Cannibalism [Archive]

Cryotank Screams

13th February 2007, 18:47

Taking the Freudian definition, cannibalistic instincts, as being among the primary instincts that humanity has to relinquish in order to maintain a civilized society (though I realize this may be debatable), however it is a natural instinct, and cannibalism can be seen in just about every animal species, whether it be cobras devouring cobras, or the praying mantis, devouring her lover, it can be seen, and I personally find acts of cannibalism, and the whole subject to be fascinating, in that it's hard to determine the exact reason why certain individuals such as Dahmer, Gein, Fish, Miyazaki, and Meiwes, are drawn to acts of cannibalism, I mean sure you can draw sexual fetish links towards there acts, however this to me maybe a slight oversimplification, of their real motives.

"Among these instinctual wishes are those of incest, cannibalism, and lust for killing."-Sigmund Freud.

You could never really find out what goes on in the Minds of certain lunatics like him.

It is possible when you have a working knowledge of psychology and specialize in criminal psychology, which is why, dozens of psychologists, and crimal psychologist specialist flock to talk to these individuals, and examine, and try to make an analysis of why they did what they did, so again it is possible.

are just products of alienation IMO.

Though alienation in most definitions of them term is a common theme in murders and specifically cannibal, it is not the only factor.

HE even have necrophilia which is why he acted like that.

Necrophilia is a very broad subject, but simply means love of the dead, going upon the greek translation of the word, however in most paraphilic definitions this love is a sexual attraction, and again necrophilia is a can be found in nature, so it is not just limited to the human animal (see photo below), and has been witnessed by a man named Moeliker, and though necrophilia is also a common theme among modern cannibals, it is not a driving factor in their cannibalism, and is more or less separate though somewhat related.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Necromouse.jpg

Vargha Poralli

13th February 2007, 19:03

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams
Necrophilia is a very broad subject, but simply means love of the dead, going upon the greek translation of the word, however in most paraphilic definitions this love is a sexual attraction, and again necrophilia is a can be found in nature, so it is not just limited to the human animal (see photo below), and has been witnessed by a man named Moeliker, and though necrophilia is also a common theme among modern cannibals, it is not a driving factor in their cannibalism, and is more or less separate though somewhat related.

Ok I agree with it but the problem with Human Animal is that necrophiles can never find their "partner" to have sex with as easily like other animals.So IMO i think that is why most necrophiles turn in to murderers.

Cannibalism is some what different though IMO. I have seen it only among the chimpanzees in mammals even the scientist had not came to any conclusion it seems for the chimp cannibalism.

whether it be cobras devouring cobras

Not the same variety though. King Cobras(Ophiophagus hannah) is the only variety of Cobra that feeds on other snakes and definitely cannibalism is really rare.They are totally different from other Indian Spectacled Cobra(Naja Naja) which I think may lead to cannibalism confusion.Although called a cobra, it does not belong to the same genus (Naja) as the so-called "true" cobras.

Pawn Power

13th February 2007, 19:36

I am very much skeptical whether cannibalism existed at all in any historic settled societies.

There is tremendous evidence that indicates human cannibalism in a many different societies, one being the ancient Aztecs.

Now the reason for such is more complicated. The most coherent explanations I have come across seem to be a combination of religion, protein, and power. The lack of protine sources has often been a driving force for many cultures and societies according to Marvin Harris. While the amount of cannibalism that takes place in these societies could not substitute a source of protein it could have been strategically used as protein for certain people as rewards or compensation. Religion could be said to justify this practice in some cases.

ichneumon

13th February 2007, 20:34

technically, all catholics are cannibals. the miracle of the eucharist is that the wafer *actually* becomes the body of christ. likewise with the wine to blood.

Sentinel

13th February 2007, 22:56

Myths about certain characteristics, or somehow the person, of the eaten being acquired by or linked to the cannibal through the act is said to lie behind some of the ritual forms of cannibalism (or anthropophagy as it's also called), as well that practiced by various mentally ill individuals. Armin Meiwes, the recent German cannibal, said that he longed for a 'younger brother to bind to himself eternally by eating him'.

