Voluntary Cannibalism

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

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.

Again, the argument was 'Every civilised society condemned cannibalism', which is patently false.

In addition, there is nothing immoral about cannibalism, so long as all party consent, and yes, I would actually consider eating human flesh, given that I am able to free myself from that silly superstition that places man somehow above all other animals, and making his flesh somehow sacred. As I have repeated often, vehement expression of moral indignation does not make an argument.

[Len Hyet]

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.

Again, the argument was 'Every civilised society condemned cannibalism', which is patently false.

In addition, there is nothing immoral about cannibalism, so long as all party consent, and yes, I would actually consider eating human flesh, given that I am able to free myself from that silly superstition that places man somehow above all other animals, and making his flesh somehow sacred.

No, of you'd have taken the time to read my post you'd realize the sentiment was "Almost every civilized society has condemned the eating of human flesh"

[Senkaku]

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.

Again, the argument was 'Every civilised society condemned cannibalism', which is patently false.

In addition, there is nothing immoral about cannibalism, so long as all party consent, and yes, I would actually consider eating human flesh, given that I am able to free myself from that silly superstition that places man somehow above all other animals, and making his flesh somehow sacred. As I have repeated often, vehement expression of moral indignation does not make an argument.

The argument was "every civilized society condemns cannibalism," with the exception of certain tribes in New Guinea and other extremely remote jungle regions (since I know you'll jump all over me, I'm calling them civilized. Happy?), which is entirely true.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Again, the argument was 'Every civilised society condemned cannibalism', which is patently false.

In addition, there is nothing immoral about cannibalism, so long as all party consent, and yes, I would actually consider eating human flesh, given that I am able to free myself from that silly superstition that places man somehow above all other animals, and making his flesh somehow sacred.

No, of you'd have taken the time to read my post you'd realize the sentiment was "Almost every civilized society has condemned the eating of human flesh"

Again, false, because, even if we use a narrow definition of what Civilized mean, then we still have the Mayans (who apperantly practice Cannibalism on occasion), the Aztec, the Chinese, the Romans, etc.

[Neoconstantius]

Sorry I'm late to the party...have we established if "voluntary cannibalism" even exists outside of the OP's conjecture?

[Libertarian California]

Takes getting eaten out to a whole new level.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Again, the argument was 'Every civilised society condemned cannibalism', which is patently false.

In addition, there is nothing immoral about cannibalism, so long as all party consent, and yes, I would actually consider eating human flesh, given that I am able to free myself from that silly superstition that places man somehow above all other animals, and making his flesh somehow sacred. As I have repeated often, vehement expression of moral indignation does not make an argument.

The argument was "every civilized society condemns cannibalism," with the exception of certain tribes in New Guinea and other extremely remote jungle regions (since I know you'll jump all over me, I'm calling them civilized. Happy?), which is entirely true.

Again, I already used the example of the Chinese, who did not condemn it, one Gastronomist in the Yuan Dynasty even praised it.

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=iC4g0gXBmIkC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=Cannibalism+Song+Dynasty&source=bl&ots=N1yd-HAszq&sig=qLxTUs2z5MyuVL04E2opyP3kw8A&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ei=hqYvU-HHLoOGyQGctYHACQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Cannibalism%20Song%20Dynasty&f=false

[Len Hyet]

No, of you'd have taken the time to read my post you'd realize the sentiment was "Almost every civilized society has condemned the eating of human flesh"

Again, false, because, even if we use a narrow definition of what Civilized mean, then we still have the Mayans (who apperantly practice Cannibalism on occasion), the Aztec, the Chinese, the Romans, etc.

Neither the Mayans nor the Aztec were civilized (see: sacrificing babies) and the Romans did not condone cannibalism and you still have yet to provide a linked source about the Chinese condoning cannibalism in daily life.

In fact at the bottom of the page you linked to is a statement that the government banned the practice!

[Senkaku]

The argument was "every civilized society condemns cannibalism," with the exception of certain tribes in New Guinea and other extremely remote jungle regions (since I know you'll jump all over me, I'm calling them civilized. Happy?), which is entirely true.

Again, I already used the example of the Chinese, who did not condemn it, one Gastronomist in the Yuan Dynasty even praised it.

