Forums → WEPR → Cannibalism

The time line isn't valid apprently because it has to do with morals and not laws, [...]

[...] now you're telling me this law doesn't apply because it has nothing to do with morals.

Bottom line you can't cannibalize dead people. Period.

Also In funerals you don't have any organs in you, they take all of them out and properly dispose of them and your eyes are sewn shut.

[...] their funeral and etc all must be accounted for by the state and will be consider the body a medical waste.

Okay dude, if you think you can rationalize genocide, racism, sexism, homophobia, torture, slavery, kidnapping and other traits attributed to Nazism and not need psychological help because they have the right too then i dont know what to tell you.

It has been scientifically proven that eating human body parts will make you go clinically insane, eventually.

You pointed out several things about ONA, that rely on how do you know and what if. I do know and I have given you an answer with no what if because it is as is.

However we did evovle with a gene that protected us from cannibalism due to our ancestors. As you can see in the link i provided with an actual disease related to cannibalism it has clearly become weak.

What??? Just ... What? The disease, Kuru, has nothing at all to do with a weakened immunity of any kind. It's a prion disease. That means it's caused by an extremely rare kind of deformed protein that makes similar proteins deform. Cannibalism has as much to do with it as airlines have to do with ebola. At this point I'm not sure whether you are really that uninformed or are just grasping at straws to bolster your position.

See? Your response doesn't even relate to what you quoted. He was talking about Ukraine. You, @TheAngelOfWar, made it about ONA.

No, it hasn't. Hence the prevalence of cannibalism from the earliest hominids to some time probably well into the bronze age.

Why, then, would you make such an utterly absurd and baseless assumption if not only to evade a legitimate counterargument? Also, please note that reductio as hitlerum is not going to work here.

1 A human body is nothing but organs and fluid, so no, there is no such funeral.
2 If you mean excluding bones, muscles, skin, &c. well, Egyptian style mummification isn't very common these days either, so I fail to see your point.

Yet, by some inexplicable miracle, some people manage to do just that.

What? No. It isn't valid because cannibalism is not what's immoral about any of the events you listed.

No. It doesn't apply because corpses are no more medical waste than nachos, as I explained.

I'll get to a more elaborate response... sometime in the future.

A cadaver is medical waste, a corpse is medical waste, it is a medical waste because the hospital has to confirm that they are dead (even if it's really clear). A nacho is a type of food. A corpse is a fallen member of society. Once you are confirmed dead you are medical waste, the state oversees that corpses are accounted for and have been buried or cremated and confirm it as medical waste because you cannot leave dead things rotting around the streets. It is also to make sure you don't leave a dead body in a lake that we drink out of because again, what happens to your body after you die is not good for the environment because we humans are nasty beings.

As I said, it's about medical waste, in health centres. You can try and read the laws itself yourself. The laws do not concern themselves with corpses that aren't in health centres. To see what the purpose of a law is, we don't just look at its effects, we look at the background of the law, the actual wording of the law.

In this case, as the law only covers situations of human remains derived in hospitals, it is clear that the law's purpose is not to target cannibalism, but concerns itself solely with waste disposal.

I'll give you an example. This is the Rhode Island version of the law, and it defines human medical waste as:

Tissues, organs, and body parts of humans that are removed
during surgery or autopsy, or other medical procedures (e.g., obstetrical procedures).

with the exceptions of

Human remains (e.g., corpses and anatomical parts) that are stored,
transported, or otherwise managed for purposes of interment or cremation.

So those under the former definition will be regulated medical waste, but the latter not. It is clear that the law isn't a tool to be used against cannibals. So far, as far as our research has shown, there aren't explicit laws banning cannibalism in the States.

Prove that the gene doesn't protect against prion diseases (at least not the hereditary ones or disorders).

Prion diseases as far as I know only Kuru and one other are caused by viruses, it would not be unreasonable for the gene to protect against them in a indirect way.

[...] now, is cannibalism a result of poverty?

We cannot apply bronze age era thinking (which was not exactly a lot of thinking) with modern age thinking.

Put a rich kid in the bronze era, he will go insane with any group he is with. Sleeping with animals would drive the typical modern man into depression (not from childhood) and would probably go insane like the stereotypical hermit.

All the context of his comments leads me to believe that said person holds the belief that you can be whatever you want as long as you are not hurting someone.

... do you realize how bad an organ would smell at a funeral if you left all the soft organs (the ones that you do not need to have a open funeral).

You may not legally consume a corpse.

But they all resulted in cannibalism which proves cannibalism is 99.99 percent of the time not a good thing by any means.

A cadaver is medical waste, [...]

[...] a corpse is medical waste, [...]

[...] it is a medical waste because the hospital has to confirm that they are dead (even if it's really clear).

Once you are confirmed dead you are medical waste, the state oversees that corpses are accounted for and have been buried or cremated and confirm it as medical waste because you cannot leave dead things rotting around the streets. It is also to make sure you don't leave a dead body in a lake that we drink out of [...]

[...] because again, what happens to your body after you die is not good for the environment because we humans are nasty beings.

But they all resulted in cannibalism which proves cannibalism is 99.99 percent of the time not a good thing by any means.

Νo it doesn't.
1) Cannibalism today is part of some cultures. The timeline you set up fails to cover any of the cannibalism incidents within the cultures themselves (which I am willing to wager are at least half of the documented cases in human history). Which means that nothing is proven, let alone the "magic-hat-gave-me-the-number-99.99" part.
2) The events didn't lead to Cannibalism, cruel and in some cases insane people resorted to it along with some other immoral acts. They are pychopaths? Sure they are (in most cases of those presented). But that doesn't say anything about Cannibalism still.

Ukraine by itself was not the entire topic of what we were discussing. That thread was about if cannibalism is a result of poverty within a group or not. Okay, let's say we never spoke of ONA or occultist groups. The thread still continues as it would either way because ONA and Ukraine are pieces of a bigger picture that can be left out, now, is cannibalism a result of poverty? I stay where I am and say it is because history shows groups resorting to cannibalism in times of intense poverty.

Even your twisted timeline shows only one such recorded case. Cannibalism is not the result of intense poverty and never was. People have been resorting to cannibalism since before the evolution into homo sapiens sapiens.

We cannot apply bronze age era thinking (which was not exactly a lot of thinking) with modern age thinking.

Because you're misinterpreting them (deliberately, I suspect) as something wildly different from anything he ever suggested. Something which very conveniently happens to be much easier to defeat that what he's actually saying.

^that

but:

All the context of his comments leads me to believe that said person holds the belief that you can be whatever you want as long as you are not hurting someone. Do you starve a wolf and leave it with a child? The wolf is not hurting anyone just and not for a long period but it will eventually.

you just hurt 2 people. a wolf and a baby.

yes wolf is a "someone". and just because you hurt something indirectly doesnt mean you didnt hurt them. in fact, its the exact opposite

We've gone from morals and ethics to science to hentai to social studies.

Alright I'm done.

@HaHiHa
Lock the topic.

Lock the topic.

The topic was never meant just for you, even though you were one of the primary debaters.

Alright I'm done.

I have stuffs to do. If I wanted to "get back at you" I would like throw a tantrum and call you stupid and stuffs, it doesn't really get back at you but it would release anger (that I would hypothetically have).

Apologies, that should have been "get to you"...