Voluntary Cannibalism

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

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.

Sophistical- what is civilised-> not eating human flesh -> therefore any civilization that eats human flesh is not civilised. Circular, and simply sophistry.

[Ardoki]

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.

Please show how the Aztecs were less civilised than say the Europeans of the time (or insert a civilization you desire).

The Aztecs did have human sacrifices though the victims usually wanted to be sacrificed and were told sometimes over a year in advance. They were treated like Kings until the day of their sacrifice where they were drugged and quickly killed.

The Europeans on the other hand had many painful types of torture and death they used against women and others thought to be heretics (the rack, thumbscrews, cages, drownings, burning at the stake, the cutting of of limbs and many other horrible things which are too numerous and gruesome to list).

Now which of the above two civilizations seems more civilised?

[Dalcaria]

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.

My friend, they were discovered being smuggled into South Korea. They confirmed what they were. This was BBC, not Fox News I got this from. I've got nothing against the Chinese people, but I've got plenty against people that use aborted fetuses to be eaten (likely against the mother's will knowing that rumors float around of China forcing women to get abortions). Also, I'm not disagreeing that cannibalism existed in ancient China, but I see no justification for it either. If it gives you the shakes, that should be the first indicator it's unhealthy. Then consider that someone was either murdered, or committed suicide to become someone's dinner, there is plenty of reason to be morally aghast to that. And furthermore, plenty of things were done in the Ancient world that should have be ended LONG before they actually did. I don't care what ancient China did, there is no justifiable reason to allow cannibalism, be it voluntary or not.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

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.

My friend, they were discovered being smuggled into South Korea. They confirmed what they were. This was BBC, not Fox News I got this from. I've got nothing against the Chinese people, but I've got plenty against people that use aborted fetuses to be eaten (likely against the mother's will knowing that rumors float around of China forcing women to get abortions). Also, I'm not disagreeing that cannibalism existed in ancient China, but I see no justification for it either. If it gives you the shakes, that should be the first indicator it's unhealthy. Then consider that someone was either murdered, or committed suicide to become someone's dinner, there is plenty of reason to be morally aghast to that. And furthermore, plenty of things were done in the Ancient world that should have be ended LONG before they actually did. I don't care what ancient China did, there is no justifiable reason to allow cannibalism, be it voluntary or not.

Again, the hazards to one's health, as stated earlier, is overstated, and there is no justification to prevent it so long as everyone consented. There is nothing moral about someone choosing to be someone's dinner, and if you object to that, you must, necessarily, object to nonconsenting beings, pigs, cows, dogs, etc., being made into someone's dinner. As for what Ancient China did, I agree, it is irrelevent, it is only an argument against his assertion that every 'civilized society' condemning cannibalism.

[Dalcaria]

My friend, they were discovered being smuggled into South Korea. They confirmed what they were. This was BBC, not Fox News I got this from. I've got nothing against the Chinese people, but I've got plenty against people that use aborted fetuses to be eaten (likely against the mother's will knowing that rumors float around of China forcing women to get abortions). Also, I'm not disagreeing that cannibalism existed in ancient China, but I see no justification for it either. If it gives you the shakes, that should be the first indicator it's unhealthy. Then consider that someone was either murdered, or committed suicide to become someone's dinner, there is plenty of reason to be morally aghast to that. And furthermore, plenty of things were done in the Ancient world that should have be ended LONG before they actually did. I don't care what ancient China did, there is no justifiable reason to allow cannibalism, be it voluntary or not.

Again, the hazards to one's health, as stated earlier, is overstated, and there is no justification to prevent it so long as everyone consented. There is nothing moral about someone choosing to be someone's dinner, and if you object to that, you must, necessarily, object to nonconsenting beings, pigs, cows, dogs, etc., being made into someone's dinner. As for what Ancient China did, I agree, it is irrelevent, it is only an argument against his assertion that every 'civilized society' condemning cannibalism.

Overstated? Then I highly recommend you supply the information that proves this, or else I am persuaded to not believe you. There's is plenty of justification to prevent it, someone will die. If we are going to try and prevent suicide, we should equally work to keep people from letting themselves be eaten. What is morally wrong about someone becoming someone's dinner is that they lose the rest of their life. More than that, whatever better purposes that life could have served on Earth are now not being served. I do not object to eating animals because it is an excellent way to obtain nutrition. If you think this about eating a person, go ahead and find me some nutritional facts on that, the UN WHO site may have some information. But back to animals, they serve their own purposes on this Earth, one of them is to give nutrition to humans. I see nothing wrong with this because they are fulfilling a certain purpose. Being eaten is not fulfilling any purpose, it is a silly idea that only someone with a mental health disorder would go along with. And on that note, do you condone eating a person who is not mentally fit enough to decide something like this properly? I imagine the only people willing to be eaten are mentally or emotionally disturbed, and they need help, not to be eaten. I think his point was, a nation can't be that civilized if it allows people to eat people. But then this becomes a debate on what "civilization" is, which is getting off topic.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

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.