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=iC4g0gXBmIkC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=Cannibalism+Song+Dynasty&source=bl&ots=N1yd-HAszq&sig=qLxTUs2z5MyuVL04E2opyP3kw8A&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ei=hqYvU-HHLoOGyQGctYHACQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Cannibalism%20Song%20Dynasty&f=false

And modern day China is still big on it and endorses it and legalizes it and all that? Same with the government of the Yucatan Peninsula where the Mayas are?

I don't think so.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Buy Hufu!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdfxNYKWcN4

[Sun Wukong]

No, of you'd have taken the time to read my post you'd realize the sentiment was "Almost every civilized society has condemned the eating of human flesh"

Again, false, because, even if we use a narrow definition of what Civilized mean, then we still have the Mayans (who apperantly practice Cannibalism on occasion), the Aztec, the Chinese, the Romans, etc.

This is a line of argument you should abandon. To the extent it is true, it is irrelevant. And it's mostly false.

[Sun Wukong]

Again, false, because, even if we use a narrow definition of what Civilized mean, then we still have the Mayans (who apperantly practice Cannibalism on occasion), the Aztec, the Chinese, the Romans, etc.

Neither the Mayans nor the Aztec were civilized (see: sacrificing babies) and the Romans did not condone cannibalism and you still have yet to provide a linked source about the Chinese condoning cannibalism in daily life.

In fact at the bottom of the page you linked to is a statement that the government banned the practice!

Aztecs and Mayans were civilized by any reasonable definition of the word.

You're not wrong, but let's not overstate the case.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Again, false, because, even if we use a narrow definition of what Civilized mean, then we still have the Mayans (who apperantly practice Cannibalism on occasion), the Aztec, the Chinese, the Romans, etc.

This is a line of argument you should abandon. To the extent it is true, it is irrelevant. And it's mostly false.

Again, cannibalism is recorded within Chinese tradition as an acceptable practice. This is irrelevent, but it serves as an argument against the irrelevent argument that 'all civilised society has condemned it'.

[Dalcaria]

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.

Again, the argument was 'Every civilised society condemned cannibalism', which is patently false.

In addition, there is nothing immoral about cannibalism, so long as all party consent, and yes, I would actually consider eating human flesh, given that I am able to free myself from that silly superstition that places man somehow above all other animals, and making his flesh somehow sacred. As I have repeated often, vehement expression of moral indignation does not make an argument.

If a nation allows cannibalism, that beggers the question of if they were really civilized at all. One's personal interpretation of "civility" can hardly be a truthful representation of civility.

Who said anything about morals? But if we're talking about morals, what exactly is it that allows cannibalism to be morally acceptable? It's one thing to say it isn't immoral, but you're also essentially saying it is acceptable, but how so? You bring up consent, but suicide allows for consent as well, and we as a society try very hard to avoid suicide. And there is no belief that man is above animals, the belief is that human flesh is not fit for human consumption, and given that there are supposedly health issues related to eating it (including probably having mental health issues if you want to eat it), I would say it has nothing to do with "superstition", but health and logic. That's like saying it's a "silly superstition to think gasoline is above animals, so I should be allowed to drink gasoline". You're going to poison yourself from eating and drinking certain things, so therein lies the reason for why one should not be eating it. And given that you're probably going to want to procreate as well, it beggers the question of what health issues a cannibal can pass onto their children. And before you say nothing, I'd like to raise your awareness that probably no study on Earth has been done on that, so I doubt you're going to find any evidence against what I said. Nobody is talking about making men's flesh "sacred", you're flat out using a strawman argument. Why don't you come up with your own arguments instead of trying to misrepresent other people's, you might get farther that way. And as I have said vehemently, this has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with health. Now on that subject, how about a mental health analysis, hmm?

[Len Hyet]

Neither the Mayans nor the Aztec were civilized (see: sacrificing babies) and the Romans did not condone cannibalism and you still have yet to provide a linked source about the Chinese condoning cannibalism in daily life.

In fact at the bottom of the page you linked to is a statement that the government banned the practice!

Aztecs and Mayans were civilized by any reasonable definition of the word.

You're not wrong, but let's not overstate the case.

I disagree.

To civilize
bring (a place or people) to a stage of social, cultural, and moral development considered to be more advanced.

With emphasis on moral development, I think we can reasonably say that tossing children into wells is not the actions of a civilized people.