It should be noted here, that there does exist modern scepticism about how widespread ritual cannibalism actually has been. William Arens, who in 1979 wrote the book The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy argues that branding indigenous peoples with the 'cannibal' label may well have often been simply used to justify colonialist oppression of them by the so called 'civilised westerners'.

So stories about cannibalism and other atrocities either completely made up or based on hearsay were likely often proclaimed as facts in order to gain sympathies for conquests in the name of 'western civilisation'.

The Anarchist Prince

14th February 2007, 01:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:34 pm
technically, all catholics are cannibals. the miracle of the eucharist is that the wafer *actually* becomes the body of christ. likewise with the wine to blood.
THAT is the whole reason I never became a Catholic! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ol' Dirty

14th February 2007, 02:10

I eat babies, as fdoes my freind. It is a delicious choice to make.

Many people, if faced with death, would eat the meat of a dead person if nothing else were available.

Vargha Poralli

14th February 2007, 15:27

There is tremendous evidence that indicates human cannibalism in a many different societies, one being the ancient Aztecs.

That was originally claimed by Hernan Cortez and his conquistadors which is why I am sceptical. A similar claim was documented by British about a cult called thugee in India which even has followers today and there has never been evidence of even sacrifice among them. Their pime deity Kali is somewhat fearsome in appearance which makes those who are unfamiliar with them to buy in to that story.

Severian

14th February 2007, 17:02

Originally posted by Pawn Power+February 13, 2007 01:36 pm--> (Pawn Power @ February 13, 2007 01:36 pm) The lack of protine sources has often been a driving force for many cultures and societies according to Marvin Harris. While the amount of cannibalism that takes place in these societies could not substitute a source of protein it could have been strategically used as protein for certain people as rewards or compensation. [/b]
Harris' arguments on this are certainly debatable, and debated among anthropologists. Even whether the Aztecs' sacrificial victims were eaten is debated, as well as whether the reason for their sacrificial practices was so simple.

You gotta give Harris points for materialism, but he may be too simply materialistic.

More to the point, what is the difference between eating a human (a dead one) and eating any other animal (a dead one)?

It should be obvious: humans are part of a society with each other. You can't have a society if people see each other as prey to be hunted and eaten, so a strong cannibalism taboo is necessary. Almost all societies have one - the few that don't have some kind of limits on it, e.g. only other tribes (enemies).

Sentinel
So stories about cannibalism and other atrocities either completely made up or based on hearsay were likely often proclaimed as facts in order to gain sympathies for conquests in the name of 'western civilisation'.

Not just "western civilization" - it's an accusation made by many groups against their national or tribal enemies. But yeah, it has to be questioned for that reason.

Nothing Human Is Alien

15th February 2007, 01:08

the few that don't have some kind of limits on it, e.g. only other tribes (enemies).

There are / have been tribes that eat their own people once they die, as some sort of sign of respect or something similar.

16th February 2007, 02:44

theres really nothing morally wrong about cannibalism provided you're not talking about killing people for the purpose of cannibalism.

The fact is that, humans are biological entities and we're irrationally disgusted by certain biological things; when that disgust is harmful and anti-social it needs to be repressed, but when that disgust is harmless, as in the case of finding cannibalism disgusting, it can be ignored.

bcbm

16th February 2007, 03:52

When the rev comes, I will eat my slain enemies' hearts to gain their power.

Pirate Utopian

16th February 2007, 14:30

that brings up something intresting, how do you people feel about cannibalism as a symbol of some emotion

Janus

17th February 2007, 03:15

There are / have been tribes that eat their own people once they die, as some sort of sign of respect or something similar.
That's definitely one of the health risks behind cannibalism.

how do you people feel about cannibalism as a symbol of some emotion
There have definitely been cases where deep sexual cannnibalistic fantasies were harbored by individuals. However, few have ever actually acted on them.

commiecrusader

17th February 2007, 17:43

The health risk as far as I know with regards to cannibalism is that if you eat the brain then it can lead to a disease like human-variant CJD, although this risk is associated with eating the brain of any animal. I don't see anything wrong with eating human flesh as long as the person isn't killed specifically for that purpose.