Again, you do not read at all, reread pg. 215-17 in the link.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Again, the hazards to one's health, as stated earlier, is overstated, and there is no justification to prevent it so long as everyone consented. There is nothing moral about someone choosing to be someone's dinner, and if you object to that, you must, necessarily, object to nonconsenting beings, pigs, cows, dogs, etc., being made into someone's dinner. As for what Ancient China did, I agree, it is irrelevent, it is only an argument against his assertion that every 'civilized society' condemning cannibalism.

Overstated? Then I highly recommend you supply the information that proves this, or else I am persuaded to not believe you. There's is plenty of justification to prevent it, someone will die. If we are going to try and prevent suicide, we should equally work to keep people from letting themselves be eaten.

Go back to the last pg. I believe it is one of Sun WuKong's post.


There is no justification for preventing me from doing what I want with my body. If I try to kill myself, I am perfectly within my rights to, through I may be committing an action that is not to my maximum felicity, I may also be equally committing an action that frees me from the pains of life when it becomes unbearable. Likewise, when I give my flesh to be eaten, it is no more than, say, giving my organs to be donated, or giving my body to be displayed in a museum.

What is morally wrong about someone becoming someone's dinner is that they lose the rest of their life. More than that, whatever better purposes that life could have served on Earth are now not being served.

Again, not an argument, they may be dying anyways, or willingly give up their lives for what they believe to be a greater good, that is, to pay for their child's tuition, for example, and whatever supposed 'better purpose' is nothing compared to that good which they invest themselves in. Again, it is appealling to a potential that may or may not exist, and which is not for anyone but themselves to decide.

I do not object to eating animals because it is an excellent way to obtain nutrition. If you think this about eating a person, go ahead and find me some nutritional facts on that, the UN WHO site may have some information. But back to animals, they serve their own purposes on this Earth, one of them is to give nutrition to humans.

Animals do not exist for our benefit. They are sentinent beings just as we are, and are worse off than the humans who do give consent because they cannot give consent to being eaten. They are not placed here by some higher power to give us nutrition, we can go on eating only vegetables to obtain the same nutritions. Again, that is not an argument, it is human-centered stupidity mascarding as an argument.

I see nothing wrong with this because they are fulfilling a certain purpose. Being eaten is not fulfilling any purpose, it is a silly idea that only someone with a mental health disorder would go along with.

Two purpose comes to mind immediately:

1. Satisfying the appitite of a paying customer

2. Satisfying the need for an income on the part of their family.

Both valid and sane reasons, the latter more so than the former, which requires some degree of altruism that most people do not have.

And on that note, do you condone eating a person who is not mentally fit enough to decide something like this properly?

I already emphasized consent.

I imagine the only people willing to be eaten are mentally or emotionally disturbed, and they need help, not to be eaten. I think his point was, a nation can't be that civilized if it allows people to eat people. But then this becomes a debate on what "civilization" is, which is getting off topic.

You imagine, but you would be wrong.

[Tekania]

For most people (including me) it goes without saying that consumption of human meat should be frowned upon and highly illegal, end of discussion. However, I have come across a few people (mostly liberals) who believe that "voluntary cannibalism" should be legal on the grounds of "freedom". I oppose all cannibalism including voluntary cannibalism. Not only is it completely immoral, but should the cannibal develop a taste for human meat then that may lead the person to kill for it. This is especially true if there is a shortage of voluntary human meat since very very very very few people would volunteer to be meals. The job of government is to maintain civil order and voluntary cannibalism goes against that order by putting the general public in danger. So do you think that voluntary cannibalism should be legal or illegal?

Slippery-slope fallacy.

EDIT After reading the thread in entirety:

I'm willing to entertain all views on this issue.... as of yet reading through the thread those who have advocated voluntary cannibalism have made a more coherent point than those who oppose it. As such at this point I side with those advocating the legalization of voluntary cannibalism, with the caveat that I am still open to coherent logical arguments against it (Assuming someone makes one).

