless if modern for you means only the United States and some European nations, then I dare say that your point is false and thank you for disproving it for me yourself (Ukraine is a "modern" nation, not everyone is a 19th century farmer)

I like how you've marked the word "may"... You've been talking about clinical psychiatric conditions as if they are the major cause of cannibalism all this time.

That's where you're wrong. You probably didn't know this but I have a background in occultism, you see the Satainist that acted out the event were clearly affiliated with ONA in one way or the other. ONA hides in the shadows of civilization, in the woods, in old broken down factories and etc, there is nothing progressive or modern about the group. Thank you for trying though.

Yes but you didn't talk about modern or progressive "groups". You talked about "states" (

the only unmodernized state(s) continue with cannibalism as tradition

that the only unmodernized state(s) continue with cannibalism as tradition

We have cut and narrowed this down. You are a cannibal because you are 'very very very very very hungry','because of fanatical culture', or 'because you find it sexually appealing'.

I have already agreed that it is in a way justified in starvation (but claimed that it is rare even during those times). This leads us with two things left discussing about; cannibalism as a fetish and as zeal.

We have established that cannibalism as a fetish is an ICD and now I have pointed out that it is still an ICD even when it is not in fetish form.

I. Yes they do, read my links, I even pointed out once or twice that cannibals 'may' carry out the act because of depression and other psychological factors. "major depression, and psychotic delusions".

II. Considering that the only unmodernized state(s) continue with cannibalism as tradition it is more than safe to say that it is unprogressive.

III. I will prove to you it is 99.9% of the time inhumane in a later point.

I don't see why a group of people couldn't become mentally ill over time and see being mentally ill as the norm for them.

Is it because I have "Angel" in my name that you saw fit to call out Christian Catholicism (which does not make up the "most&quot then tried to shrug it off as a "it's a perspective problem" to try to make up for whatever offense you might have caused?

To respond to this I will say this, are you really going to try add Christian theology (Remember Christians have hundreds of branches) to our discussion? We have been here for 4-5 weeks. We will be here till Christmas if we do this.

How an individual Christian sees the act of consuming the bread and wine (now grape juice in most cases) is dependent on several factors and how they think.

Now I want to ask you something. Is it okay to find Attack on Titan sexually appealing and see it as a hentai?

Our ancestors were clearly more intelligent than we are today.

Nothing like starving to near death while waiting to fight in the front lines again to most likely be used as cannon fodder.

Clearly the proper way to show a politician that the people aren't happy.

Drawing straws to decide who gets eaten first! What a fun game (drawing straws is seriously the inspiration to a children's game and nursing song though).

He seems like a likely fellow.

Parenting at it's finest.

And this is why the Church of Satin is afraid the Order of the Nine Angles. It's like how the the Al-Qaeda is afraid of ISIS.

At the time I was actually using modernized as an equal to progressive.

That's where you're wrong. You probably didn't know this but I have a background in occultism, you see the Satainist that acted out the event were clearly affiliated with ONA in one way or the other. ONA hides in the shadows of civilization, in the woods, in old broken down factories and etc, there is nothing progressive or modern about the group.

You see I originally only put depression and not the other which is the source of your misconception, [...]

Yes but you didn't talk about modern or progressive "groups". You talked about "states"

Cannibalism can be associated with Satanists in general)
and even if we accept the view presented about the ONA (that there is nothing progressive with the group itself, that they hide in the shadows of civilization etc.), your mentioning of modern "states" rules out Ukraine, as it cancels your original point ( that

"your mentioning of modern "states" rules out Ukraine, as it cancels your original point". I don't understand, are you saying that my argument is invalid because a state (in this case Ukraine) that has cannibals is not unprogressive? If so then I will say that Ukraine is in fact not 'not modern' state but the group that carried out the act clearly was.

Fanaticism has nothing to do with it. If a grieving family takes consolation in having part of the deceaced consumed, that should not be denied them on such weak grounds as "that's gross", "that's uncivilized", "that's taboo in my culture", or "there's a small chance of getting an extremely rare, yet deadly, disease if you eat remains of someone who happens to have a family history of that disease".

", that should not be denied them on such weak grounds as..." by that logic a culture that socially accepts rape should be allowed to rape because it's part of their culture. Pedophilia is also justified in this way.

1 It being an exception does not change the fact that it is cannibalism, so you should not be making general statements like "Cannibalism is listed as a war crime", or "Cannibalism is an ICD".
2 It being rare does not justify establishing laws that ignore it completely.
3 This is a false trilemma. In addition to the alternatives I already mentioned, there's also unintentional cannibalism to consider. People should not face criminal charges based on ingredients they don't know are in their food.

1 It's commonly called an "example". It's an actual thing, in case you were wondering.
2 Even if we assume, as you apparently have already, that your personal beliefs have any involvement in this, no amount of ergo decedo will make his statement any less valid.

That's still begging the question. Saying something is unprogressive will not make it true.

No, it isn't. You've been using the same faulty reasoning throughout the entire thread. Your arguments only consider cannibalism as a whole when you try to make an exception for starvation. Then it goes back to "cannibalism is unacceptable and immoral because ...", as though you believe the term no longer applies to anything that doesn't fit your most recent point.

Why is the timeline relevant?
"Now lets look at the graceful history of cannibalism and all that cannibalism as given to us and how we benefit from it!