Forums → WEPR → Cannibalism
| 146 | 56054 |
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-cannibalism-be-illegal
55 say Yes cannibalism should be illegal
45 say No cannibalism should not be illegal
Please. Someone give me reason to believe in humanity again.
- 146 Replies
What belief system upholds this?1 It's the traditional practice of the Wari' tribe.
2 Does it matter who believes it? If someone does, or will at some point in the future, you'll need better justification for illegalizing it.
Now, why should they also eat dead bodies of people they find?1 I'm not sure who you're referring to.
2 Does it matter? Unless they live in or very close to a multicultural nexus, those bodies are most likely going to be their own comrades.
The worst you can do is leave the body alone and the best is try to preserve the body.No, it isn't. That would be highly offensive to people of many cultures, including Hindus, Tibetans, and Zoroastrians.
Why force a dead person to take part in something that probably doesn't have the same belief. As I've said before dead people have rights too.Exactly. We have no good reason to legally force our own cultural taboos on another culture's dead.
", 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.Do you not understand what "weak grounds" means? I was kind of hoping you might.
I. With those statements defeated I don't see why you are pointing them out they are no longer relevant.Because you kept bringing them up.
II. So?Illegalizing cannibalism itself is therefore unreasonable. Things which are not inherently detrimental to society should not be made illegal simply because they're associated with things that are. All of your examples of cruel and immoral acts involving cannibalism are cruel and immoral because they violate the rights of others; not because they happen to involve cannibalism.
III. There is also unintentional assault and unintentional murder. They are depending on the laws of said land almost always followed by far less severeAssault: Possibly under some jurisdictions, but that's an exceptionally poor comparison. You're essentially saying that anything anyone does which, for reasons they have no way of knowing, involves something which is considered illegal or immoral under a different context is analogous to threatening, attacking, and/or killing someone; and that's just ridiculous.
punishment or no punishment at all.
Murder: No. "Unintentional murder" is as oxymoronic as "square circle". There is simply no such thing.
II. I still responded to later on just not in an entirely direct way.But you failed to address the valid question that he brought up. If people believe in transubstantiation and take the host, on a psychological level they would be doing the same thing (thinking they will obtain some special attribute by eating human flesh). Also, while Catholicism is by no means universal to western culture, it isn't condemned by it either.
Why is the timeline relevant?It isn't.
1 It's the traditional practice of the Wari' tribe.
2 Does it matter who believes it? If someone does, or will at some point in the future, you'll need better justification for illegalizing it.
In that case the federal government needs better reasons to ban blue laws from communities.
1 I'm not sure who you're referring to.
2 Does it matter? Unless they live in or very close to a multicultural nexus, those bodies are most likely going to be their own comrades.
Or tourist or really lost people or a body that stayed intact as it flowed down a really long river.
Exactly. We have no good reason to legally force our own cultural taboos on another culture's dead.
We also have no reason to prevent rape, pedophilia, murder, and etc from another culture because it's they're culture right?
No, it isn't. That would be highly offensive to people of many cultures, including Hindus, Tibetans, and Zoroastrians.
I. I'm pretty sure Tibetans leave bodies out in nature for religious reasons actually.
II. Hindus, Tibetans, and Zoroastrians don't actively cannibalize bodies as part of their belief system. You can also bury the body in a coffin that way there will be remains to turn to ashes, bury at sea, bury else wear and etc for later on, that would actually be really compassionate.
Do you not understand what "weak grounds" means? I was kind of hoping you might.
Elaborate.
Because you kept bringing them up.
I'm not bringing them up. I have not stated that it was a war crime nor an ICD.
Illegalizing cannibalism itself is therefore unreasonable. Things which are not inherently detrimental to society should not be made illegal simply because they're associated with things that are. All of your examples of cruel and immoral acts involving cannibalism are cruel and immoral because they violate the rights of others; not because they happen to involve cannibalism.
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.
Assault: Possibly under some jurisdictions, but that's an exceptionally poor comparison. You're essentially saying that anything anyone does which, for reasons they have no way of knowing, involves something which is considered illegal or immoral under a different context is analogous to threatening, attacking, and/or killing someone; and that's just ridiculous.
