Voluntary Cannibalism

[God Kefka]

Human McNuggets must be kept illegal at all cost... the slippery slope for that is too much...

Slippery slope arguments are, by definition, non sequiturs.

they make perfect sense here.

It's completely appropriate here. We're debating whether or not to open a huge black door labeled Cannibalism...

why risk releasing the monster?

I don't want a future where McDonald and KFC might secretly put in human meat into their products...

[Satanic Socialist States]

There is another issue with allowing people to be sold as meat, which is that it isn't truly consensual, as wage slavery & unjust economic circumstances would coerce people into being made into snacks.

No more than selling organs encourage poor people to cut themselves up to sell their livers.

Which they sometimes do & that is not really consensual either.

[Sun Wukong]

Slippery slope arguments are, by definition, non sequiturs.

they make perfect sense here.

It's completely appropriate here. We're debating whether or not to open a huge black door labeled Cannibalism...

why risk releasing the monster?

They never make perfect sense. They are nothing more than attempts to conflate the issue by demanding that supporters of one proposal must support another unrelated proposal, or are doing so by their support of the former. This is dishonest.

The monster is, and always has been, in your head.

[Len Hyet]

I'm pretty sure society has the right to impose a certain moral baseline upon itself. We agreed murder is wrong, so it's illegal. We agreed stealing is wrong, so it's illegal, and so forth.

So, when it comes to the consumption of human flesh, I think we can agree it's a nono.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

No more than selling organs encourage poor people to cut themselves up to sell their livers.

Which they sometimes do & that is not really consensual either.

Regardless of the circumstances, if someone is informed of all the consequence, the purpose, etc. and gives consent, then they are consenting individuals.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I'm pretty sure society has the right to impose a certain moral baseline upon itself. We agreed murder is wrong, so it's illegal. We agreed stealing is wrong, so it's illegal, and so forth.

So, when it comes to the consumption of human flesh, I think we can agree it's a nono.

Murder and stealing both do not have consent, the eating of the flesh of a consenting being does.

[Len Hyet]

I'm pretty sure society has the right to impose a certain moral baseline upon itself. We agreed murder is wrong, so it's illegal. We agreed stealing is wrong, so it's illegal, and so forth.

So, when it comes to the consumption of human flesh, I think we can agree it's a nono.

Murder and stealing both do not have consent, the eating of the flesh of a consenting being does.

Assisted suicide is illegal. And yes, that does involve consent. Just because I say yes to you eating my flesh, doesn't mean you have a right to eat it. First off its been proven to have terrible side effects. Second off, society does have a moral compass. Let's use it.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Murder and stealing both do not have consent, the eating of the flesh of a consenting being does.

Assisted suicide is illegal. And yes, that does involve consent. Just because I say yes to you eating my flesh, doesn't mean you have a right to eat it. First off its been proven to have terrible side effects. Second off, society does have a moral compass. Let's use it.

Assited suicide shouldn't be illegal precisely because it involves consent.


First off, the ill effects of eating human flesh has been exaggerated, and is no more a danger than, say, mad cow disease, and can be solved with government regulation.

Secondly, there is nothing that makes eating the flesh of a consenting being any more immoral than eating the flesh of a nonconsenting being.

[Satanic Socialist States]

Which they sometimes do & that is not really consensual either.

Regardless of the circumstances, if someone is informed of all the consequence, the purpose, etc. and gives consent, then they are consenting individuals.

Not at all. If I hold a gun to your head, but am careful to inform you of the consequence & purpose etc. before I force you to sign a form saying I am allowed to rape & murder you, is that consent?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Regardless of the circumstances, if someone is informed of all the consequence, the purpose, etc. and gives consent, then they are consenting individuals.

Not at all. If I hold a gun to your head, but am careful to inform you of the consequence & purpose etc. before I force you to sign a form saying I am allowed to rape & murder you, is that consent?

Yes, because if I do not sign, I would simply be shot, while, if I did, I would undergo humiliation and then death, so I have the choice of refusing you and letting you shoot me in the head.

[Len Hyet]

Assisted suicide is illegal. And yes, that does involve consent. Just because I say yes to you eating my flesh, doesn't mean you have a right to eat it. First off its been proven to have terrible side effects. Second off, society does have a moral compass. Let's use it.

Assited suicide shouldn't be illegal precisely because it involves consent.


First off, the ill effects of eating human flesh has been exaggerated, and is no more a danger than, say, mad cow disease, and can be solved with government regulation.