Even then though you could argue that it's no more ethically dubious than eating a different animal such as a cow.

Janus

18th February 2007, 06:15

The health risk as far as I know with regards to cannibalism is that if you eat the brain then it can lead to a disease like human-variant CJD
Well, infected flesh or body matter in general.

although this risk is associated with eating the brain of any animal.
Yes, but for animals, it's only dangerous if the organism contains a disease that can be transmitted to humans.

commiecrusader

18th February 2007, 11:09

Well, infected flesh or body matter in general.

The brain doesn't have to be infected with the disease in order to transmit to the human that's eaten it. Merely eating enough brain tissue is sufficient. The process doesn't happen straight away or from eating one bit of brain, but over a long period of time, and after eating a significant amount of brains, it can lead to the disease.

Janus

18th February 2007, 19:52

The brain doesn't have to be infected with the disease in order to transmit
to the human that's eaten it. Merely eating enough brain tissue is sufficient.
The process doesn't happen straight away or from eating one bit of brain, but
over a long period of time, and after eating a significant amount of brains,
it can lead to the disease.

CJD is a type of TSE and thus is transmitted by prions. It can only be
passed on either through genetics or the consumption of infected/tainted tissue
(such is also the case with "mad cow disease". The primary hazard for eating a lot
of brain matter is the cholesterol problem as brain tissue is made up of 60% fat.

Marukusu

18th February 2007, 21:05

If the alternative was starvation, I would probably consider cannibalism - though I wouldn't actively hunt down and kill another human being just to get some flesh to eat.
I also assume that the situation is dire overall and that society and civilization has suffered a major fuck-up (because of (revolutionary?)war, famine, disease etc).

indigenous-redfeminist

21st July 2007, 23:11

In my english class we did a theme of the other and my teacher gave me a handout that explained the other and it comes about and canabalism is mentioned and i thought it would be a nice add.
This comes from the end of the reading..
" The tendency to sacrifice a scapegoat is clearly basic to man's social nature. It follows that man's refusal to sacrifice scapegoats - and his willigness to recognize and bear his own and his groups responsibilty for evil in the world, would be a major step in man's moral development, comparable to his rejection of canablism. In the rejection of the scapegoat principle lies the greatest moral challenge for modern man.
The tiger eats his prey; the cannibal eats his victim. We know, however, that the similarity between these two meals is deceptive. The cannibal eats his victim's body, not for its food value as food,but for its value as meaning. He could feed his body in other ways- but not his spirit, not his mind. The cannibal, by eating his victim's flesh, actually feasts on his soul. The flesh and blood of dead men are commonly eaten in order to inspire bravery, wisdom, or other qualities for which the dead men themselves were remarkable.
Although giving up literal physical cannibalism was no doubt a vast moral achievment for man, it failed to eliminate man's symbolic cannibalism. That is to say, it did not abolish man's greed to rob other people of the meaning they have given thier life. In short, man's greed for destroying his fellow man's soul continues, and we remain spiritual cannibals. As a rule we live off the meaning others give thier lives; in other words, we validate our worth by invalidating thier worth.If this is true, the most important question for man as a moral being becomes; can we create meaning for our lives without without demeaning the lives of others?
In summary, as a human being, man is a particular kind of animal: a social animal. He is always a member of a group, never a solitary animal. The conditions of his membership in a group go far in the defining the kind of person he becomes. To remain a member of a group, man must often attack and sacrifice nonmembers. Wars against external enemies have traditionally forced individuals into playing this role, thus intergrating individuals further into thier own groups. In addition, man also converts members of his own groups into nonmembers, so that they may then be attacked and sacrificed. These are the wars on "interanl enemies" which members of the groups must wage or risk alienation from the group. Such scapegoating behavior enables men to validate thier worth through the invalidation of the "enemy" as bad."
If any one wants th rest of this reading i can send it to you just let me know there is alot more goes along with it it just doesn't go with this thread

Dimentio

22nd July 2007, 02:42

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 13, 2007 02:49 pm
What do you peeps think causes cannibalism with people?

Why do some people eat humanmeat without beeing in hunger like Dahmer?