Murder: No. "Unintentional murder" is as oxymoronic as "square circle". There is simply no such thing.
I. Manslaughter, the guy who ran someone over did not mean to kill the person while checking a text. Still took someones life with no justification thus it is still murder.
II. I'm saying if you have been tricked into eating another human you shouldn't be punished. Pretty sure we're on the same page here.
But you failed to address the valid question that he brought up. If people believe in transubstantiation and take the host, on a psychological level they would be doing the same thing (thinking they will obtain some special attribute by eating human flesh). Also, while Catholicism is by no means universal to western culture, it isn't condemned by it either.
I'm actually going to stop right here, it seems like my comments are being cut off because I clearly wrote more than I did in my previous comment I just noticed that and I'm going to try to figure out why.
In that case the federal government needs better reasons to ban blue laws from communities.I'm not sure what you mean by "ban blue laws". The government makes, amends, and repeals laws. It doesn't ban them.
We also have no reason to prevent rape, pedophilia, murder, and etc from another culture because it's they're culture right?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.
I. I'm pretty sure Tibetans leave bodies out in nature for religious reasons actually.My point exactly. Preserving the body would not be the best thing to do.
II. Hindus, Tibetans, and Zoroastrians don't actively cannibalize bodies as part of their belief system. You can also bury the body in a coffin that way there will be remains to turn to ashes, bury at sea, bury else wear and etc for later on, that would actually be really compassionate.
Elaborate.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?
I. Manslaughter, the guy who ran someone over did not mean to kill the person while checking a text. Still took someones life with no justification thus it is still murder.No, it isn't. Manslaughter ≠ Murder. They are two very different things.
II. I'm saying if you have been tricked into eating another human you shouldn't be punished. Pretty sure we're on the same page here.I was under the impression that you were saying otherwise.
I said ONA was unprogressive, I don't really believe that I need to give you an example of a modern state but I will give you one if you insist; the nation in which you are currently living in.
Now that's a smaaaall bit of a personal attack mixed with red herring and various other logical fallacies my friend But I am going to let all of it slide and point out one thing: Whether the country I live in or not is unprogressive has nothing to do with cannibalism. Giving an example of unprogressive country, when it has nothing to do with cannibals is therefore totally unrelated to this thread.
And if you did give me this example just to help me understand what you meant with the term "modernized/unmodernized" then I am sorry but you should still have used a better way to phrase your opinion. Because Ukraine is still not an "unmodernized" state and you still talked about a "state" in the first place, not a "group".
I didn't say Satanist in general were cannibals I said a radical sect (ONA) was. The Church of Satan aren't known for terrorism in contrast to the KKK both who reside in the USA but that's another story.
So basically, a radical sect of the Church of Satan, the ONA are cannibals. Accepting the truth of this claim (again, I see no proof of this whatsoever in your post, but that's another matter, I won't focus on this), I fail to see how you can draw a conclusion from that about cannibalism as a whole. You see, you have been looking up specific acts of Cannibalism scattered at various points in history that fit your view of cannibalism as a cruel and immoral act, simply because the acts you've carefully chosen also involve other cruel and immoral acts. As such, you are essentially judging cannibalism through the murders/other gruesome unethical acts the perpetrators have committed in some specific cases you've chosen to present.
I hope I don't need to point out how ridiculous this is, you can't draw a conclusion for something based on something entirely different. But I am afraid that I most likely do need to...
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.
Again, yes. But even if we do accept that the group is "clearly unprogressive", you talked about states in your initial argument.
You see, obviously you think that the ONA carried out this as some sort of tradition (whether they do or not is not entirely related to this thread but anyway). You accepted that Ukraine is in fact not a case of unmodernized state.
Yet in your post (in page 7), you said this:
Considering that the only unmodernized state(s) continue with cannibalism as tradition it is more than safe to say that it is unprogressive.
I hope you understand now why this is not true. You have disproved it yourself after all.
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.
huh?
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" 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?
Wow. If I wasn't open minded I might have been banned from this site, thankfully that isn't the case.
