Thread: Cannibalism, yay or nay?

i would eat eat someone if it was an extreme surcumstance.But if i was trying it to see what it tasted like i'd only have a tiny bit, i'd be to affraid to have too much of it just incase i get hooked on it and end up in germany with a bunch of corpses under my floorboards.

and the thing about that german guy who found his victim in a chat room, what the hell kind of sphyco exclusive chat room does he go in?

i remember ages ago when i first heard about that german penis eater i whent into an ares chat room and asked if anyone would be like to be eaten(just for a laugh).
Someone said they would like to be eaten and we spent a few minits planning his demise and when i could eat him etc, but all the way through i knew that the guy was joking (obviously i was) and didnt really want to be eaten.
i bet that german geizer when through a whole bunch of jikers before he found a guy who sreiously wanted to be devoured.

Originally posted by scorpifly

He was talking about a satanic ritchual, not so much a party.

Oh ok! That’s different then! That’s fine by me as long as its being used for a productive journey towards self discovery.

The sad part is you all think that me and O-Nieronaut are joking.

I dont consider you as joking. But then again I did start the thread and I did vote yay. So I guess we are all in the same boat.

I told my g/f yesturday that I was going to find a way to eat human before I die and she was pissed lol

Originally posted by Levi1057
I told my g/f yesturday that I was going to find a way to eat human before I die and she was pissed lol *

Well you have two arms and two legs (presumably) and know where the kitchen is...so have at it.

I'd eat human if it were served to me. If it were legal, I'd go out and hunt some human right now and make some enfant au vin.

As a supporter of omnivorism, I think it's only right that we all at least try human meat at least once. It doesn't make sense to me that we eat pigs but not people. If it's not wrong to kill pigs, it's not wrong to kill people. If it's not wrong to eat pigs, it's not wrong to eat people.

Originally posted by Dangeruss
I'd eat human if it were served to me. If it were legal, I'd go out and hunt some human right now and make some enfant au vin.

As a supporter of omnivorism, I think it's only right that we all at least try human meat at least once. It doesn't make sense to me that we eat pigs but not people. If it's not wrong to kill pigs, it's not wrong to kill people. If it's not wrong to eat pigs, it's not wrong to eat people.

Most humans consider humankind to be more valuable than animals. And then there's that patriotic sense of caring about humanity....

humbug.

I'd hate to meet you in a dark alleyway

They call me Dangeruss for a reason you know

Seriously though I'd no sooner go out and kill a human and eat it then I would go out and kill a cow and eat it. It would be much easier to just walk down to my kitchen and make some delicious rice.

Anyone here read Survivor Type.

Die you canibalistic scum.

Die, and then get in my belly you vegitarian scum

Originally posted by Dangeruss
Die, and then get in my belly you vegitarian scum

Pfffft I'm not vegeteranian. I like my steak a lot thank you very much (prefferably a little bit bloody and at body temperature). But humans are self aware. Animals are not. Therefore humans >>>>>>>>>>>>> animals (aka Flesh Robots). Therefore whoever eats humans (whether human or animal) should have his penis (or clitteris) removed, prefferably by using a rusty saw and no anaesthetics. Then, they should be allowed to bleed to death. No exceptions.

yes, humans are self aware, therefore they should be eaten. All the evils of man stem from his being self-aware. I like my humans much the same way you like your steak: bloody, damn near body temperature, and preferably screaming in terror.

Has anybody told you that you have issues?

Anyway, most of us aren't into eating our meat while it screams in terror

I like to eat my veggies still screaming. Veggies-on-the-hoof - only way to fly...

I tend to value most animals far more than most humans. Animals tend to be much smarter, far more positively predictable, and have greater overall value to life in general.

When "the big one" comes - I'll be harvesting my neighbors like broccoli.

Originally posted by Dangeruss
yes, humans are self aware, therefore they should be eaten. All the evils of man stem from his being self-aware. I like my humans much the same way you like your steak: bloody, damn near body temperature, and preferably screaming in terror.

Pfffft, what "evils"? Evils such as civilization, philosophy? There's no evil man kind has caused which isn't naturally present in some form or another in an animal somewhere (including torture, war and pollution). Besides, good and evil are relative, without self awarness there would've never BEEN any such distinction as "good" or "evil". We should kill off all those stupid animals and rainforests, punish all cannibalists by castration, and live off vitamin pills. Or artificial meat. Best sollution.
[ Suprisingly direct insult removed. Please read the rules. I thought the previous comments were in good humour... I was clearly wrong - Moderator ]

^reply: They were semi-humorous. I'm aware of the rules (which, let's face it, are almost identical in any webforum). I think that breaking the rules this single time (the first time since registering) was worth getting the message across - I will never tolerate cannibalism, ever (unless it was done strictly for survival, ie the choise was to either eat human flesh or die). The rest of the message was indeed mostly humorous (castrating people?).