Is cannibalism excusable?

Is cannibalism a natural feature in all humans?
Hm... is there any way to make it secure and voluntary and totally free of abuse and exploitment, then go!

midnight marauder

22nd July 2007, 10:17

i'm not entirely sure it's quite the same as eating animals, if only because in many societies where cannibalism was actually practiced it had important social roles, i.e., giving back to one's community, honoring the dead, ritualistic displays of strength, etc. it would be an identical situation if humans were to be hunted and killed just for food, but that's why cannibalism is oldest taboos in the books.

a question i'd have more of a hard time with would be whether or not it would be "acceptable" to consume human bodies after they've passed away when there are little to other food options available, like the donner party situation or early american settlers eating the flesh of corpses from native american graves. the materialist in me understands why this happens of course, but the thought of it still irks me. i think i'd have a rather hard time deciding between that and starving! :lol:

as far as i'm concerned i couldn't see my self ever eating the flesh of another human purely because of personal tastes, but i don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with it especially if that's what a person wants to have done to their body when they pass away.

Similar remarks must be made as regards cannibalism. Taking into account all the facts which were brought to light during a recent controversy on this subject at the Paris Anthropological Society, and many incidental remarks scattered throughout the "savage" literature, we are bound to recognize that that practice was brought into existence by sheer necessity. but that it was further developed by superstition and religion into the proportions it attained in Fiji or in Mexico. It is a fact that until this day many savages are compelled to devour corpses in the most advanced state of putrefaction, and that in cases of absolute scarcity some of them have had to disinter and to feed upon human corpses, even during an epidemic. These are ascertained facts. But if we now transport ourselves to the conditions which man had to face during the glacial period, in a damp and cold climate, with but little vegetable food at his disposal; if we take into account the terrible ravages which scurvy still makes among underfed natives, and remember that meat and fresh blood are the only restoratives which they know, we must admit that man, who formerly was a granivorous animal, became a flesh-eater during the glacial period. He found plenty of deer at that time, but deer often migrate in the Arctic regions, and sometimes they entirely abandon a territory for a number of years. In such cases his last resources disappeared. During like hard trials, cannibalism has been resorted to even by Europeans, and it was resorted to by the savages. Until the present time, they occasionally devour the corpses of their own dead: they must have devoured then the corpses of those who had to die. Old people died, convinced that by their death they were rendering a last service to the tribe. This is why cannibalism is represented by some savages as of divine origin, as something that has been ordered by a messenger from the sky. But later on it lost its character of necessity, and survived as a superstition. Enemies had to be eaten in order to inherit their courage; and, at a still later epoch, the enemy's eye or heart was eaten for the same purpose; while among other tribes, already having a numerous priesthood and a developed mythology, evil gods, thirsty for human blood, were invented, and human sacrifices required by the priests to appease the gods. In this religious phase of its existence, cannibalism attained its most revolting characters. Mexico is a well-known example; and in Fiji, where the king could eat any one of his subjects, we also find a mighty cast of priests, a complicated theology,38 and a full development of autocracy. Originated by necessity, cannibalism became, at a later period, a religious institution, and in this form it survived long after it had disappeared from among tribes which certainly practised it in former times, but did not attain the theocratical stage of evolution. .
-pytor kropotkin in mutual aid

chaingang3000

23rd July 2007, 21:11

who gives a damn when someones dead, their dead and what does that leave the rest of society, a rotting carcass which I believe people have the right to decide whether to eat it or not! Also in the human genome project certain genes turn on when eating human proteins and animal proteins that protect against prion diseases like Kuru, and Cruetsfeld-Jacobson disease (Mad Cow)

ÑóẊîöŉ

25th July 2007, 11:32

Sweet jesus. Paragraphs upon paragraph of prose on the thics of cannibalism, when as a moral problem it is quite simple. It is only a matter of informed consent. Did the deceased consent for their body to be eaten?

apathy maybe

26th July 2007, 14:34

Actually, who cares what the deceased thought? They are dead, they have ceased to be. They don't have any say in the matter of the disposal of their body.

This society is for the living, not the dead.