Secondly, there is nothing that makes eating the flesh of a consenting being any more immoral than eating the flesh of a nonconsenting being.

Firstly, Incurable neurological diseases are things to avoid.

Secondly, there is something inherently wrong with the consumption of human flesh by other humans. It has been condemned almost universally by every civilized society ever.

[God Kefka]

Assited suicide shouldn't be illegal precisely because it involves consent.


First off, the ill effects of eating human flesh has been exaggerated, and is no more a danger than, say, mad cow disease, and can be solved with government regulation.

Secondly, there is nothing that makes eating the flesh of a consenting being any more immoral than eating the flesh of a nonconsenting being.

Firstly, Incurable neurological diseases are things to avoid.

Secondly, there is something inherently wrong with the consumption of human flesh by other humans. It has been condemned almost universally by every civilized society ever.

good points... good points...

[Satanic Socialist States]

Not at all. If I hold a gun to your head, but am careful to inform you of the consequence & purpose etc. before I force you to sign a form saying I am allowed to rape & murder you, is that consent?

Yes, because if I do not sign, I would simply be shot, while, if I did, I would undergo humiliation and then death, so I have the choice of refusing you and letting you shoot me in the head.

So do you or do you not believe that that would be consent or not? Do you think such a thing should be legal? Because it is generally accepted that consent cannot be given under coercion.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Firstly, Incurable neurological diseases are things to avoid.

Again, it has been exagerrated.

Secondly, there is something inherently wrong with the consumption of human flesh by other humans. It has been condemned almost universally by every civilized society ever.

There isn't anything inherently wrong, and it has not been 'condemned in almost every civilised society', the Chinese, for example, were fine with Cannibalism in cases of famine, and it evolved into a delicacy by the Song Dynasty, the same times Su Shi was writing his 'Red Cliff' and when gun powder was being invented and used in warfare.

[Sun Wukong]

Assited suicide shouldn't be illegal precisely because it involves consent.


First off, the ill effects of eating human flesh has been exaggerated, and is no more a danger than, say, mad cow disease, and can be solved with government regulation.

Secondly, there is nothing that makes eating the flesh of a consenting being any more immoral than eating the flesh of a nonconsenting being.

Firstly, Incurable neurological diseases are things to avoid.

Secondly, there is something inherently wrong with the consumption of human flesh by other humans. It has been condemned almost universally by every civilized society ever.

Kuru has never occurred outside of incidences where societies were eating their dead generationally. That is to say, I die, my family eats me, they die, their family eats them. It is a result of habitual cannibalism of cannibals. There are no recorded instances of it occurring as a result of single instances of cannibalism, or even the repeated cannibalism of non-associated individuals.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Yes, because if I do not sign, I would simply be shot, while, if I did, I would undergo humiliation and then death, so I have the choice of refusing you and letting you shoot me in the head.

So do you or do you not believe that that would be consent or not? Do you think such a thing should be legal? Because it is generally accepted that consent cannot be given under coercion.

I believe that that is consent, but not legal, because you had no choice in the murder bit, and it is not equivilent to this situation, because there is no coercion on part of this supposed mass of poor that will be forced to give their flesh- which is utter nonsense.

[Senkaku]

I guess if they really want to be made into Human McNuggets, then they should have a way to do that.
But do you really think anyone will want that? And if anyone at all does, who the fuck is going to buy them?

I already provided an example of the mother willing to sacrifice herself so her son will be able to pay for tuition, and, personally, I would buy it if it were deemed safe just to say I have done it.

You make me sick.

First of all, I really doubt human meat would fetch enough to pay for college, unless it was farmed, which raises prospects that are reminiscent of Nazi eugenics.
Second of all, really? Talk about taking advantage of people. This must be the ultimate form: taking advantage of their problems so you can consume their flesh.

Does that seem wrong? I know you're okay with sticking forks in people and taking off a nice fillet, so I'm genuinely curious.


Edit: I will, however, concede kuru would not really be an issue. You just throw the brain away and don't let the kiddos play with it.

[Len Hyet]

Firstly, Incurable neurological diseases are things to avoid.

Again, it has been exagerrated.

Secondly, there is something inherently wrong with the consumption of human flesh by other humans. It has been condemned almost universally by every civilized society ever.