[Kyuji]

For most people (including me) it goes without saying that consumption of human meat should be frowned upon and highly illegal, end of discussion. However, I have come across a few people (mostly liberals) who believe that "voluntary cannibalism" should be legal on the grounds of "freedom". I oppose all cannibalism including voluntary cannibalism. Not only is it completely immoral, but should the cannibal develop a taste for human meat then that may lead the person to kill for it. This is especially true if there is a shortage of voluntary human meat since very very very very few people would volunteer to be meals. The job of government is to maintain civil order and voluntary cannibalism goes against that order by putting the general public in danger. So do you think that voluntary cannibalism should be legal or illegal?

Slippery-slope fallacy.

EDIT After reading the thread in entirety:

I'm willing to entertain all views on this issue.... as of yet reading through the thread those who have advocated voluntary cannibalism have made a more coherent point than those who oppose it. As such at this point I side with those advocating the legalization of voluntary cannibalism, with the caveat that I am still open to coherent logical arguments against it (Assuming someone makes one).

The whole debat boils down to "its a choice vs but its icky" , meaning that reasonable debat is somewhat impossible.

[Magna Libero]

Agreed.

Humans are above all others and shouldn't be consumed as our meat is sacred.

Tell that to the animals that eat our corpses

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Gen 3:19 KJV).

This just came to my mind...

Yes.

Your either being sarcastic or poeing me.

It's not very civilized to eat other people. If I were in the Andes when that incident occurred I'd have rather killed all of them and ensured that noone's body is dishonored by such strident or controversial practices.

You know, people who eat human flesh and practice this repugnant thing called cannibalism, ought to be locked in hospitals for mentally ill people and have a serious thorough mental evaluation, because it is not a normal thing to eat the flesh of human beings.

[Magna Libero]

Slippery-slope fallacy.

EDIT After reading the thread in entirety:

I'm willing to entertain all views on this issue.... as of yet reading through the thread those who have advocated voluntary cannibalism have made a more coherent point than those who oppose it. As such at this point I side with those advocating the legalization of voluntary cannibalism, with the caveat that I am still open to coherent logical arguments against it (Assuming someone makes one).

The whole debat boils down to "its a choice vs but its icky" , meaning that reasonable debat is somewhat impossible.

How about diseases, such as kuru or BSE/Mad Cow disease?

[Frials]

Your either being sarcastic or poeing me.

It's not very civilized to eat other people. If I were in the Andes when that incident occurred I'd have rather killed all of them and ensured that noone's body is dishonored by such strident or controversial practices.

You know, people who eat human flesh and practice this repugnant thing called cannibalism, ought to be locked in hospitals for mentally ill people and have a serious thorough mental evaluation, because it is not a normal thing to eat the flesh of human beings.

So... people exercising their individual liberties should be locked into mental hospitals now because they don't conform to your definitions of 'normal' and 'civilized'? Voluntary cannibalism, by its name, is an entirely voluntary practice the same way euthanasia and organ donation are. Why is it so hard for you to let people around you decide for themselves rather than get involved in how they lead their own lives? You would even go so far as to murder starving people to not let them eat each other in that case of extreme starvation just because humans and their flesh are perceived as sacred. Give me a break.

[Iuronia]

You know, people who eat human flesh and practice this repugnant thing called cannibalism, ought to be locked in hospitals for mentally ill people and have a serious thorough mental evaluation, because it is not a normal thing to eat the flesh of human beings.

And can you prove this statement without resorting to petty fallacies? It seems to me that you're simply acting due to your own subjective outlook.

[God Kefka]

It's not very civilized to eat other people. If I were in the Andes when that incident occurred I'd have rather killed all of them and ensured that noone's body is dishonored by such strident or controversial practices.

You know, people who eat human flesh and practice this repugnant thing called cannibalism, ought to be locked in hospitals for mentally ill people and have a serious thorough mental evaluation, because it is not a normal thing to eat the flesh of human beings.

So... people exercising their individual liberties should be locked into mental hospitals now because they don't conform to your definitions of 'normal' and 'civilized'? Voluntary cannibalism, by its name, is an entirely voluntary practice the same way euthanasia and organ donation are. Why is it so hard for you to let people around you decide for themselves rather than get involved in how they lead their own lives? You would even go so far as to murder starving people to not let them eat each other in that case of extreme starvation just because humans and their flesh are perceived as sacred. Give me a break.

murder?