I realize it's hard to convey intonation over the internet, Wicked, but my comments are more or less tongue-in-cheek. I'm glad to have gotten a rise out of you.

For the sake of discussion, however:

without self awarness there would've never BEEN any such distinction as \"good\" or \"evil\".[/b]

if cannabalism is "evil," then it should only apply to humans, then, because "good" and "evil" are human constructs. It is self-evident, however, that just the opposite is true.

To those who are not self-aware, one of the few things that can be defined as "bad" is cannabalism, because it is counterproductive, unnatural. To the hive mind, eating a member of your species is like cutting off a finger and eating it. However, to the self-aware, eating a member of the same species is only one step farther down the road from killing a member of the same species. In fact, thanks to our all-powerful human logic, it is better to eat someone of your species who is already dead than it is to waste energy by incinerating the person or to waste land by interring the person, especially when the decomposed matter will never again be used for agricultural purposes. Not only do these methods of dealing with the dead waste resources, but not consuming them necessitates killing something else to fill your stomach, causing even more waste.

war in the animal kingdom you say? please provide an example in which a society divides itself in two, chooses the strongest specimens from the population, and uses them not to breed but to slaughter each other by the thousands so that one part of the society can gain territory which exceeds its needs.

Pollution in the animal kingdom you say? the pollution caused by nature is negligible, as pre-man nature survived for millions of years, and yielded no measureable amount of pollution, but a planet with enormous amounts of natural resources. Cows farting may cause holes in the ozone layer, but let's face it: we breed cows so that their numbers are grossly out of proportion to the natural balance. We do this because OUR numbers are grossly out of proportion with the natural balance, and with our net growth increasing constantly, the planet will at some point be filled with only humans and human food. Human culture should label itself "evil" because one day, our actions will necessitate cannibalism, murder, war, torture, pollution, and every "evil" you can think of.

I've never heard of torture in the animal kingdom. The only things that resemble torture in nature are methods of subduing one's prey so that it doesn't escape, and one does not go hungry.

Originally posted by Dangeruss
I realize it's hard to convey intonation over the internet, Wicked, but my comments are more or less tongue-in-cheek. I'm glad to have gotten a rise out of you.

Thou shalt recieve my apology for going over the top *bows*

For the sake of discussion, however:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

without self awarness there would've never BEEN any such distinction as \"good\" or \"evil\".[/b]

if cannabalism is \"evil,\" then it should only apply to humans, then, because \"good\" and \"evil\" are human constructs. It is self-evident, however, that just the opposite is true.

To those who are not self-aware, one of the few things that can be defined as \"bad\" is cannabalism, because it is counterproductive, unnatural. To the hive mind, eating a member of your species is like cutting off a finger and eating it.[/b][/quote]

A hive mind? A hive mind implies a self-aware, or at least relatively intelligent power directing the members of this hypothetical hive. (most) Animals are most certainly not members of any such organization.

However, to the self-aware, eating a member of the same species is only one step farther down the road from killing a member of the same species.[/b]

*shrug* animals don't care about the survival of their species. They can't even grasp the concept of \"species\". All they care about is their own survival and the survival of their own direct descendants (a good example would be a lion who kills and eats the cubs of another lion who mated with the same lioness as he did, a common occurence in nature).

In fact, thanks to our all-powerful human logic, it is better to eat someone of your species who is already dead than it is to waste energy by incinerating the person or to waste land by interring the person, especially when the decomposed matter will never again be used for agricultural purposes.[/b]

An industrial society such as ourself, with no food or energy shortages, can easily afford to burn/bury/dissect/send-into-space/whatever-energy-intensive-process-have-you the corpses. A carnivorous animal, however, is in constant struggle to get more food before it and its offspring starve to death. Thus, the animal would instinctively eat the dead flesh of any of its own kind. To that animal, it's meat - it doesn't care what kind of meat. Animals are NOT picky. You might want to think your arguments through in the future, this one was rediculously easy to turn onto itself

Not only do these methods of dealing with the dead waste resources, but not consuming them necessitates killing something else to fill your stomach, causing even more waste.[/b]

That's the point. We can easily afford to waste stuff on absolutely nothing whatsoever (and we do this very, very often). Animals can't.

war in the animal kingdom you say? please provide an example in which a society divides itself in two, chooses the strongest specimens from the population, and uses them not to breed but to slaughter each other by the thousands so that one part of the society can gain territory which exceeds its needs.[/b]

No animal forms societies large enough to do this on the scale you soggest. However, many (even most) animals are highly territorial and easily attack any of its own kind if it wanders too close. I don't see how doing the same thing but on a larger scale somehow constitutes as \"evil\".