There isn't anything inherently wrong, and it has not been 'condemned in almost every civilised society', the Chinese, for example, were fine with Cannibalism in cases of famine, and it evolved into a delicacy by the Song Dynasty, the same times Su Shi was writing his 'Red Cliff' and when gun powder was being invented and used in warfare.

Exaggerated? It is an incurable degenerative neurological disease brought on by the consumption of human flesh. There is nothing exaggerated about it.

And yeah, ima need to see a source about it being a delicacy that was completely accepted by the government.

[Senkaku]

Again, it has been exagerrated.


There isn't anything inherently wrong, and it has not been 'condemned in almost every civilised society', the Chinese, for example, were fine with Cannibalism in cases of famine, and it evolved into a delicacy by the Song Dynasty, the same times Su Shi was writing his 'Red Cliff' and when gun powder was being invented and used in warfare.

Exaggerated? It is an incurable degenerative neurological disease brought on by the consumption of human flesh. There is nothing exaggerated about it.

And yeah, ima need to see a source about it being a delicacy that was completely accepted by the government.

He's actually right, though sadly he's using it to argue for a repulsive cause. Kuru is a prion typically only caused by direct contact or consumption of the brain.

As for the Song Dynasty, yes, the Chinese did it in times of famine, as did many other societies. Did it become a delicacy? Hell no. In every society, we see evidence that people only committed cannibalism when every other possible option was exhausted to them.

Think that a rock-solid trend that's been going since we were hunter-gatherers might suggest something?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Exaggerated? It is an incurable degenerative neurological disease brought on by the consumption of human flesh. There is nothing exaggerated about it.

Refer to Sun Wukong, teh Great Sage Under Heaven.

And yeah, ima need to see a source about it being a delicacy that was completely accepted by the government.

Look up Chinese Cannibalism on Google books.

[Len Hyet]

Exaggerated? It is an incurable degenerative neurological disease brought on by the consumption of human flesh. There is nothing exaggerated about it.

Refer to Sun Wukong, teh Great Sage Under Heaven.

And yeah, ima need to see a source about it being a delicacy that was completely accepted by the government.

Look up Chinese Cannibalism on Google books.

Fair enough, Kuru is less common than I thought.

That said.
That isn't how this works. Burden of Proof is on you buddy.

[Satanic Socialist States]

So do you or do you not believe that that would be consent or not? Do you think such a thing should be legal? Because it is generally accepted that consent cannot be given under coercion.

I believe that that is consent, but not legal, because you had no choice in the murder bit, and it is not equivilent to this situation, because there is no coercion on part of this supposed mass of poor that will be forced to give their flesh- which is utter nonsense.

So a mother sacrificing herself because she has no other way to provide for her son is not coercion?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Refer to Sun Wukong, teh Great Sage Under Heaven.



Look up Chinese Cannibalism on Google books.

Fair enough, Kuru is less common than I thought.

That said.
That isn't how this works. Burden of Proof is on you buddy.

Well, no, because I am simply stating a well known fact about Chinese culture- it is written in the Water Margin, a Ming Dynasty novel, that one of the hero sold buns with human flesh, and is well attested to in all ancient Chinese sources.
In fact, here is an entire book on it:
Key Rey Chong, Cannibalism in China (Wakefield, New Hampshire: Longwoord Academic, 1990).

[Sun Wukong]

Refer to Sun Wukong, teh Great Sage Under Heaven.



Look up Chinese Cannibalism on Google books.

Fair enough, Kuru is less common than I thought.

In your defense. There isn't that much data on the subject. So it would be wrong to say that there is no risk. It just hasn't happened as far as we know.

[Dalcaria]

Refer to Sun Wukong, teh Great Sage Under Heaven.



Look up Chinese Cannibalism on Google books.

Fair enough, Kuru is less common than I thought.

That said.
That isn't how this works. Burden of Proof is on you buddy.

Might I just interject, I don't think it matters if Ancient Chinese thought cannibalism was okay, ancient Mayans thought it was okay to do human sacrifices! Or what about burning witches at stakes? Racism? Slavery? All these things were "a-okay" back then, and guess what? They're now considered crimes against humanity, who'da thunk it? And on the note of "donating" ones flesh for money (like the same for livers), I'd just like to add, most poor people that donate their livers don't die. Most people who let themselves get eaten do die. That said, is that guy really going to compare the two to justify cannibalism? I cannot believe this. What I would like to know is if he himself would actually consider eating human flesh. If so, I wonder if he would also be willing to consider a mental evaluation.