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?
no, its because in the west, the religion that is considered the norm is christianity. it was a coincidence and has nothing to do with your name. that point was made to show that you judge something thats different from you basing it on twisted logic and a person could do the same with something that is very normal using the same logic.
i said its a troll move because as i said, christianity is the norm in the west.
remember that annoyed feeling you felt when reading that? thinking im making fun of your belief and shrugging it off as illogical mumbo jumbo? you are doing the same. but its ok to do it when a person with those beliefs isnt here right?
and about that attack on titan fetish thing... grow up? do i have to tell you to google it? its pretty obvious that lots of attack on titan porn will exist on the internet, which proves that yes, many people would have that fetish. and yes, its also ok to have that fetish.
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.
lol thats the same in this case.
Now lets look at the graceful history of cannibalism and all that cannibalism as given to us and how we benefit from it! <3
no need. not gonna read. how things happened before have nothing to do with the topic (said once again). giving examples of where it went wrong doesnt work. actually, i remember someone argued like that against homosexuality, showing how the ancient greeks allowed it and how their society didnt survive.
We also have no reason to prevent rape, pedophilia, murder, and etc from another culture because it's they're culture right?
you cant say "yes" to rape. that makes it sex.
theres nothing wrong with actual pedophilia. a person could be a pedophile without harming a child in his life. he could be the most nicest purest soul and simply find children attractive. the act of taking sexual advantage of a child is wrong.
murder hurts a living person and im pretty sure has to be without consent.
K back for round too high to count, xd.
Yeah I apologize, you know life and education and writing and software and stuffs make life busy.
Anyways
Doombreed
If I remember correctly I was kinda annoyed at the time. Nonetheless...
Whether the country I live in or not is unprogressive has nothing to do with cannibalism. Giving an example of unprogressive country, when it has nothing to do with cannibals is therefore totally unrelated to this thread.
It's related because I have pointed unprogressive states will resort to it in worse case scenario.
Again, yes. But even if we do accept that the group is "clearly unprogressive", you talked about states in your initial argument.
... i can also turn this around and say that I restate it as both group and state. Let's not run around in circles it's pretty clear a state will not be the cause of cannibalism itself (considering that a state in it's purist being is just borders of a nation) but cannibalism can reflect that the state is doing poorly.
You see, obviously you think that the ONA carried out this as some sort of tradition (whether they do or not is not entirely related to this thread but anyway). You accepted that Ukraine is in fact not a case of unmodernized state.
I don't think that this is a radical satanist tradition, it 'is' one.
Where did I say that? Seriously I don't remember, haha.
So basically, a radical sect of the Church of Satan, the ONA are cannibals.
No they're an independent entity from the Church of Satan that are a branch of Satanism,
fail to see how you can draw a conclusion from that about cannibalism as a whole.
It's an example.
You see, you have been looking up specific acts of Cannibalism scattered at various points in history that fit your view of cannibalism as a cruel and immoral act, simply because the acts you've carefully chosen also involve other cruel and immoral acts.
Give me ten examples of how it's a good and morally correct thing.
____________________________________________________________
Blue
huh?
Wut?
no, its because in the west, the religion that is considered the norm is christianity. it was a coincidence and has nothing to do with your name. that point was made to show that you judge something thats different from you basing it on twisted logic and a person could do the same with something that is very normal using the same logic.
You're still implying that I am a Christian by saying "different from you" because the word choice makes it assume I am a Christian. But let's ignore that for a moment.
Okay so i remember that I commented on this but it deleted half of my post because editing glitched or something. In the comment though I said something similar to this.
I can give you reasons as to why that's not true from using various sources of Abrahamic religions, say they aren't really Christians, twist things around and skew it to my point, explain that it is symbolic and not literal, and etc. Just for you I will allow you to choose which one you would like me to respond with.
remember that annoyed feeling you felt when reading that?
Yeah, thanks for bringing it up.
no need. not gonna read. how things happened before have nothing to do with the topic (said once again). giving examples of where it went wrong doesnt work. actually, i remember someone argued like that against homosexuality, showing how the ancient greeks allowed it and how their society didnt survive.