[Ardoki]

Aztecs and Mayans were civilized by any reasonable definition of the word.

You're not wrong, but let's not overstate the case.

I disagree.

To civilize
bring (a place or people) to a stage of social, cultural, and moral development considered to be more advanced.

With emphasis on moral development, I think we can reasonably say that tossing children into wells is not the actions of a civilized people.

And great feats of engineering, astronomy and mathematics are not the mark of an advanced and civilised people?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Again, false, because, even if we use a narrow definition of what Civilized mean, then we still have the Mayans (who apperantly practice Cannibalism on occasion), the Aztec, the Chinese, the Romans, etc.

Neither the Mayans nor the Aztec were civilized (see: sacrificing babies) and the Romans did not condone cannibalism and you still have yet to provide a linked source about the Chinese condoning cannibalism in daily life.

In fact at the bottom of the page you linked to is a statement that the government banned the practice!

Again, we are not speaking about Modern China, but about Ancient China, which does not condone cannibalism, but regarded it as acceptable. In the book

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=iC4g0gXBmIkC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=Cannibalism+Song+Dynasty&source=bl&ots=N1yd-HAszq&sig=qLxTUs2z5MyuVL04E2opyP3kw8A&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ei=hqYvU-HHLoOGyQGctYHACQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Cannibalism%20Song%20Dynasty&f=false

he records a Yuan Dynasty Gastronomist, Dao Qingyi, recomending the flesh of a child for its tenderness and Li Shenzhen recommending it as medicine.

[Len Hyet]

I disagree.

To civilize
bring (a place or people) to a stage of social, cultural, and moral development considered to be more advanced.

With emphasis on moral development, I think we can reasonably say that tossing children into wells is not the actions of a civilized people.

And great feats of engineering, astronomy and mathematics are not the mark of an advanced and civilised people?

Scientific advancement and civilization are not one and the same. They often go hand in hand, but are not the same.

For example. A highly advanced society sprays highly corrosive acid into the faces of children, who are then put into space shuttles and sent to a terraformed world to be viewed for entertainment.

Advanced, yes.
Civilized, no.

[Len Hyet]

Neither the Mayans nor the Aztec were civilized (see: sacrificing babies) and the Romans did not condone cannibalism and you still have yet to provide a linked source about the Chinese condoning cannibalism in daily life.

In fact at the bottom of the page you linked to is a statement that the government banned the practice!

Again, we are not speaking about Modern China, but about Ancient China, which does not condone cannibalism, but regarded it as acceptable. In the book

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=iC4g0gXBmIkC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=Cannibalism+Song+Dynasty&source=bl&ots=N1yd-HAszq&sig=qLxTUs2z5MyuVL04E2opyP3kw8A&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ei=hqYvU-HHLoOGyQGctYHACQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Cannibalism%20Song%20Dynasty&f=false

he records a Yuan Dynasty Gastronomist, Dao Qingyi, recomending the flesh of a child for its tenderness and Li Shenzhen recommending it as medicine.

Read your source. The state banned it.

[Dalcaria]

In addition, there is nothing immoral about cannibalism, so long as all party consent, and yes, I would actually consider eating human flesh, given that I am able to free myself from that silly superstition that places man somehow above all other animals, and making his flesh somehow sacred. As I have repeated often, vehement expression of moral indignation does not make an argument.

One other thing, since we're on the topic of "superstition", did anyone know cannibalism is actually still semi-practiced in China today. Here's a few things on it though. 1. It's illegal. 2. The only case I know of it so far (though I think it is a reoccurring thing) is that these people have taken aborted fetuses and turned them into consumable pills. 3. This is done because they have the superstitious (and scientifically baseless) belief it has health properties. So they are not only breaking the law and doing this against someone's wishes, but they do this because of superstitious belief. So believe me my friend, there is a lot of reason to look at your side as being as illogical as you think the other side is.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Again, the argument was 'Every civilised society condemned cannibalism', which is patently false.

In addition, there is nothing immoral about cannibalism, so long as all party consent, and yes, I would actually consider eating human flesh, given that I am able to free myself from that silly superstition that places man somehow above all other animals, and making his flesh somehow sacred. As I have repeated often, vehement expression of moral indignation does not make an argument.

