Forums → WEPR → Cannibalism

Christians were afraid of pagans because the Church oppressed them, hunted them and generally purged them as well as punished anyone who even remotely associated with pagans. Any citizen would be afraid of it. Not because cannibalism got into that society and that is because first of all, it was no single society, but divided in multiple groups even in the dark ages. Besides, we have no reason to believe that pagans being cannibals was NOT another lie spread by the Church to discourage people from associating with any of them, directly or indirectly.

First of all, did you just pull the "nearly half (maybe more) records of cannibalism incidents?" part out of a magic hat? Because it doesn't seem like it's anywhere near that amount. But even if it is, I was talking about the specific ONA example, since we've already shot down the previous 'timeline' you so delicately set up. Doesn't seem like you are anywhere near accepting it, but the examples you've brought up of Cannibalism throughout history were totally irrelevant ot the point, like Fish said. What you did was bring up some examples of people who were directly or indirectly associated with Cannibalism and who engaged in some other brutal/violent/immoral act. Sorry but that doesn't mean you can associate Cannibalism with any of those acts.

Again, since the examples were unrelated, we cannot even put them on a scale.

No, that's what a country in a far worse economical situation than pretty much any nation in the world right now would have a chance of doing in a nation-wide level. Therefore, like I said, unrelated to the point.

Even if that's not the case and we just accept that there are countries in the world right now (which are not) that are in such a bad financial situation that citizens resort to cannibalism in their majority, neither Ukraine, nor Greece belong in this . Therefore, the example is false.

No nation in the world is in a stage to do this because it is extremely rare to be in a stage like that, this isn't about the odds this is about what happens when it is.
I have given examples of when this does become the case therefore my 'fact' is correct unless we ignore that it ever happened.

This is still related to cannibalism, this is still an example of when cannibalism is 'or' at least can be okay, the example also clearly doesn't involve any smiles or happiness.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ban blue laws". The government makes, amends, and repeals laws. It doesn't ban them.

Seriously, where do you get these straw men? There's no logical consistency here at all. I'm arguing that people are entitled to whatever legally permissible funerary rights they choose for themselves. You're pretending this means we have to legalize everything and anything anyone considers part of their culture.

My point exactly. Preserving the body would not be the best thing to do.

I'm arguing that people are entitled to whatever legally permissible funerary rights they choose for themselves. You're pretending this means we have to legalize everything and anything anyone considers part of their culture.

I'm not bringing them up. I have not stated that it was a war crime nor an ICD.

Are...are you kidding me?
page 5: "Technically Yes. Cannibalism is listed as a war crime by the U.N or more specifically the WW2 Tribunal against the Japanese."
page 7: "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."
Also, from the paragraph that I was responding to in the first place: "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."
You only redacted the ICD claim later. In fact, it was right after stating "I don't see why you are pointing them out [...]".

No it's because if you go online and look up the lists of cannibal incidents nearly all of them do and those that don't did it for survival.

Does this mean we should regard any and all other incidents of cannibalism as legally the same thing?

No, it isn't. Manslaughter ≠ Murder. They are two very different things.

I think you give our ancestors less credit than they deserve, they have the same brain and same capability to rationalize, the "Dark Ages" is a term used by scholars in the Renaissance to undermine their sovereigns and to push for a "Mandate of Heaven", this is pretty easy to see if you look at the time line of the "Dark Ages" since it never really started or ended. Napoleon Bonaparte said "There are two things that unite men; fear and interest." and clearly fear of the unknown is what did it, the order of the Church only legitimized it.

Yes it is correct, it is because all of it is copied from wikipedia page about cannibalism and wikipedia is 97% correct. On that list is 'at least' nearly all of the recorded incidents.

Take out some sheets of paper of equal weight; list every incident on individual sheets; place them on the scale in their correct place; evaluate.

There is one and only one thing and one thing only that is making this okay in your perspective though and that is culture and that is my point.

You know it isn't okay to cannibalize in general, [...]

I see why not a why a people who are the complete reverse of modern humans not abide to our 'very diverse' customs, [...]