[Frials]

So... people exercising their individual liberties should be locked into mental hospitals now because they don't conform to your definitions of 'normal' and 'civilized'? Voluntary cannibalism, by its name, is an entirely voluntary practice the same way euthanasia and organ donation are. Why is it so hard for you to let people around you decide for themselves rather than get involved in how they lead their own lives? You would even go so far as to murder starving people to not let them eat each other in that case of extreme starvation just because humans and their flesh are perceived as sacred. Give me a break.

murder?

In his own words:

It's not very civilized to eat other people. If I were in the Andes when that incident occurred I'd have rather killed all of them and ensured that noone's body is dishonored by such strident or controversial practices.

[Dalcaria]

Go back to the last pg. I believe it is one of Sun WuKong's post.

Not sure what you're referring to, so you may have to find what you're talking about. And what was the topic his post was supposed to be on?

There is no justification for preventing me from doing what I want with my body.

Perhaps, but given that if you want to kill yourself you will either have a mental or emotional disorder, you are therefore not of a sound enough mind to be making such a judgement call for yourself. If we're talking about euthanization, that's one thing, but suicide from depression is totally different. It is completely justified to prevent someone from killing themselves because if they were of a sound mind, they may make a different choice. It is up to us to make sure that the different choice is available.

There is no justification for preventing me from doing what I want with my body.

Perhaps, but given that if you want to kill yourself you will either have a mental or emotional disorder, you are therefore not of a sound enough mind to be making such a judgement call for yourself. If we're talking about euthanization, that's one thing, but suicide from depression is totally different. It is completely justified to prevent someone from killing themselves because if they were of a sound mind, they may make a different choice. It is up to us to make sure that the different choice is available.

If I try to kill myself, I am perfectly within my rights to, through I may be committing an action that is not to my maximum felicity, I may also be equally committing an action that frees me from the pains of life when it becomes unbearable.

If someone is suffering from depression, then they need help, not to die. Being in a state of depression is essentially being in a state of hampered mind. You can't think clearly for yourself and therefore you should be kept from killing yourself so you can get legitimate help and start thinking with a clear mind, uninhibited by depression, mental, or other emotional isses.

Likewise, when I give my flesh to be eaten, it is no more than, say, giving my organs to be donated, or giving my body to be displayed in a museum.

In the case of giving up organs, your body goes on to serve a greater purpose. Being eaten does not. Your body going to a museum, although I don't fully agree with it, can still have more scientific purposes, including educating people with an interest in human biology. Being eaten serves no positive purpose, and furthermore the whole reasoning behind it is purely due to mental or emotional issues. They need help, period.

Again, not an argument, they may be dying anyways, or willingly give up their lives for what they believe to be a greater good, that is, to pay for their child's tuition, for example, and whatever supposed 'better purpose' is nothing compared to that good which they invest themselves in.

Again, if they are willing to die, they need help. They are sick, and we as a society must help the sick. Being eaten to pay a child's tuition is a laughably stupid excuse to defend this. The country would be better off (and likely spending less money) to just fund the child's tuition anyways. And if someone feels like being eaten is the fate they wish to have (which I assume is what you're hinting at here), then they are, as I said, mentally ill and need help. We don't let people kill themselves just because they want to, they can't make that decision properly because they are inhibited by their own unhealthy minds.

Again, it is appealling to a potential that may or may not exist, and which is not for anyone but themselves to decide.

If someone wants to be eaten, they are, as I already said, most likely mentally sick. It is fully up to someone else to decide. We don't let people who are of unsound mind determine whether they want to live or die, that would be ridiculous. We try to help them as much as we can, this is why we have things like the suicide hotline, therapists, etc.

Animals do not exist for our benefit. They are sentinent beings just as we are, and are worse off than the humans who do give consent because they cannot give consent to being eaten.

I'm sorry, sentient? And when did science discover this pray tell? It sounds like you're basing this off of personal opinion, not actual logic or reason. And for the record, humans (arguably) cannot give consent to be eaten either, because if someone is giving consent to that, then they are going against their natural survival instincts. The only reason someone would do this as far as I can tell is if they have a mental disorder. Persons who are suffering in pain would usually rather just be euthanized, not eaten. And people who allow themselves to die for money are essentially being forced into that situation by society, and such a thing must never, ever be legal. It's bad enough people donate organs, but becoming a meal? No, absolutely not. And if you have a problem with animals being eaten, perhaps veganism is a better alternative for you. Beats eating mentally unhealthy people who's brains clearly don't function correctly.