Giving examples of where it (can) go right is also invalid then. Look at the time line, it has nothing positive about cannibalism throughout the 'entire' timeline, it is to show you how the bad things out weigh the good things by far.
you cant say "yes" to rape. that makes it sex.
I meant if the culture said it was okay to rape women at will regardless of them being int he same culture, the answer is still clearly; no.
theres nothing wrong with actual pedophilia. a person could be a pedophile without harming a child in his life.
You see pedophilia is due to a poor mental state (for lack of better words). Men are naturally protective of women, we evolved that way, but the younger the girl is; the more protective. Men also have very little "cute sensors", a baby crying goes off in a man's mind as "cute" (at least when not stressed out). A human male is naturally protective of children and knows sexual intercourse will severely harm them emotionally and physically and this is why pedophilia is due to a mental illness, humans are not pedohpiles by nature and it has nothing to do with society thus concluding it is an mental illness that should be treated for. I'm not saying lets go kill them, I'm saying they don't deserve to suffer through life because of one trait they may have little control over so 'we' should help them, this is also what I'm saying for cannibalism.
and about that attack on titan fetish thing... grow up?
Seriously? Do we seriously have to go through this? Fine we'll go through it, lol.
I. SNK/ATK hentai in general can be divide into multiple sections of hentai, all (doushinji) hentai of SNK do not involve eating someone, worse being necrophilia and goro. No, you are not getting the link to any of these.
II. Yes, there is also explicit images of Dora the Explorer, go around saying you enjoy it just to get a survey of the responses. No you won't do that because 'you' know the answer and you know it's wrong.
____________________________________________________________
oh and one more.
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.
Cannibalism is not an ICD simply because it's too rare to be an ICD similar to how vampirism is not an ICD (but humorously there is an ICD for walking into a street lamp), there is little research on how cannibalism effects a human because again it is rare, also no one really cares what it does to a human because it's obvious it clearly won't do good things (doctors perspective) so there is no point in going on a witch trial finding random people accused of being cannibals and observing them. It 'may' do those things but it 'will' do one of those things, sooner or later.
____________________________________________________________
Additional support for my argument.
- Amputated limbs are considered medical waste.
- Corpses are medical waste.
- It is illegal to consume medical waste (Trump Card)
-Pakistan is passing a bill to make cannibalism illegal after a crime.\
____________________________________________________________
Things we have learn from this thread.
- What an ICD is
- Word choice matters
- What a brief history of cannibalism
- Cannibalism is not yet against the law of any sovereign but Pakistan may become the first one.
- What ONA is
- What ONA's relationship with the Church of Satan is (which is a bad one)
- Japan's Imperial Army (WW2) was not internationally tried for cannibalism itself
- Online discussions may take months to finish
- What YEC is
- Various laws
____________________________________________________________
K so I'll get to Fish later.
It's an example.So is the inventor/tailor Franz Reichelt's parachute dive off the Eiffel Tower. Strangely, it hasn't resulted in any boycott on parachutes, inventors, tailors, or towers.
Give me ten examples of how it's a good and morally correct thing.Why? When was it ever suggested that it must be "good" or "correct"? It isn't evil, immoral, depraved, uncivilized, inhumane, unjust, reprehensible, or sexually driven. That's the point.
Giving examples of where it (can) go right is also invalid then. Look at the time line, it has nothing positive about cannibalism throughout the 'entire' timeline, it is to show you how the bad things out weigh the good things by far.Which puts it right up there with liquor, bureaucracy, homosexuality, organized religion, sporting events, stoneflies, and erosion. Are you going to tell me that all of these things are inherently bad as well?
Men are naturally protective of women, we evolved that way, [...]No, they aren't. Chivalry is a purely cultural construct. It's also pretty much dead.
[...] but the younger the girl is; the more protective.... What?
Men also have very little "cute sensors", a baby crying goes off in a man's mind as "cute" (at least when not stressed out).No, I'm fairly certain it comes off as "painfully nerve-wrackingly irritating", which is kind of what it's supposed to be.