Yet they 'choose' to be what Romans and Han dynasty even during their collapse would agree to being barbarians, they 'choose' to disconnect themselves, they 'choose' to give their children unequal opportunities, they choose to stay stuck in a dead era, they choose to ignore the society that surrounds them and that society in 2015 'is' the Earth.

Tradition is one thing; being allowed to live in a poor state because they are too insignificant to care about is another.

Why should they have this practice that 'forces' themselves to be uncivilized, [...]

The British chose to make their colonies suffer, [...]

[...] the Romans chose to become degenerate, [...]

[...] the people chose to change seeing the error in their ways.

If scripture calls for you to give sacrifice you cannot give should you hang? Should the Jewish abide to laws that enforces harsh ways of life because it is in their tradition a thousand years ago? In your mind you say no but what if they're use to it?

Yet the culture you defend does not do such.

You don't choose rights for yourself; they are given to you. Accept it or not it is how it is.

I'm not bringing them up. I have not stated that it was a war crime nor an ICD.

Go back to those same pages and you'll see that I told you when I was wrong and have not brought back those points since then.

Let's not run in circles, you know I have said there are exceptions.

Manslaughter is third degree murder actually, it may vary on state though.

Wholly irrelevant Batman! [picture]

No, how about this: You take out the paper and you list every incident related to your choice of liquor, bureaucracy, homosexuality, organized religion, sporting events, stoneflies, and erosion, then you tell me how good and morally correct that is based on what you've listed. Don't worry; I'll wait.

Actually, it is. That's kind of the whole point of every objection to all of your arguments in this thread.

@TheAngelOfWar I understand and agree with some of what you're saying, but it should be fairly obvious to you that even when you're perfectly right that people like these always find a weasel around and turn things back on you, take what you're saying and flip the meaning all around and try come back really fast and condescend on you and then quickly move on, pretending to not understand and acting like you're a lunatic, Etc...
Idk if it's deliberate and thought out, or a semi subconscious flippant "Well, up your's" thought pattern or what.

@TheAngelOfWar

Take out some sheets of paper of equal weight; list every incident on individual sheets; place them on the scale in their correct place; evaluate.

But we've already been through your examples of cannibalism! How many times? Just like the Japanese lieutenant you brought up some pages ago! What all of them did was associate with gruesome, immoral and violent acts and with Cannibalism. That makes these acts immoral and violent, not Cannibalism itself.

At any rate, the only thing wrong with cannibalism in the examples you've presented is that it was involuntary. But then again it was committed after the murder of the ones to be eaten, so, the true immoral act is the murder itself! Stop making this about cannibalism since all the examples you've pulled are really about the other acts.

No nation in the world is in a stage to do this because it is extremely rare to be in a stage like that, this isn't about the odds this is about what happens when it is.
I have given examples of when this does become the case therefore my 'fact' is correct unless we ignore that it ever happened.

If by examples you mean anything from the timeline you set up, sorry but, we've been through this, they are all unrelated to the point. Not to mention that none of your examples involve an entire nation engaging in Cannibalism (the possible exception wopuld have been Ukraine in 42-43 but aside from not actually being nation-wide, it is irrelevant as well). So you've been talking about a fictional scenario all along. Great.

This is still related to cannibalism, this is still an example of when cannibalism is 'or' at least can be okay, the example also clearly doesn't involve any smiles or happiness.

Which one? The ONA in Ukraine? Because that's what I was talking about with that phrase.

@SportShark

So in your mind only you are allowed to deviate from the topic and when someone else responds to it you post some stupid picture and accuse them of being the one off topic? Nice try at taking your manure and shoveling onto someone else.

He's gotten off point so many times that there is nothing else we can do. What he actually does is argumentum ad lapidem , the only difference is that he tries and fails to explain why he views Cannibalism the way he does.

No how about this: Stop thinking that you're a sarcastic genius.