On cutting up your dead body for eating, there is a rather good guide over at the The Church of Euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The+Church+of+Euthanasia). Butchering the Human Carcass for Human Consumption (http://churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/butcher.html).

Recommended reading for those of you intending to partake of this delicacy.

Vargha Poralli

26th July 2007, 15:21

Originally posted by apathy maybe
Actually, who cares what the deceased thought? They are dead, they have ceased to be. They don't have any say in the matter of the disposal of their body.

This society is for the living, not the dead.

Do you ever think before to post anything ?

Of course no one gives a shit about the dead people's thought.

But they were living before they died. To eat a human flesh you have to kill a HUMAN BEING.

Really what are you trying to say ? You support vegetarian diet but you contradict yourself with this shit.

Edit - The WIki was dead.

apathy maybe

26th July 2007, 15:47

The Wikipedia link should work now.

Also, of course I thought before I posted. I thought, the dead are dead, who cares what they think. Cannibalism is about eating humans, if those humans are dead they have no say in the matter.

On the other hand, if they are still living, of course they have a say in the matter.

But you don't have to kill someone to obtain a dead body.

What I thought was, I doubt that anyone will confusing killing and eating someone with simply eating an already dead body... Obviously I was wrong.

NorthStarRepublicML

26th July 2007, 19:33

i think i'd have a rather hard time deciding between that and starving!

i doubt it .... usually when starving instincts are peaked, think about the last time you were extremely hungry ..... sometimes you can't sleep or your eyes are more sensitive to movement .... when starving your instincts (i would imagine) would help you to rationalize or dismiss any moral notions that might run counter to your survival ...

thus if you need to kill and eat one of your wounded companions or merely eat their dead flesh it would not be a primary concern at the time ... however after you were in the clear it might contribute to mental problems ...

does anyone know if the rugby team depicted in the film "Alive" suffer from mental problems after their rescue?

i would expect to be eaten myself (maybe killed and eaten) if i was dying while in a Donner party situation, thus your companions, if dying or in a weakened state, should also expect to be eaten (or killed and eaten)...

counterblast

27th July 2007, 04:28

MarxSchmarx

27th July 2007, 09:22

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 26, 2007 01:34 pm
Actually, who cares what the deceased thought? They are dead, they have ceased to be. They don't have any say in the matter of the disposal of their body.

This society is for the living, not the dead.

What about the family of the dead? If anything goes for the dead, would you be cool having your great grandfather's ashes used to color someone's wall out of aesthetic reasons? I won't.

I mean, if the deceased wanted to be eaten upon death or have their ashes converted to wall paint, then that is one thing. But if they didn't say anything about it, I think out of respect for the living family members we shouldn't have a "if they're dead anything goes" attitude.

Vargha Poralli

27th July 2007, 11:40

Originally posted by apathy maybe
But you don't have to kill someone to obtain a dead body.

What I thought was, I doubt that anyone will confusing killing and eating someone with simply eating an already dead body... Obviously I was wrong.

Yeah instead we shall just dig out the graves so that we can use the already dead bodies.

The world is not simple as it seems to be. It is much complex for anything to happen or take place without contradictoion.

You see the problem is that body might probably started to rot and might not be fit to eat or to have sex(in case of Necrophilia). So the cannibal or the necrophiliac will have to resort to murder to satisfy their needs.

Of course you are the one with the belief that troubled teens should be provided with the modes to suicide you might now say that every person must have the right to kill another person to satisfy his needs.

Please prove me wrong.

apathy maybe

27th July 2007, 12:15

Of course you are the one with the belief that troubled teens should be provided with the modes to suicide you might now say that every person must have the right to kill another person to satisfy his needs.

Please prove me wrong.

I fail to see how those to positions are consistent ... I said that everyone should have access to the means to kill ones self yes. That is because it is their body!

But to kill another, is to kill someone else!

But, once someone is already dead (perhaps because they took advantage of the free, painless, quick method of killing themselves that I provide to all people...), then they have ceased to be. They are no longer in existence. And the body that was formally theirs is not any longer!

Thus, they can't complain if someone eats it.