If a nation allows cannibalism, that beggers the question of if they were really civilized at all. One's personal interpretation of "civility" can hardly be a truthful representation of civility.

And you finally realised that 'civility' and 'civilization' are all empty words and entirely subjective.

Who said anything about morals? But if we're talking about morals, what exactly is it that allows cannibalism to be morally acceptable? It's one thing to say it isn't immoral, but you're also essentially saying it is acceptable, but how so? You bring up consent, but suicide allows for consent as well, and we as a society try very hard to avoid suicide. And there is no belief that man is above animals, the belief is that human flesh is not fit for human consumption, and given that there are supposedly health issues related to eating it (including probably having mental health issues if you want to eat it), I would say it has nothing to do with "superstition", but health and logic. That's like saying it's a "silly superstition to think gasoline is above animals, so I should be allowed to drink gasoline". You're going to poison yourself from eating and drinking certain things, so therein lies the reason for why one should not be eating it.

The ill effect, as been shown, is overstated, and there is nothing logical about not eating human flesh.

And given that you're probably going to want to procreate as well, it beggers the question of what health issues a cannibal can pass onto their children. And before you say nothing, I'd like to raise your awareness that probably no study on Earth has been done on that, so I doubt you're going to find any evidence against what I said. Nobody is talking about making men's flesh "sacred", you're flat out using a strawman argument. Why don't you come up with your own arguments instead of trying to misrepresent other people's, you might get farther that way. And as I have said vehemently, this has nothing to do with morals, it has to do with health. Now on that subject, how about a mental health analysis, hmm?

No, I am arguing over an argument that has been used over and over, that the human body is sacrosanct and sacred, which is patently absurd, and when you argue for the ill effect on one's health, you are really arguing against something that is rare, overstated, and can be solved with enough government intervention to ensure quality.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Again, we are not speaking about Modern China, but about Ancient China, which does not condone cannibalism, but regarded it as acceptable. In the book

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=iC4g0gXBmIkC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=Cannibalism+Song+Dynasty&source=bl&ots=N1yd-HAszq&sig=qLxTUs2z5MyuVL04E2opyP3kw8A&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ei=hqYvU-HHLoOGyQGctYHACQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Cannibalism%20Song%20Dynasty&f=false

he records a Yuan Dynasty Gastronomist, Dao Qingyi, recomending the flesh of a child for its tenderness and Li Shenzhen recommending it as medicine.

Read your source. The state banned it.

I have, you simply haven't. I was speaking of what is commonly called 'Traditional China', my source simply says that the Communist Government banned it, but that it was practiced and acceptable throughout the majority of Chinese History, again, I implore you, actually try to read the text before telling me what it says.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

One other thing, since we're on the topic of "superstition", did anyone know cannibalism is actually still semi-practiced in China today. Here's a few things on it though. 1. It's illegal. 2. The only case I know of it so far (though I think it is a reoccurring thing) is that these people have taken aborted fetuses and turned them into consumable pills. 3. This is done because they have the superstitious (and scientifically baseless) belief it has health properties. So they are not only breaking the law and doing this against someone's wishes, but they do this because of superstitious belief. So believe me my friend, there is a lot of reason to look at your side as being as illogical as you think the other side is.

Again, I am not arguing over modern China (aborted Fetus pills are false and a calumny which is invented as a sort of black legend against the Chinese people), I am arguing over traditional China. I mentioned already the Song and Yuan Dynasty, I implore that you actually read the link, which states clearly what I have stated.

[Len Hyet]

Read your source. The state banned it.

I have, you simply haven't. I was speaking of what is commonly called 'Traditional China', my source simply says that the Communist Government banned it, but that it was practiced and acceptable throughout the majority of Chinese History, again, I implore you, actually try to read the text before telling me what it says.

No, it doesn't. It's referencing records from the Song Dynasty. Not records from the 1900s, from the 1200s.

[Sun Wukong]

Aztecs and Mayans were civilized by any reasonable definition of the word.

You're not wrong, but let's not overstate the case.

I disagree.

To civilize
bring (a place or people) to a stage of social, cultural, and moral development considered to be more advanced.

With emphasis on moral development, I think we can reasonably say that tossing children into wells is not the actions of a civilized people.

Well you've just eliminated the land of Plato and Aristotle from the list of civilizations.

You may want to reconsider that.