They are not placed here by some higher power to give us nutrition,

This is according to the Holy Book of Nationes Pii Redivivi, the ultimate authority on all things existential. How about you travel into the afterlife, find all life's answers, and come back and tell me if what you said has any truth to it, or it was complete, baseless rubbish you used in a sad attempt to defend this weak argument.

we can go on eating only vegetables to obtain the same nutritions.

No, you cannot, note easily at least, and it isn't considered entirely healthy I would think. You can get a lot of nutrition from plants to be sure, and you can even fill in the blanks for what you don't get from animals, but or some things like iron and zinc, you may in fact need vitamin supplements. Sure you can live like that I suppose, but you're going to still live a pretty difficult life. And since many religious texts don't seem to be against the consumption of animal meat, I would argue that they may in fact be here to provide us with nutrition. If you don't believe in God, that's fine, but you certainly can't argue against something that can't be proven or disproven. That said, let's end that there and not turn this into a religious discussion. My point remains that there is nothing to suggest that animals should not be eaten by humans, other than people's personal opinions. Plus, one way or another, something needs to keep the animal population in balance, and that tends to be humans unfortunately.

Again, that is not an argument, it is human-centered stupidity mascarding as an argument.

Oh it isn't an argument? When your only response is to call me stupid instead of giving some evidence or reasons, you leave me rather unconvinced. Burden of proof is on you my friend, I'd appreciate it if you would provide some.

Two purpose comes to mind immediately:

1. Satisfying the appitite of a paying customer

2. Satisfying the need for an income on the part of their family.

That's the same two purposes we can also have for animals my friend. And believe me, I love animals, truly I do. However, I realize that they all have practical purposes as well. One of those things is giving us nutrition we need while also appeasing our tastes and appetites, another is that they serve as loyal companions, some act as guards, some act as pest control, some act as beasts of burden. Some animals exist to simply produce for us though, as they don't seem to serve any other purpose aside from that except to breed. Now then, the next part. You think being eaten is even close to being a rational way of making an income for your family? Ever heard of, oh I don't know, a job? Not only can a person bring in an income from one of these, but they can also produce products that satisfy customers. Plus, they don't have to die. It's a win-win-win scenario. Now, instead of wasting time and money that would be undoubtedly required to healthily regulate cannibalism (yes, regulate it. We can't risk involuntary cannibalism, diseases, etc. now can we?), we could invest the money in industry and help give people products they need, give poorer families jobs and a steady income, and all in all push the world further ahead. That's progress. Not to mention, we could also invest in agriculture and help create enough food to feed needy people in 3rd world countries. Legalizing and regulating cannibalism would cost billions of dollars, give nothing back to society, and would essentially just act as a money pit for a TINY minority of people willing to waste their time on this instead of getting help for their obviously ill minds.

Both valid and sane reasons, the latter more so than the former, which requires some degree of altruism that most people do not have.I already emphasized consent.You imagine, but you would be wrong.

I strongly doubt it. Of all the things I have said, this I am most certain of. But you're welcome to prove me wrong if you like. Note that I will expect evidence, not your opinion. Opinion won't suffice any longer, so I suggest you get some research done.

[Kyuji]

The whole debat boils down to "its a choice vs but its icky" , meaning that reasonable debat is somewhat impossible.

How about diseases, such as kuru or BSE/Mad Cow disease?

Then don't eat meat

[Frials]

-snip-

Dalcaria, I am pretty certain that not all who wish to die are mentally ill. Unless you can prove me otherwise? The burden of proof lies on you, my friend.

[Dalcaria]

-snip-

Dalcaria, I am pretty certain that not all who wish to die are mentally ill. Unless you can prove me otherwise? The burden of proof lies on you, my friend.

Wishing to die isn't where a mental illness comes in, wishing to be eaten however? I doubt a significant study has been done on it, but it would likely come down to a sexual fantasy (as a lot of things I've heard from people who want to be eaten ends up sounding sexual), and this can easily be attributed to some sort of unhealthiness to one's brain. Also, a person who wants to die due to depression doesn't have a mental illness, but they are clearly suffering from emotional issues at the very least. Some of them do in fact suffer from mental health issues though, but this is more a side effect of mental disorders, not always the direct cause for wanting to die. At any rate, I can't exactly prove anything about people wanting to be eaten having mental health disorders as there are probably no studies that have been done on the matter. However, I can probably look for a few psychiatric experts near your area and get you their numbers and such, you can ask them yourself, get the word directly from the speaker you know?