Killing someone else is infringing on their liberty. Killing yourself is not infringing on anyone's liberty. Eating, defiling or otherwise messing with a dead body is not infringing on that dead bodies liberty, because it has none!

Of course, other people (the living!) might object to such actions, but that is for the living to sort out! Not for the dead...

You then bring a spurious argument into the debate, that people who would want to eat dead bodies or to have sex with them, "need" to do this. Well, somehow I doubt it. In any case, there are plenty of people dying all the time of natural causes without resorting to killing people...

MarxSchmarx: Indeed, the living have a say. It is the dead that don't, which is what I've been trying to argue all this time...

Anyway, see this comic for some commentary about dead people...
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp04192002.shtml

ÑóẊîöŉ

27th July 2007, 15:02

Killing someone else is infringing on their liberty. Killing yourself is not infringing on anyone's liberty. Eating, defiling or otherwise messing with a dead body is not infringing on that dead bodies liberty, because it has none!

Except for the fact that most people have express wishes with regards to what happens to their bodies after death. Why go against those wishes, especially if they are not unreasonable?

Suppose someone donates their body to science. If someone else eats the body, I think they should be punished for going against that person's wishes, at the very least. It akin to relinquishing one of one's favourite possessions to somebody, then someone else getting hold of it and eating or destroying it. I think most people on this board would agree that would be objectionable. Why are bodies any different?

Again, it comes back to the issue of consent.

counterblast

28th July 2007, 15:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 08:22 am
What about the family of the dead? If anything goes for the dead, would you be cool having your great grandfather's ashes used to color someone's wall out of aesthetic reasons? I won't.
The family has no withstanding social relationship to the deceased grandfather. HE'S DEAD. He's a rotting, lifeless chunk of skin; not the accumulation of brain matter that made up your grandfather.

counterblast

28th July 2007, 15:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:02 pm

Killing someone else is infringing on their liberty. Killing yourself is not infringing on anyone's liberty. Eating, defiling or otherwise messing with a dead body is not infringing on that dead bodies liberty, because it has none!

Except for the fact that most people have express wishes with regards to what happens to their bodies after death. Why go against those wishes, especially if they are not unreasonable?

Suppose someone donates their body to science. If someone else eats the body, I think they should be punished for going against that person's wishes, at the very least. It akin to relinquishing one of one's favourite possessions to somebody, then someone else getting hold of it and eating or destroying it. I think most people on this board would agree that would be objectionable. Why are bodies any different?

Again, it comes back to the issue of consent.
I guess if you consider clearcutting forests, and burying enforced wooden boxes that take thousands of years to degrade into the environment a "reasonable" wish to grant to the deceased. But I'd rather these resources be utilized for those still able to contribute to the world, namely the billions of starving/destitute humans or animals that could utilize this land, meat, and timber to survive. The selfish request of one now non-existant man, I quite frankly don't find to be worth the death of others.

metalero

29th July 2007, 02:20

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 26, 2007 08:34 am
On cutting up your dead body for eating, there is a rather good guide over at the The Church of Euthanasia. Butchering the Human Carcass for Human Consumption.
Recommended reading for those of you intending to partake of this delicacy.

what a piece of misanthropic crap.

indigenous-redfeminist

5th August 2007, 03:20

if you are hungry you would eat anything and if it is a person then let it be

ÑóẊîöŉ

6th August 2007, 11:59

Originally posted by counterblast
I guess if you consider clearcutting forests, and burying enforced wooden boxes that take thousands of years to degrade into the environment a "reasonable" wish to grant to the deceased.

Then encourage the living to consider alternatives. Aside from the fact that most people can only afford a pine coffin (and that's if they can afford a coffin and space for it in the first place - cremation is a lot cheaper!), and not the extravagant hardwood monstrosity you seem to be hinting at.

But I'd rather these resources be utilized for those still able to contribute to the world, namely the billions of starving/destitute humans or animals that could utilize this land, meat, and timber to survive. The selfish request of one now non-existant man, I quite frankly don't find to be worth the death of others.

Puh-leeze, thousands of square Km of virgin rainforest are being devastated by many industries other than that of coffin-making, and you're whinging about this comparitively small issue? Talk about tunnel vision.