A human male is naturally protective of children and knows sexual intercourse will severely harm them emotionally and physically [...]No, that's another cultural construct. None of this is ingrained in the human psyche.
On another note, appealing to nature is still a fallacy, but maybe if you try again in another few months ...
I'm not saying lets go kill them, I'm saying they don't deserve to suffer through life because of one trait they may have little control over so 'we' should help them, [...]So ... all you're saying here is that these people should be killed off ... because people suffering from disordered minds don't deserve to live?
Ok-kay.... *hides Ritalin pills*
Cannibalism is not an ICD simply because it's too rare to be an ICD similar to how vampirism is not an ICD [...]Are you still having trouble with this?
1 Cannibalism is not an ICD because there is no overlap between behaviours (such as cannibalism) and medical diagnostic tools (such as the International Classification of Diseases).
2 In case you were wondering, cannibalism also is not a disorder, because there is no overlap between behaviours (such as cannibalism) and medical conditions (such as those that may cause or promote certain behaviours).
3 Vampirism is neither an ICD, nor a disorder, because it isn't a real thing, let alone related to either.
4 Rarity hasn't the slightest involvement in the matter. Kuru is listed in the ICD10, and I think that (if nothing else) we can agree that Kuru is far more rare than cannibalism.
[...] also no one really cares what it does to a human because it's obvious it clearly won't do good things (doctors perspective) [...]Of course, because no one would ever want to know about anything unless it does good things.
It 'may' do those things but it 'will' do one of those things, sooner or later.Well no, actually, it won't. But, by all means, do continue to ignore every single counterexample that was made up to now.
- Amputated limbs are considered medical waste.Therefore, all meat from any creature's severed limb is medical waste. Wow, I never knew that.
- Corpses are medical waste.Therefore, all dead animals are medical waste. Even more interesting.
- It is illegal to consume medical waste (Trump Card)Therefore, eating the flesh of any dead animal is illegal.* Well, that's going to put a damper on my Christmas dinner.
-Pakistan is passing a bill to make cannibalism illegal after a crime.\Which presumably supports your point in some mysterious way.
*As, for that matter, is anything that has ever been used medically, or extracted from a patient's body.
Things we have learn from this thread.By now, I certainly hope so.
- What an ICD is
- What a brief history of cannibalism [...]... does not look like. Yes.
So you even got annoyed? You've ignored most arguments and examples present in this thread other than yours, how can you possibly get annoyed? O_O
It's related because I have pointed unprogressive states will resort to it in worse case scenario.
i can also turn this around and say that I restate it as both group and state
So, my country, along with any other country that is in the Angel of War's mind "unprogressive" can be considered a group that will resort to cannibalism in an unspecified "worst case scenario"...Whoa. Look at what you can learn from the internet.
Thank you for opening my eyes, it has been a very enlightening experience, even though *ahem* somewhat unrelated to the whole point.
it's pretty clear a state will not be the cause of cannibalism itself (considering that a state in it's purist being is just borders of a nation) but cannibalism can reflect that the state is doing poorly.
Why? Because a bunch of cannibals exist within the borders of a specific nation, it means that the nation is doing poorly? How? By having "not transferred a specific set of values to the people"?
Sorry but there are countless flaws with this logic...Assuming of course it is your logic in the point above, since you didn't actually explain.
Where did I say that? Seriously I don't remember, haha.
Umm, you did gave it as the original example. At any rate, let's suppose you rephrase from now on and use the word "group" (just group, not as both "group" and "state) which is obviously far more suited to what you are trying to say.
I don't think that this is a radical satanist tradition, it 'is' one.
Uhmm...evidence?...no?...ok... Then I will just accept it. The satanists may be a minority in this world, this whole point may not be actually proved, but sure, they are cannibals and that makes them...ehm, what does it make them? Oh right! EVIL!
It's an example.
Ah yes, just one example of one group being associated with something else is always enough. So, let me guess, using the same logic, the ISIS who planned and executed the terrorist attacks are muslims and that makes all muslims associated with terrorism right? Thanks, for teaching me in your preposterous way of thinking master, it has been a bit hard to follow by myself.
