Is it wrong to be a cannibal?

I haven't seen anyone do that, least of all you. If you want this thread to be about the ethics of cannibalism, then you should at least state your position on that topic -- and seriously, not as some kind of joke.

Get that thing out of your butt, joefromchicago...




Get OVER it. It wasn't a truly serious discussion or did that miss you as it passed over your head?

So now everybody is the thread police?

Look, it's very simple. If this is a cannibalism thread, then people should start talking about cannibalism. If this is really a child porn thread in disguise, then people shouldn't object when the issue of child porn is debated. And if this is just a joke thread, then it really doesn't matter what people talk about.

So stick that up your butt, Mame.

It was a spoof, did you not know, joefromchicago? C'mon. She didn't mean it SERIOUSLY. She even said as much. So to take it so literally was to negate her point.

On topic: Yes, I could eat a human being if all of the following were met:

a) if it were already dead, but not TOO dead

b) if there was nothing else around to eat

c) if it were butchered to resemble something other than a human being part

d) if it was covered in some kind of sauce or other flavour-camouflaging taste

e) if I was given a mild lobotomy or hipnotic session that would render me unable to remember I ate a person

Otherwise, only if in extreme circumstances as such unknown to me at this time, but I'm sure there are some. Ick, though.

It's what we become used to; in central asia, they eat horse. In China they eat dog, and animal penis for medical reasons. In some parts of Asia, they eat all manners of insects, rats, and other stuff that'll turn most of our stomach just to see people eating it.

The Donner Party ate humans so they won't starve. In Fiji, they practiced cannibalism until 100 years ago.

I think it's possible.

I apologize for my apparent lack of humor regarding my desire to be a cannibal. I thought I had made it clear that I was joking and that I really don't want to eat humans. I was looking for an extreme parallel to the "okayness" of child porn and the best I could come up with was a desire to eat people.

I accept that I am not funny and that some people take cannabalism very seriously.

My position on cannabalism:

Yuck.

aperson, entirely on his own, has done an excellent job of explalining why I think cannabalism is not a good idea. I agree with everything he has said.

Now I'm going out to eat a vegatarian dinner and to get a mild lobotomy.

Thanks boom.

Anyone taking this thread seriously is a dumbass.

Starvation?


That's why the Andean plane crash folk did it.


That I get.

It's that funny?

Doesn't really look like there is a "right" way to take it. However, if a debate on the ethics of cannibalism breaks out I'd actually be interested in following along. The Armin Meiwes case in Germany is an interesting starting point. His cannibalism was not illegal in Germany, and he had to initially be convicted of only manslaughter because his victim willingly participated in the act.

Initially?

Was he eventually charged with murder?

Yes, he was given life. They wanted to keep him off the streets and had to wrangle a murder conviction because there was no way to directly charge him for cannibalism.

Hmmmm...ok, I'd have to come down on the side of we can't allow people to be killed even if they want to be...but, since I am a supporter of euthanasia, I know I'm in deep ethical trouble, and would have to do a lot of attempting to distinguish wanting to die because I have a terminal illness and no quality of life, from wanting to be killed and eaten.


It would be tough just making cannibalism a major offence, as I'd like people to be able to eat their dead comrades, if they could, if they were stuck somewhere and going to starve if they didn't.

Your ethical dilemma is caused by an aspect of guaranteeing individual rights. You see this particularly in labor law. Most rights to which all citizens are entitled, or any participant in a specific situation cannot be surrendered even voluntarily. That provision (which, as i said, is most noticeable in labor law) arises from the inability in most cases to prove coercion. If one cannot voluntarily surrender one's rights, then coercion ceases to be an issue. When labor first began to organize in England, the Commons, effectively in the hip pocket of the landed gentry and the vested mercantile interests, passed laws prohibiting "combinations," which effectively outlawed trades unions. It was until labor organizers amassed sufficient capital to threaten suit against manufacturers for forming "combinations" that the law was repealed. Thereafter, the biggest hurdle to labor organizing was that management were able to apply "deniable" pressure (i.e, pressure which they could plausibly deny they had applied) to get the message across to labor that trades union participation would, as soon as a pretext could be cobbled together, result in the permanent loss of employment, and not simply with that employer, but in the entire industry. So, eventually, in the English-speaking world, as least, almost all provisions guaranteeing the rights of labor to organize, and the various legislation providing work place benefits were written in a manner that an employee could not refuse to participate in any benefit program.

Thereafter, management's usual tactic to enervate trades union organizing appeal was to grant to all "unorganized" employees precisely the same benefits as though gained through negotiation by trades unions. This has been particularly effective in the United States where trades union organizations were never as well organized or as well enrolled as in the rest of the English speaking world.

This aspect of civil liberties, at least in spirit, makes itself manifest in the underlying principles of legislating guarantees of individual rights.

That, of course, makes it difficult to legislate euthanasia, even when the electorate is willing.

As usual, Ticomaya enlightens us with his positive and thought-provoking comments.




Wahoa lotta new peeps here. Hi guys.

Setanta, you're arguing with claims that I haven't made. I don't have the will or the time to defend propositions that I don't even agree with.

Beijing takes dog off the menu for Olympics

Fri Jul 11, 12:40 AM ET

BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing has asked hotels and restaurants in the city to take dog meat off the menu for the duration of next month's Olympics and September's Paralympics.

Dog is eaten not only by the large Korean community in China's capital but is also popular in Yunnan and Guizhou restaurants.

A directive from the Beijing Food Safety Office issued last month ordered Olympic contractor hotels not to provide any dishes made with dog meat and said any canine material used in traditional medicated diets must be clearly labeled.

Concerned that canine dishes might offend animal rights groups and Western visitors, Beijing said restaurants expected to be popular among foreign visitors must stop serving dog meat "to respect the dining customs of different countries."

Yummy.