To disregard the wishes of the deceased because a minority of them make bad decisions is the height of silliness.

Herman

6th August 2007, 12:29

I dont know about cannibalism. Personally I don't feel any appeal on the subject. I mean, i've never thought about it... but i'm a bit disgusted. I don't feel well eating a dead human being.

It may be what I was taught as a kid.... call me reactionary or conservative or whatever, bla, bla, bla... I just can't picture eating another person.

kelly-087

7th August 2007, 04:14

I heard human meat tastes like crap.

apathy maybe

7th August 2007, 09:04

Originally posted by NoXion
To disregard the wishes of the deceased because a minority of them make bad decisions is the height of silliness.
No, we disregard the "wishes of the deceased" because they are fucking dead.

We pay attention to the living, and what they want, but not the dead. After all, the dead don't care what happens to their body, funerals are only for the living.

I'm not saying that we should just throw the bodies away, after all the living wouldn't like that. But we only pay attention to what the living want, not the dead.

Genosse Kotze

7th August 2007, 09:31

I don't find anything abhorrent about eating other people. Actually, in the cases of desperation many of you are describing, I heard that if you had a choice between eating chicken and eating human, you should go with the human actually. Because it's already made of the same things you are, your body will won't have to break it down much and will absorb the neutriants much quicker. Now, there are health problems involved with cannibalism. Some people who practice it regularly develop a condition which is not unlike mad cow disease; actually some researchers believe that mad cow disease was brought about by including some beef in the feed they give cattle. So, if I get stuck out in the wilderness with any of you, watch your ass! cuz I'll take a bite out of it the first chance I get!

As for somebody's concerns about psychological trauma cannibals may experience from eating other people, and specifically asked about the mental well being of people that got stuck out in the Andes, whom the film Alive was made about, I'm certain they're ok. In interviews with some of them I saw on TV, all of them said that, if they were ever in a similar situation again, they'd do it in a heart beat. Actually, the only regret some of them had was that they didn't start eating their dead friends sooner, as the neutrition it would have provided them may have strengthened the people who may not have died otherwise. And bear in mind that they were basically all Catholics, who still had no qualms with what they did.

If any of you are interested in finding out what you might taste like, check out this description by New York Times journalist William Buehler Seabrook from 1931

It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have. The steak was slightly tougher than prime veal, a little stringy, but not too tough or stringy to be agreeably edible. The roast, from which I cut and ate a central slice, was tender, and in color, texture, smell as well as taste, strengthened my certainty that of all the meats we habitually know, veal is the one meat to which this meat is accurately comparable."[

hajduk

9th August 2007, 14:06

Cannibalism we get from neandertals,becouse homo sapiens sometimes mix it up with neandertals during ancient time,female of homo sapiens somethimes been catch and rape by neandertals and somethimes homo sapiens male took neandertal female and becouse neandertals somethimes eat own species that kind of behavior get in to our minds,it sort of atavism,like hairy body or strong fangs.

Dr Mindbender

9th August 2007, 14:25

i think the danger with adopting an accepting attitude to cannabilism is that it sets a precedence that its okay to kill other people for the sake of eating their flesh (even though alternative foods may be available).
Animals are not sentient beings and are unable to contribute to society on the same level as humans. Its important to remember that distinction. What if some psycho killed and ate the next Lenin or Che Guevara? That could set the revolution back many decades.

Dr Mindbender

9th August 2007, 14:26

Originally posted by kelly-[email protected] 07, 2007 03:14 am
I heard human meat tastes like crap.
No its supposed to taste like chicken.