Give me ten examples of how it's a good and morally correct thing.
What does 10 have to do with anything? Aside from what Fish said, which of course is "When was it ever suggested it is good or correct?"
Uuuuuh, I'm a little confused about what everyone is trying to prove/support here. It just seems that this thread has degenerated into another flippant back and forth joust. Sooo, if I may, I'm going to try this:
I have some questions about your beliefs on this topic. (It'd help if we all got a feel for each other here)
1) Is it OK when both parties consent?
2) Is a culture that regularly practices it acceptable/respect worthy?
3) Would you like to see it become a part of main stream society (human parts and meat being served in restaurants, shops, in baby food, etc...)
4) Do want to try it?
5) Are you often described by others as completely insane?
6) Do you regularly view violence/gore centered pornography?
7) How do you think you'd feel after having devoured a fellow human being's body? 🍖
Is it OK when both parties consent?
Ιf both parties are made up of consenting adults who are not under any outside influence when they make this choice, then maybe. Depends on what you mean with OK though. While no rights or freedoms of anyone are violated, I think there are many factors contributing to this (family, relatives, even acquaintances just to name a few)
Is a culture that regularly practices it acceptable/respect worthy?
An entire culture cannot be sufficiently defined just by this. As such, nor can anyone answer this question...besides, the ways of practising it can vary greatly, from cannibalizing the corpses of the dead to ritually consuming a volunteer once a year just to name two different examples.
Would you like to see it become a part of main stream society (human parts and meat being served in restaurants, shops, in baby food, etc...)
If I would like it? Uhmm...no, given that a massive controversy can be sparked regarding anything from the origin of the "food" to the consensus of the dead that are "served".
Do want to try it?
Uhmm...no?
5) Are you often described by others as completely insane?
6) Do you regularly view violence/gore centered pornography?
I knew there was something fishy with the questions getting all the more deranged... I am just going to state that these two are irrelevant and stick to this.
How do you think you'd feel after having devoured a fellow human being's body?
This gets overly philosophical for me...I don't know how a cannibal feels and as I am in no mood for trying it like I've already stated, I haven't even considered this, nor do I want to.
1) Is it OK when both parties consent?The eater and the eatee? Yes.
2) Is a culture that regularly practices it acceptable/respect worthy?Potentially.
3) Would you like to see it become a part of main stream society (human parts and meat being served in restaurants, shops, in baby food, etc...)Not particularly, but, from a sociological standpoint, I'd be interested in seeing how society adapts to such a development.
4) Do want to try it?Do not particularly.
5) Are you often described by others as completely insane?Not to my knowledge. I think I'm generally described as one or more of naïve, brilliant, ignorant, arrogant, rude, closed-minded and/or absent-minded, but that's about all.
6) Do you regularly view violence/gore centered pornography?Not to my knowledge.
7) How do you think you'd feel after having devoured a fellow human being's body?In one sitting? Painfully bloated, I suspect, unless it was a very small body.
No I was annoyed with something else when I typed up my response to you.
So, my country, along with any other country that is in the Angel of War's mind "unprogressive" can be considered a group that will resort to cannibalism in an unspecified "worst case scenario"...Whoa. Look at what you can learn from the internet.
No I'm saying they 'can' resort to cannibalism which 'is' a clear sign of poverty considering that even in nations with poverty don't resort to it on a nation wide level.
Thank you for opening my eyes, it has been a very enlightening experience, even though *ahem* somewhat unrelated to the whole point.
Cannibalism in a national level (group level whatever you may wish to call it) has nothing to do with cannibalism.
Any time lad.
Why? Because a bunch of cannibals exist within the borders of a specific nation, it means that the nation is doing poorly? How? By having "not transferred a specific set of values to the people"?
A bunch being a majority which makes the act then mainstream in that nation implies they are doing poorly because no modern majority (or bunch) resort to cannibalism.
Sorry but there are countless flaws with this logic...Assuming of course it is your logic in the point above, since you didn't actually explain.
Tell me what's difficult to understand and I try to explain it to you.
