Is it wrong to be a cannibal?

I see where you're coming from aperson but I'm not talking about starving, I'm really thinking about people with different.... ummmm.... appitites. Gormets of a sort.

For instance there is currently a very active thread about child pornography and how if you stumble across it and it turns you on that it is really okay to look at it. Frankly, I find that very disgusting.

(Not to mention you perverted shrunken head and incest people (Hey Lash! Good to see you! Where have you been hiding?) you people are sick.)

There is a beach not far from me where left feet have been washing ashore for the last few months. What if a cannibal went there and hung out until they found some left foot? Would it be okay for them to eat it?

boomerang wrote :



did you ever do anything "forbidden" or "gory" as a child ?
children look at things differently than adults , i understand .
btw what do you think of egyptian mummies being exhibited in museums or the pictures of the austrian iceman that appeared in many newspapers and in TV news .
no offence meant !
hbg

I'm just teasing.

I think shrunken heads are freaky interesting.

I'm just pissed that a thread thinking child porn is okay generated 35 pages of debate and I'm wondering if my cannabalism thread can generate half that.

Hamburger, you, and all the others who have responded to this thread are among my favorite posters and I'm sorry if I've hurt any feelings. That was not my intent. I'll drop my cannibal persona and delve into the more interesting aspects of this thread.

Boomerang, you inspired me. I am just about to sit down and enjoy a big steak I cut off of that no-good neighbor of mine. He was out in the hallway last night, up on a ladder, stealing another lightbulb when I blundered into him and then I blundered that ladder flat.

His head must have hit something before I hit it because it seemed softer than I thought it would be. I am innocent of any crime because I was trying to deter a theft.

Anyway, I butchered him up right after I read your first post.

Garlic powder, fresh ground black pepper and a fine crust of sea salt should make that steak flavorful.

Joe(It looked like all of his anti-colostral medicine was working.)Nation

That child porn thread disgusts me also. You get the pro child porn guy into a position where he sort of agrees you are right, but, on the next page you discover he reverts to his original position. Meaning, he doesn't want dialog, but just to parade the topic and get whatever jollies it all provides.

i'll fully endorse what edgar just posted - don't even like spelling those two words !
hbg

I believe the current consensus is that you may enjoy the found foot in any way you like but only IF you turn it over to the police afterward, so that you aren't standing the way of an investigation.

I suppose that would make eating it out of the question, but perhaps you'd still be allowed to lick it? You could definitely sniff it thoroughly, at least.

No, no, Cypher, I, reader of many police procedurals, insist you call the police immediately. No gnawing; to start with, that's tacky. Indeed, stand back. To finish, maybe sticky, but don't tell me about it.

I don't see why one could not slice off a nice cut first; who is to know it was you who took it.

(I do read west coast usa news, but I've failed to click on the foot stuff, to now.)

The thing is, I think cannabilism as an eating mode even in concept is an attack on humans in the general sense, as even child porn "drawn art' is to children in a general sense, a kind of, that word again, general threat, whether or not one slight gnaw is ever found out about or broadcast in any way.





Note, I can't spell cannaibilism. Feel free to correct me. I'd like to know how to spell it.

Ha! very nice-- took me a sec to catch up

I'm just at the end of a Mankell procedural. 'Firewall'.

Trust me I don't want explicit details, a reference to real life stuff is ok, but I think more is only pulp sensational, and pulp sensational is why I avoid most if not all best sellers. Mankell is a good writer, he doesn't flume the bad stuff.

I have been given to understand that homosapiens taste like chicken.

i've heard it's a lot sweeter. like pork, but sweet.

anyway, i'm just here to say that most head hunters are not cannibals. they shrink heads, but they don't eat them. they may be an occasional heart or blood ritual, but it's a ritual, not food.

not that i really endorse head hunting.

"The pieman" Alexander 'The Pieman' Pearce.

Pearce and seven other convicts attempted to cross the island to Hobart where they hoped they could catch a merchant ship and escape to some ill-defined freedom.

They lost their way and in the ensuing weeks all of the escapees disappeared except for Pearce. When he was recaptured unproven accusations of cannibalism were made against him. The following year Pearce escaped again accompanied by another convict, Thomas Cox. Once again Pearce found himself without food and, to solve the problem, he killed and ate Cox. When he was finally recaptured Pearce admitted to eating Cox and confessed to cannibalism during his first escape. He was subsequently executed in Hobart.

The Pieman River was named after Pearce's occupation - he was a pieman in Hobart.

Actual Australian Aboriginal cannibalism sometimes followed tribal warfare. Alfred Howitt (The Native Tribes of South-East Australia, 1904) described some of their rituals for eating enemies killed in battle. Some Aboriginal groups ate their enemies but not their own kin, whereas other groups ate their own kin but not their enemies.

Well I don't think so - apart from that being completely and utterly disgusting, you can't just go round eating body parts.

I suppose it depends upon the culture, as with everything. In most cultures certain repects prevent cannibalism, but I suppose in a cannibal society it would be okay. That is if you believe morals are localised. If you think there are definite, global morals, then, well, I can't say.

Ok, so maybe I'm weird but I don't really see an issue with it. Personally, I'd never do it. But for someone who is an athiest and doesn't believe in souls, why not? The flesh is just like any other animals flesh at that point.

I doubt it. You aren't being serious enough to sustain an extended thread.

Say what you will about agrote, but at least he has raised some interesting and difficult philosophical questions in his thread on child pornography. You, not so much.

Yep. Me not so much. I don't really have it in my heart to defend cannibalism though.

But my arguements are the same as his:

Hunger (sex) is a basic human need and different people have different preferences.

If I happen to find human flesh (child porn) just laying around it should be okay for me to eat it (look at it) because I'm not hurting anyone by doing so.

My "innocent" cannabilism doesn't enrich anyone or cause anyone to kill people (abuse children) to supply me with my desired product so there really isn't any ethical problem with my preference.