Cannabalism

[Agent007]

First of all, you spelled "cannibalism" in a wrong manner. Secondly, I believe that it is inherently inhumane and immoral for a human to be eaten by other humans. It is equally as wrong as killing a human zygote, because a unique and established human life is being destroyed. One might argue that cannibalism is necessary to survive when there are no other food resources; however, if one survives by eating other people, how could he or she face the world after the situation? That is, what is point of survival when one must face so much societal stigma in the end? There was, however, a group of rugby players whose plane crashed in the Andes Mountains who actually had to eat the frozen corpses of their dead friends in order to survive; they did so in a dignified manner and only to have enough protein to walk for help. They did not kill those who were living; they simply prayed and ate the bodies of those who agreed to be eaten. Those who agreed willingly made a sacrifice for the good of their group. However, when it comes to people eating others for simple gastronomic pleasure, the morally corrupting world comes into mind.

[Prometheus]

Aequo: Human flesh does not taste like pig flesh. Pooey: It tastes like chicken.

Pardon me, but how the hell do you know?


Either we have two cannibals on this forum, or two people who just like to make crap up.

[Khushi]

Hey...dont make fun of cannibalism....some ppl have had to do it for survival & it broke their spirits down for eating their own comrades

[Matt W]

However, when it comes to people eating others for simple gastronomic pleasure, the morally corrupting world comes into mind.

Actually, what I think of when I think of cannibalism is the fairly pure societies of the Pacific Islands pre-Christianity. But hey, each to their own.

[Nono]

What in God's name do you mean by "fairly pure"?

[Prometheus]

Be careful, you guys have attributed the end of cannibalism with Christianity. You are likely to have Starboy on your ass over any positive statement about Christianity.

[Matt W]

*grins* Ok, 'fairly simple', then.

[Agent007]

How does simplicity relate to relatively savage cannibalism?

[tinybear]

I think what he means is this: A simple society is a primitive one. A primitive society has not developed the rules and morals of a more sophisticated civilized society. Hence cannibalism is not considered savage or immoral in such societies. Indeed it may well be the norm, especially if alternative food sources are scarce.

[Nono]

Today on many of those Pacific islands they have Spam. For a fascinating look at this connection, see Paul Theroux's The Happy Isles of Oceania.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Be careful, you guys have attributed the end of cannibalism with Christianity. You are likely to have Starboy on your ass over any positive statement about Christianity.

Nahhh, Christianity has simply replaced it with ritual canabalism and ritual human sacrifice. I guess if it is make believe then it is a-okay.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Here is something else to chew on in regards to cannibalism and Christianity.

You are in line. The priest comes by. He places in your palm some mass produced highly processed disk of starch. He says, "The body of Christ". You then eat it.

What is even stranger and even more bizarre is that you are part of a supernatural ritual where what is supposed to be happening is that very innocuous starch disk by way of this supernatural rite is not only transformed into human flesh, but it is the human flesh of god. And then people eat it! Gotta say, supernaturalists are just plain nuts.

Starboy

[Athena]

Quote by: tinybear Lots of people are willing to donate their organs after they die, so why not their flesh? Well, for the sake of argument, let's suppose there are some people who would be willing to donate their flesh to be consumed after their death for a certain fee payable to them immediately, would the law permit this contract to be enforced?

The Donnor Party that got stuck in the pass between Neveda and California, experienced cannibalism. In this case, it was the will of the those who died first to be eaten by those who still capable of eating. If I were in such a situation with my family, I would want my family to survive, and I would rather they eat me, than die with me.

However, cannibalism is a taboo. A taboo is something a culture forbids member of the culture to even think about. We haven't made it a crime, but I am sure you can follow the reasoning of Jesus, who said sinful thinking is equal sinning. The chances of committing cannibalism are higher if we think about it. It is something that could easily get out of control in a society that has not already ritualized cannibalism. So, people who do cannibalize another, are subject to social rejection, as were the survivors of the Donnar Party, of they may be subject to criminal prosecution. Just bringing up the subject is apt to get a degree of social rejection, such as calling the person who brings up the subject, sick.

But if you are Catholic, you may appreciate the ritual of cannibolizing Jesus. He requested he be remembered in this way, with bread representing his body and wine representing his blood. This is not as awful as we may at first think. Cannibal societies believe they can ingest the good qualities of those they eat. It can be an honor to be eaten, and a kind of immortality. Like it can be a good day to die, if you are in a warrior society. Different strokes for different folks.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Athena But if you are Catholic, you may appreciate the ritual of cannibolizing Jesus. He requested he be remembered in this way, with bread representing his body and wine representing his blood. This is not as awful as we may at first think. Cannibal societies believe they can ingest the good qualities of those they eat. It can be an honor to be eaten, and a kind of immortality. Like it can be a good day to die, if you are in a warrior society. Different strokes for different folks.

I suppose it is not bad if you are a superstitious native. It is funny that Christians look down their noses at the superstitions of other cultures and claim that they must be "saved". Many of those other cultures can't touch Christianity for just out and out superstitious insanity.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy I suppose it is not bad if you are a superstitious native. It is funny that Christians look down their noses at the superstitions of other cultures and claim that they must be "saved". Many of those other cultures can't touch Christianity for just out and out superstitious insanity. Starboy

yes yes - it's inconsistant and dishonest (or whatever you want to call it). Not that you have that obligitory (for you) point off your chest, can you shut up about it?

[BaldEagle]

I personally find it so repugnant that I could puke at the thought of it. But, far be it for me to deny the mortician an occassional flank steak.

BaldEagle

Actually on a serious note, I do not believe it is actually illegal, primarily because so many other laws are covering it. Mutilation or misuse of a dead body is illegal. There are laws defining what must be done with a dead person. Define misuse you say. Well, one could argue that this is not a misuse, but mutilation would trump that anyway. Whether you cut it up or attempt to eat it whole it could fall under mutilation.

[BaldEagle]

Hey Starboy, does a-okay mean "without" okay.

BaldEagle

[Starboy]

Quote by: BaldEagle Hey Starboy, does a-okay mean "without" okay. BaldEagle

It can mean that. But I was referring to the slang version. But I am not sure how you would write it. Aokay? AOkay? AOK? A-Okay? A-okay? In any case I think in its slang version it is supposed to be a "Grade A" version of okay so it is supposed be an extra good amount of agreeableness. Now if you want atheist to mean a “Grade A” version of theist then have at it.

Starboy