The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Wednesday 5/18/2022
starting at 9:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.

ForumsWEPRCannibalism

146 42479
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-cannibalism-be-illegal

55 say Yes cannibalism should be illegal
45 say No cannibalism should not be illegal

Please. Someone give me reason to believe in humanity again.

  • 146 Replies
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad


So?

International Medical Community sees cannibalism fetish as a threatening health hazard? So who cares about the international medical community, they don't know what they're talking about clearly.

Why would you assume that I would or that this is in any way related to cannibalism? It's like when some creationists ask "why do you hate God?" instead of providing a counter-argument. It doesn't explain anything.

Because cannibals suffer from an ICD (excluding those in survival situations). But then again who cares what the international medical community thinks right?

So?

Yeah, who cares if someone hurts themselves as long as it's out of sight and out of mind. This is clearly the foundation of which society was based upon.

They also aren't related to cannibalism in any way whatsoever.

Cannibalism is an ICD and so are they. If cannibalism is okay with the same logic those would be okay with consent. They aren't really okay with consent.

Are you saying we should tie them to stakes and fling them into an active volcano?

Are you saying we should let people tie themselves to stakes and fling themselves into an active volcano?

Should we force a jaywalker to stand in a tank full of leeches on the third Sunday in epiphany, or leave them be?

Should we let a person eat hotdogs topped with crushed chips because its a trendy thing to do?

Is the Ptolemaic Solar System correct because it fit the assumptions at the time?

Does the use of blatant red herrings in this thread acceptible because they're being phrased as questions?

1. Police have been cracking down on jaywalking inside of cities a lot harder than before actually.

2.That has nothing to do with cannibalism as a "moral" or a "fact".

3.Scientific theory vs. Historical Event where people were killed in mass, compare the holocaust to evolution. Wait that doesn't make sense nor does your point.

4. ... wut?

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

International Medical Community sees cannibalism fetish as a threatening health hazard?
Canniballistic fetish isn't cannibalism. I thought we'd been over this already.

Because cannibals suffer from an ICD (excluding those in survival situations).
No, they don't. Verophiliacs do.

Wait that doesn't make sense nor does your point.
After your Chewbacca defense, you're complaining about it not making sense?
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

Canniballistic fetish isn't cannibalism. I thought we'd been over this already.

Acting on a cookie eating fetish also isn't eating a cookie then.

No, they don't. Verophiliacs do.

Prove it.

After your Chewbacca defense, you're complaining about it not making sense?

Chewbacca is a member of the Wookie family. The Wookies do not appear to have vocal cords like humans to communicate however it appears that they do not have an actual syntax but you can "feel" what they say similar to the Hunters in the Halo Franchise. Wookies and Hunters are similar in that they do not have vocal cords and have super brute strength however they are still very very different beings. Hunters are actually made up of individual worms which make a bigger worm such as Hunters or Scarabs. Their actual name Mgalekgolo which is a Latin word which I do not actually know the meaning of. Wookies are (or were) an independent sovereign during the Republic Era, they were unlike the Mgalekgolo an equal to their counter parts. The Mgalekgolo were forced into the Covenant and were treated as a slave race.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

Acting on a cookie eating fetish also isn't eating a cookie then.
Nice straw man you have there. I especially like how you managed to use sarcasm while demonstrating your association fallacy by inverting the groups of an otherwise valid analogy. Now, if I'm not mistaken, the topic of this discussion is cannibalism. If you want to discuss ethical questions about sexual disorders, you can make a new thread for that.

Prove it.

ICD-10
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

Nice straw man you have there. I especially like how you managed to use sarcasm while demonstrating your association fallacy by inverting the groups of an otherwise valid analogy. Now, if I'm not mistaken, the topic of this discussion is cannibalism. If you want to discuss ethical questions about sexual disorders, you can make a new thread for that.

Why I never. Eating a cookie as a sexual act is most definitely not equal to eating a cookie as an act of hunger nor is eating a cookie because the cookie has offended you, as long as you eat the cookie in a certain way you are not actually eating a cookie. Only someone using fallacy would think other wise.

ICD-10

I. Cannibals delude themselves into thinking that by eating another human they will either gain power or have a part of that person forever.
II. Cannibals that eat other humans to have a part of them forever suffer from ICD-10 F32.
III. I don't need to point out why thinking you will obtain power from eating a human makes someone mentally.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

Why I never. Eating a cookie as a sexual act is most definitely not equal to eating a cookie as an act of hunger nor is eating a cookie because the cookie has offended you, as long as you eat the cookie in a certain way you are not actually eating a cookie. Only someone using fallacy would think other wise.
You're still missing the point.
What I'm saying: an act of X ≠ a mental disorder which may cause an instance of X.
What you're saying: an act of X ≠ an act of X caused by a mental disorder.

I. Cannibals delude themselves into thinking that by eating another human they will either gain power or have a part of that person forever.
No, they don't. Nor, for that matter, do the vast majority of those suffering from delusional disorders.

II. Cannibals that eat other humans to have a part of them forever suffer from ICD-10 F32.
No, they don't. Do you even read these links before posting? Clinical depression has nothing to do with cannibalism or any form of animism/spiritualism.
From what I can gather from the discussion so far, you regard a cannibal as an unnatural (page 6), unprogressive, and uncivilized (page 5) rapist/murderer who suffers from vorarephilia (page 4), PTSD-related symptoms (page 6), major depression, and psychotic delusions (page 7), and subjects others to cruel/inhumane/degrading treatment (page 5) in order to obtain either power or some lasting part of that individual (page 7), and also eats human flesh/organs. You also appear to believe that starvation both is and isn't a reason for cannibalism at the same time.