Genosse Kotze

9th August 2007, 22:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:06 pm
Cannibalism we get from neandertals,becouse homo sapiens sometimes mix it up with neandertals during ancient time,female of homo sapiens somethimes been catch and rape by neandertals and somethimes homo sapiens male took neandertal female and becouse neandertals somethimes eat own species that kind of behavior get in to our minds,it sort of atavism,like hairy body or strong fangs.
I'm unsure if homo sapiens and Neanderthals were able to interbreed, but if we assume they were able to, than that doesn't explain cannibalism in modern day humans I'm afraid. The range of the Neanderthals only stretched from western Europe to about as far east as Kazakhstan. So, even in spite of this large range of theirs, cross breeding with them can't be the origins of cannibalism because humans and Neanderthals couldn't have been fucking in places like Africa, and east and southern Asia, because they never would have crossed paths.

think the danger with adopting an accepting attitude to cannibalism is that it sets a precedence that its okay to kill other people for the sake of eating their flesh (even though alternative foods may be available)... What if some psycho killed and ate the next Lenin or Che Guevara? That could set the revolution back many decades.
Well, ok, but if you're going to argue this point, it's important to remember that it's the same objection Christian, anti-choice people give with regards to abortion (although they obviously wouldn't use Lenin or Che as examples, but rather a new Jesus or some dude who was bound to cure cancer, etc...).

hajduk

10th August 2007, 13:46

Originally posted by Genosse Kotze+August 09, 2007 09:23 pm--> (Genosse Kotze @ August 09, 2007 09:23 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2007 01:06 pm
Cannibalism we get from neandertals,becouse homo sapiens sometimes mix it up with neandertals during ancient time,female of homo sapiens somethimes been catch and rape by neandertals and somethimes homo sapiens male took neandertal female and becouse neandertals somethimes eat own species that kind of behavior get in to our minds,it sort of atavism,like hairy body or strong fangs.
I'm unsure if homo sapiens and Neanderthals were able to interbreed, but if we assume they were able to, than that doesn't explain cannibalism in modern day humans I'm afraid. The range of the Neanderthals only stretched from western Europe to about as far east as Kazakhstan. So, even in spite of this large range of theirs, cross breeding with them can't be the origins of cannibalism because humans and Neanderthals couldn't have been fucking in places like Africa, and east and southern Asia, because they never would have crossed paths.

think the danger with adopting an accepting attitude to cannibalism is that it sets a precedence that its okay to kill other people for the sake of eating their flesh (even though alternative foods may be available)... What if some psycho killed and ate the next Lenin or Che Guevara? That could set the revolution back many decades.
Well, ok, but if you're going to argue this point, it's important to remember that it's the same objection Christian, anti-choice people give with regards to abortion (although they obviously wouldn't use Lenin or Che as examples, but rather a new Jesus or some dude who was bound to cure cancer, etc...). [/b]
possibly maybe but i think is connected with neandertals not by imigration but with genre during the time when homo sapiens spread over the world

Bear MacMillan

8th May 2008, 01:11

No its supposed to taste like chicken.

I hear that it tastes like pork alot. Pacific Islanders used to call their captives "Long Pork".

At first glance, cannibalism seems easy to define, right? " the practice of eating one's own kind" (The Penguin English Dictionary) That seems straightforward enough, but it begs alot of questions and glosses over a remarkable diversity. Roasting human liver is seems unambiguously cannibalistic, but does chewing finger nails count as cannibalism? What, essentially, is the difference?

Because it is so hard to pin down, and so often a question of context and circumstance, cannibalism comes in degrees of acceptability. At one extreme; the chewed fingernail, and an the other; the sadistic murder, mutilation and roasting of flesh. In ethical terms, it clearly makes a huge difference whether the soure of meat is alive or dead. If the former; it obviously matters whether the donor was willing or not; if the latter, whether the would be consumer was also the cause of death.

We live in a society where we tend to take the simple line. Everything is good or evil, and cannibalism clearly falls in the latter category. When a few unfortunate folk find themselves in the middle of nowhere without any food, and end up having to eat a companion, most of us agree they had no choice, and generously forgive their fall from grace, because we still believe that that is what it was - a horrible necessity. But we still hold on to its wrongness; cannibalism is quite simply, and innately, unacceptable.

So why do people do it? There are 3 essential reasons:
1. Duty
2. Desperation
3. Desire
Or, to put it in another way, because they ought to, need to or want to. Duty because their culture is accustomed to cannibalism; consuming a loved one can be seen as an ultimate form of respect; consuming their flesh so they can "stay a part" of the consumer forever. Desperation because the consumers have nothing else to eat, and desire because the consumer simply wants to eat someone else.