Whoa. What happened to "letting people deviate from the topic"? We are allowed to discuss this any way we want. And if you've happened to read all that's been said (I know it's a lot) you know this discussion is running in circles. Some sarcasm is in order to make it a bit more entertaining at least. Break the routine

I forgot whether you're from the US or not, but in America you're usually allowed to have your own opinions, no matter how deranged and ridiculous they are. So, whatever. Mr.HumanFleshPreferred.

Where'd you get this notion that it's all OK anyway? To many years in a "Everythings ok, no matter how sick and vile, tolerate everything except the wholesome" public school? Maybe you should post a meme to enlighten me. You'll feel so clever, right?

Now who is being sarcastic?

Now here's my opinion since we're back to personal beliefs again. Cannibalism is an obsessive cultural taboo that quickly leads to a depraved, disrespectful view towards human beings.

You asked a handful of questions in the previous page. So, if you want to keep it on topic (which is quite what we've been trying to do since the start of page 7), here's a question: When consenting adults make up both parties and are ok with it, how is it an obsessive cultural taboo?

I understand and agree with some of what you're saying, but it should be fairly obvious to you that even when you're perfectly right that people like these always find a weasel around and turn things back on you, take what you're saying and flip the meaning all around and try come back really fast and condescend on you and then quickly move on, pretending to not understand and acting like you're a lunatic, Etc...

Now you are being funny. Well, so we are "these people" huh? I'd advise you to read my entry post in this thread again but I doubt that would change your mind.

It would probably be for the best for everyone to get their main points/arguments down again without any hint of emotion or disdain or contempt, select the best objective evidence of the pick to support their stances, and start from scratch again. This is just degenerating into quoting back and worth, splintering the arguments and losing all the points/evidence raised into minute details that become individual arguments of their own.

It would also be relevant to raise the point that cannibalism being discussed is hinged upon permission granting (while alive), and doesn't involve murder. Everyone has disagreed that cannibalism if committed with murder, is criminally wrong and abhorrent, so let's not keep harping upon it. Murder also has a very specific legal meaning, so if manslaughter, murder and the different degrees of killings are brought up, it might also be worthwhile to distinguish them, instead of using them interchangeably.

It would probably be for the best for everyone to get their main points/arguments down again without any hint of emotion or disdain or contempt, select the best objective evidence of the pick to support their stances, and start from scratch again.

This is exactly what SportShark tried to do in the previous page and we replied the questions to let the discussion flow.

Ah, I did not see that page, that's good then.

------------
In any case, I would defend legalised cannibalism if the statues put into place rigorously define and ring fence the act such that it does not intrude incompatibly into other areas of criminal law.

So in your mind only you are allowed to deviate from the topic [...]

No how about this: Stop thinking that you're a sarcastic genius.

Where'd you get this notion that it's all OK anyway?

What gives you the idea that I'm being sarcastic here?

Well, Fish, not saying it's bad but isn't this sarcasm?:

Yes, finally the scientific community has the proof it's been searching for**: All religious and spiritualistic beliefs are the product of diseased minds! Now we can all hang up our lab coats and take up golfing full-time

No, that was a joke and a reductio ad absurdum. Anyway, I'm not saying I haven't been sarcastic at some point. I'm pointing out the fact that no part of what he was quoting from is at all sarcastic.

Fair enough. Though I did get the feeling he was talking a bit more generally about you. Anyway, he can answer himself when he arrives, so that's off-topic.

To get back on topic:

In any case, I would defend legalised cannibalism if the statues put into place rigorously define and ring fence the act such that it does not intrude incompatibly into other areas of criminal law.

I agree, regulations and definitions have to be strict on the matter. Intention, cause, conditions, pretty much everything has to come into play.

So I suppose that since it has already been pointed out that there are no laws fully covering Cannibalism that it is "ok" from a legal point of view if both parties are made up of consenting adults who are under no outside influence when they make this decision.

Stop making ridiculously inane assumptions about the thoughts of someone you've never met whose opinions you've never heard.

I hope I haven't strayen to far off topic.

Sorry SportShark but now you are being a hypocrite...

Sorry SportShark but now you are being a hypocrite...

I was expecting a negative reaction, but nothing this lame.