Pollution in the animal kingdom you say? the pollution caused by nature is negligible, as pre-man nature survived for millions of years, and yielded no measureable amount of pollution, but a planet with enormous amounts of natural resources.[/b]

Natural resources... and who exactly needs those natural resources? I'm talking about the oil, coal, metals etc. Why is it so admirable that there are huge untouched natural resources? Who NEEDS them? The animals? Gaia?

Cows farting may cause holes in the ozone layer, but let's face it: we breed cows so that their numbers are grossly out of proportion to the natural balance. We do this because OUR numbers are grossly out of proportion with the natural balance, and with our net growth increasing constantly, the planet will at some point be filled with only humans and human food. Human culture should label itself \"evil\" because one day, our actions will necessitate cannibalism, murder, war, torture, pollution, and every \"evil\" you can think of.[/b]

Nope. We can label any society which keeps a steady population growth \"evil\". That's most of the middle and far east. Oh, and Africa. The west has a stagnant population growth (which some liberal idiots for some reason confuse with cultural stagnation, but let's not get into that), that means it's good.

Also, there are plenty of solutions to overpopulation that do not involve any of the things you mentioned. Space colonization, tight birth control, cloning of animal and plant tissue, and that's merely off the top of my head.

I've never heard of torture in the animal kingdom. The only things that resemble torture in nature are methods of subduing one's prey so that it doesn't escape, and one does not go hungry.[/b]

Yep. I bet the still-alive but paralyzed rat that feels itself being slowly crushed in the snake's stomache doesn't really care whether the snake is hungry or not.

Long story short, people should not eat other people. After they've already died, that's a cultural thing, let them eat it as long as they do it privately, ie out of sight from the cultures who detest cannibalism. Of course these poor people shouldn't expect to live very long lives, as the likelyhood of catching some fatal diseased from human flesh is waaaaay up there compared to animal flesh. But, if they have a deathwish, who am I to stop them?

Originally posted by Wicked
No animal forms societies large enough to do this on the scale you soggest. However, many (even most) animals are highly territorial and easily attack any of its own kind if it wanders too close. I don't see how doing the same thing but on a larger scale somehow constitutes as \"evil\".

Ants

I see some of dangeruss's points, not that I could bring myself to eat a human
Eating an animal could be argued as tantamount to eating a fairly stupid human being.
If a mentally challenged person were to get eaten, it would still be an outcry.

What makes animals okay to slaughter, and not humans? Even the mentally challenged ones?

Simply because they are far less advantaged than us, does it give us the right to murder them?
Can I kill and eat my neighbours because they don't have a clue?

Originally posted by Placebo

Ants

Oh, you're right. And in fact, rival ant colonies DO go to \"war\". A cruel war that makes human wars look like a picnic in comparison.

What makes animals okay to slaughter, and not humans? Even the mentally challenged ones?

Simply because they are far less advantaged than us, does it give us the right to murder them?
Can I kill and eat my neighbours because they don't have a clue?[/b]

No, because they are not self aware. They don't CARE whether you eat them or not, they are automatons of flesh and bone. As far as I'm concerned, if they're not self-aware, morals don't extend onto them. Furthermore, animals kill each other all the time, this is trivial in nature. That gives us natural permission to kill all we want. Now why we can't each other, that's largely a cultural taboo, although every single culture had and has this at one form or another - most humans have basic disdain from killing a fellow human/sentient. Animals are fleshy sac programmed to hunt each other and eat grass mindlessly. Who cares.

Ah. Self awareness.It's a pretty fuzzy thing.
Name a objective aspect of this self awareness, and I'll show you an animal that can do it.
Many animals aren't as stupid as we think, it's just that none of them show all aspects of intelligence in one animal.

If I have a severely mentally retarded neighbour... what makes him self-aware? Why is he worthy of being named 'sentient' ?

Originally posted by Placebo
Ah. Self awareness.It's a pretty fuzzy thing.
Name a objective aspect of this self awareness, and I'll show you an animal that can do it.
Many animals aren't as stupid as we think, it's just that none of them show all aspects of intelligence in one animal.

If I have a severely mentally retarded neighbour... what makes him self-aware? Why is he worthy of being named 'sentient' ?

Is he capable of distinguishing himself as a separate identity from his surroundings? I could now go on about Freud and stuff, but I'd rather keep the discussion as simple as possible. Suffice to say that self-awarness is simply a full awarness of the existence of oneself as a separate entity. That's at least how I would define it.

Also, the animals don't seem to care about killing either humans or each other. I don't know why we should go out of our skin to help them.