Umm, you did gave it as the original example. At any rate, let's suppose you rephrase from now on and use the word "group" (just group, not as both "group" and "state) which is obviously far more suited to what you are trying to say.
K
Uhmm...evidence?...no?...ok... Then I will just accept it. The satanists may be a minority in this world, this whole point may not be actually proved, but sure, they are cannibals and that makes them...ehm, what does it make them? Oh right! EVIL!
Hold on man, let me pull out my grimoire of Satanic rituals and spells.
Alright joking aside now, haha. I forget that I'm a minority of people who look into these types of things, I will try to explain it to you as best as I can.
"Satanism" is not in itself radical since it is just Satan worship, however it is how you worship Satan where things get confusing.
In the quest of Abrahamic Faiths trying to purge "agan" beliefs (pagan is also a complicated entity) they did so by demonizing their gods. The worship is Satan is probably confused by Satan followers as well since no Abrahamic religion clearly states a set amount of devils and demons and what not, over time these pagan gods started to blend in with Satan and vice versa.
Now as you would imagine a cannibalistic ritual made it's way into their "society". Did you think Christians were afraid of pagans and Satan followers because their scripture told them to? Well most people did and that isn't entirely true (again that's also complicated) it's because of cannibalism and things of the sort which lead Christians to purge them with zeal (talking about Europe mainly atm), a great deal of pagans then were pushed into forests, and this is where the confusing and overlapping of cultures come into play. Now as you can imagine anyone regardless of their beliefs in those times (A really long time passed) would have been terrified of 'all' of them, cannibalism was one of those fears and as you know terror spreads.
I think with that we've met mutual understanding on it being a ritual.
Ah yes, just one example of one group being associated with something else is always enough. So, let me guess, using the same logic, the ISIS who planned and executed the terrorist attacks are muslims and that makes all muslims associated with terrorism right? Thanks, for teaching me in your preposterous way of thinking master, it has been a bit hard to follow by myself.
Indeed, a time line of nearly half (maybe more) of recorded cannibalism incidents is merely just 'an example' and nothing more of it, especially considering that the timeline went all the way to the first records to modern era.
What does 10 have to do with anything? Aside from what Fish said, which of course is "When was it ever suggested it is good or correct?"
Because I can find bad things, I can prove bad things, I can show you bad things (but I won't do that lets keep this pg-13 despite that we're already pushing it), so lets put the good and bad things on a scale. Hmm... something isn't quite right about this image.
The saying goes "If it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a duck."
not
'if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, it is by no means a duck'.
Fish
Just for you I will respond at Christmas, it will be my gift to you
__________________________________________________________
1) Is it OK when both parties consent?
No because you can't consent to someone killing you because it is illegal.
No because eating a human corpses is illegal.
2) Is a culture that regularly practices it acceptable/respect worthy?
Romans did not respect barbarians, Han dynasty did not respect barbarians, police do not respect those in the act of a crime (to an extent). The only reason we're beating around the bush is because we're afraid of offending a tribe that probably doesn't even have internet.
3) Would you like to see it become a part of main stream society (human parts and meat being served in restaurants, shops, in baby food, etc...)
No.
4) Do want to try it?
No.
5) Are you often described by others as completely insane?[/b]
Meh.
6) Do you regularly view violence/gore centered pornography?
No, but curiosity (and this forum topic) has lead me to see things I wish I never saw.
Let me talk about this though.
I have never seen such degenerate behavior before. Seriously I was disgusted by the images and disgusted by those who did what was done. It really made me realize how terrible a place this world can and terrible on a different, a new, a scary level. Dead bodies, dead people, dead women, mutilated, objectified, severed limbs, disturbing poses. My God. I have never been filled with such disgust before in my life. And that was only from images. I would not, I cannot, I will not even try to imagine them being cannibalized. The idea that someone else could take sexual pleasure from such things... I cannot even begin to tell you what I think of them.
7) How do you think you'd feel after having devoured a fellow human being's body?
I would feel the same way as Armin Mewis and become a vegeratian and also like him write a book advising all cannibals (verophiliacs) to not do it and to seek help.