PS. I looked a bit and found nothing. But, to be honest, I would say one of the things pushing the desire to be eaten or to eat a human probably is less about the taste, and more about the act itself. If we look at Ted Bundy, the crimes he committed were not about sex, it was about the control complex. Likewise, I think the same is true for cannibalism. What better way can you dominate someone than by eating them? Reverse ways, what better way can you be dominated than by being eaten? Although the desire to be dominated may not be recognized as a mental disorder, I suspect it is a result of a mental disorder, or likely trauma of some kind. Also, I suspect a lot of the "cannibals" here aren't actually that interested in eating people. Honestly, it just seems like more of those excessive "freedom" people that are just trying to seem more "edgy" by supporting something more "taboo". Seen it a lot, and I can't stand it. If you're doing something for attention, you shouldn't be doing it at all.

[Frials]

Dalcaria, I am pretty certain that not all who wish to die are mentally ill. Unless you can prove me otherwise? The burden of proof lies on you, my friend.

Wishing to die isn't where a mental illness comes in, wishing to be eaten however? I doubt a significant study has been done on it, but it would likely come down to a sexual fantasy (as a lot of things I've heard from people who want to be eaten ends up sounding sexual), and this can easily be attributed to some sort of unhealthiness to one's brain. Also, a person who wants to die due to depression doesn't have a mental illness, but they are clearly suffering from emotional issues at the very least. Some of them do in fact suffer from mental health issues though, but this is more a side effect of mental disorders, not always the direct cause for wanting to die. At any rate, I can't exactly prove anything about people wanting to be eaten having mental health disorders as there are probably no studies that have been done on the matter. However, I can probably look for a few psychiatric experts near your area and get you their numbers and such, you can ask them yourself, get the word directly from the speaker you know?

I am pretty sure it is impossible to eat a live human, but okay. If a mental condition doesn't impair the ability to make decisions, that mental condition should not be grounds for preventing a person to decide for their own life.

[Magna Libero]

How about diseases, such as kuru or BSE/Mad Cow disease?

Then don't eat meat

Yeah, because other people can have those diseases. It's perfectly fine, am I right?

[Frials]

Then don't eat meat

Yeah, because other people can have those diseases. It's perfectly fine, am I right?

If one doesn't know how to prepare chicken without getting a disease or food poisoning from it, it is their fault and not the provider's, if the provider followed government regulations regarding the protection of the health of the consumers.

[Dalcaria]

Wishing to die isn't where a mental illness comes in, wishing to be eaten however? I doubt a significant study has been done on it, but it would likely come down to a sexual fantasy (as a lot of things I've heard from people who want to be eaten ends up sounding sexual), and this can easily be attributed to some sort of unhealthiness to one's brain. Also, a person who wants to die due to depression doesn't have a mental illness, but they are clearly suffering from emotional issues at the very least. Some of them do in fact suffer from mental health issues though, but this is more a side effect of mental disorders, not always the direct cause for wanting to die. At any rate, I can't exactly prove anything about people wanting to be eaten having mental health disorders as there are probably no studies that have been done on the matter. However, I can probably look for a few psychiatric experts near your area and get you their numbers and such, you can ask them yourself, get the word directly from the speaker you know?

I am pretty sure it is impossible to eat a live human, but okay. If a mental condition doesn't impair the ability to make decisions, that mental condition should not be grounds for preventing a person to decide for their own life.

Well, wishing to be killed and then eaten I suppose. I don't think I've heard of anyone being eaten alive.

The problem with that is that the mental condition does impair their ability to make decisions, period. Being unable to make the same decision a mentally healthy person would make is essentially the same as having your decision making impaired. People with down syndrome are known for being fairly high functioning persons with a mental disorder, but if they decided they wanted to kill themselves, would we accept that as the decision of someone who's decision making isn't impaired? No, we wouldn't, and we would likely send that person to receive treatment of some kind and try to understand why they would want to die. Depression is not a good reason to want to die because that is a state of mind that can be overcome with treatment. Likewise, I suspect this desire to be eaten is something that can be overcome with treatment as well. But regardless, it is still a decision that person cannot possibly make of sound mind.

[Iuronia]

I am pretty sure it is impossible to eat a live human, but okay. If a mental condition doesn't impair the ability to make decisions, that mental condition should not be grounds for preventing a person to decide for their own life.

But regardless, it is still a decision that person cannot possibly make of sound mind.

You still haven't explained why.

[Dalcaria]

But regardless, it is still a decision that person cannot possibly make of sound mind.

You still haven't explained why.

Uh, because they would have a mental health issue if they were too?