Cannibalism in a national level (group level whatever you may wish to call it) has nothing to do with cannibalism.Something occurring on a large scale has nothing to do with itself? Am I reading this right?
A bunch being a majority which makes the act then mainstream in that nation implies they are doing poorly because no modern majority (or bunch) resort to cannibalism.No, it doesn't. You're affirming the consequent by assuming that poverty and cannibalism are mutually inclusive.
[...] it's because of cannibalism and things of the sort which lead Christians to purge them with zeal [...]No, it isn't. You've got it back to front. That sort of ritual was condemned because it was pagan, while the Eucharist was upheld because it was Christian.
Indeed, a time line of nearly half (maybe more) of recorded cannibalism incidents is merely just 'an example' and nothing more of it, especially considering that the timeline went all the way to the first records to modern era.Which puts it right up there with liquor, bureaucracy, homosexuality, organized religion, sporting events, stoneflies, and erosion.
Because I can find bad things, I can prove bad things, I can show you bad things (but I won't do that lets keep this pg-13 despite that we're already pushing it), so lets put the good and bad things on a scale. Hmm... something isn't quite right about this image.1 False dichotomy.
2 Survivorship bias.
3 You've failed to rationalize your request for 10 examples. Now try answering the second question.
The saying goes "If it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a duck."Nice thought-terminating cliché. Unfortunately, all it asserts in this contextis that "bad things happen sometimes", and I think we already knew that.
FishSure, but it's just going to pile up until then.
Just for you I will respond at Christmas, it will be my gift to you
No because you can't consent to someone killing you because it is illegal.No, it isn't.
No because eating a human corpses is illegal.No, it isn't. Haven't we been over this already?
Romans did not respect barbarians, Han dynasty did not respect barbarians, police do not respect those in the act of a crime (to an extent).Sorry, but his question was not "What are three examples of groups who do not (or historically did not) respect other groups, at least to an extent?"
The idea that someone else could take sexual pleasure from such things... I cannot even begin to tell you what I think of them.Then stop introducing them to a discussion which is not about them.
I would feel the same way as Armin Mewis and become a vegeratian and also like him write a book advising all cannibals (verophiliacs) to not do it and to seek help.See, there you go again. How many times do we need to go over this?
1 Vorarephilia* ≠ Cannibalism
2 Vorarephilia ≠> Cannibalism
3 Cannibalism ≠> Vorarephilia
* "Verophilia" is not a real word.
Something occurring on a large scale has nothing to do with itself? Am I reading this right?
He was being sarcastic.
No I'm saying they 'can' resort to cannibalism which 'is' a clear sign of poverty considering that even in nations with poverty don't resort to it on a nation wide level.
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.
A bunch being a majority which makes the act then mainstream in that nation implies they are doing poorly because no modern majority (or bunch) resort to cannibalism.
Even if there were nations in which the people would resort to cannibalism, it would by no means automatically be a majority. So not only are we talking about a fictional scenario, it is way too far-fetched even by the standards of fiction.
Now as you would imagine a cannibalistic ritual made it's way into their "society". Did you think Christians were afraid of pagans and Satan followers because their scripture told them to? Well most people did and that isn't entirely true (again that's also complicated) it's because of cannibalism and things of the sort which lead Christians to purge them with zeal (talking about Europe mainly atm), a great deal of pagans then were pushed into forests, and this is where the confusing and overlapping of cultures come into play. Now as you can imagine anyone regardless of their beliefs in those times (A really long time passed) would have been terrified of 'all' of them, cannibalism was one of those fears and as you know terror spreads.
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.
Indeed, a time line of nearly half (maybe more) of recorded cannibalism incidents is merely just 'an example' and nothing more of it, especially considering that the timeline went all the way to the first records to modern era.
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.
Because I can find bad things, I can prove bad things, I can show you bad things (but I won't do that lets keep this pg-13 despite that we're already pushing it), so lets put the good and bad things on a scale. Hmm... something isn't quite right about this image.
Again, since the examples were unrelated, we cannot even put them on a scale.
He was being sarcastic.If that's the case, his straw men are veering even more flagrantly off course than ever before.
You must be logged in to post a reply!