III. I don't need to point out why thinking you will obtain power from eating a human makes someone mentally.
And I shouldn't have to point out how blatantly irrelevant that.
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,345 posts
Farmer

I don't need to point out why thinking you will obtain power from eating a human makes someone mentally.

id like to add this: even if it cant be proven scientifically, or actually, even if its disproven, having this belief doesnt make you mentally ill.

most religious people in the world would stick to their beliefs regardless of scientific proof or any logical argument. it disgusts you and its not the norm, so you judge it like this. but thinking you have some kind of part of someone you just ate does make more sense then cleansing your soul in water or eating bread that magically turned into the flesh of a human/god.

hey wait a minute, those people do actually believe they eat and drink the flesh and blood of jesus. i wonder, why wouldnt they see themselves as canibals? kind of a trolling move from me but still is a point to think off.

when its comfortable, people disregard any sort of logic. when its uncomfortable, any excuse to try and argue against it.

TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

You're still missing the point.
What I'm saying: an act of X ≠ a mental disorder which may cause an instance of X.
What you're saying: an act of X ≠ an act of X caused by a mental disorder.

We have cut and narrowed this down. You are a cannibal because you are 'very very very very very hungry','because of fanatical culture', or 'because you find it sexually appealing'. I have already agreed that it is in a way justified in starvation (but claimed that it is rare even during those times). This leads us with two things left discussing about; cannibalism as a fetish and as zeal. We have established that cannibalism as a fetish is an ICD and now I have pointed out that it is still an ICD even when it is not in fetish form.

No, they don't. Do you even read these links before posting? Clinical depression has nothing to do with cannibalism or any form of animism/spiritualism.
From what I can gather from the discussion so far, you regard a cannibal as an unnatural (page 6), unprogressive, and uncivilized (page 5) rapist/murderer who suffers from vorarephilia (page 4), PTSD-related symptoms (page 6), major depression, and psychotic delusions (page 7), and subjects others to cruel/inhumane/degrading treatment (page 5) in order to obtain either power or some lasting part of that individual (page 7), and also eats human flesh/organs. You also appear to believe that starvation both is and isn't a reason for cannibalism at the same time.

I. Yes they do, read my links, I even pointed out once or twice that cannibals 'may' carry out the act because of depression and other psychological factors. "major depression, and psychotic delusions".
II. Considering that the only unmodernized state(s) continue with cannibalism as tradition it is more than safe to say that it is unprogressive.
III. I will prove to you it is 99.9% of the time inhumane in a later point.

id like to add this: even if it cant be proven scientifically, or actually, even if its disproven, having this belief doesnt make you mentally ill.

I don't see why a group of people couldn't become mentally ill over time and see being mentally ill as the norm for them.

most religious people in the world would stick to their beliefs regardless of scientific proof or any logical argument. it disgusts you and its not the norm, so you judge it like this. but thinking you have some kind of part of someone you just ate does make more sense then cleansing your soul in water or eating bread that magically turned into the flesh of a human/god.

Is it because I have "Angel" in my name that you saw fit to call out Christian Catholicism (which does not make up the "most") then tried to shrug it off as a "it's a perspective problem" to try to make up for whatever offense you might have caused?
Wow. If I wasn't open minded I might have been banned from this site, thankfully that isn't the case.
To respond to this I will say this, are you really going to try add Christian theology (Remember Christians have hundreds of branches) to our discussion? We have been here for 4-5 weeks. We will be here till Christmas if we do this. How an individual Christian sees the act of consuming the bread and wine (now grape juice in most cases) is dependent on several factors and how they think.

Now I want to ask you something. Is it okay to find Attack on Titan sexually appealing and see it as a hentai?
http://www.junkiemonkeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/anime-wallpapers-attack-titan-eren-wallpaper-37129.jpg
... To every man his... err...
... no comment.

Now lets look at the graceful history of cannibalism and all that cannibalism as given to us and how we benefit from it!

TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

Now lets look at the graceful history of cannibalism and all that cannibalism as given to us and how we benefit from it!

TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

Now lets look at the graceful history of cannibalism and all that cannibalism as given to us and how we benefit from it! <3

Prehistoric
-The Cheddar Man, a human skeleton dating from around 7150 BC, may have been a victim of cannibalism.
Our ancestors were clearly more intelligent than we are today.

Middle Ages
-Crusaders practised cannibalism during the Siege of Ma'arra.
Nothing like starving to near death while waiting to fight in the front lines again to most likely be used as cannon fodder.

1600s
On 20 August 1672, a mob lynched and ate parts of Johan de Witt.
Clearly the proper way to show a politician that the people aren't happy.

1700s
The accounts of the sinking of the Luxborough Galley in 1727 reported cannibalism amongst the survivors during their two weeks on a small boat in the mid-Atlantic.
Drawing straws to decide who gets eaten first! What a fun game (drawing straws is seriously the inspiration to a children's game and nursing song though).

1800s
-Boone Helm, also known as "The Kentucky Cannibal", was an American mountain man, serial killer and fugitive, who ate human flesh on several occasions between 1850 and 1854, often out of necessity in extreme conditions. He made no secret of the fact, and is reported to have said: "Many's the poor devil I've killed, at one time or another ... and the time has been that I've been obliged to feed on some of 'em".
He seems like a likely fellow.

1900's
-Cannibalism was widespread during the famine of Ukraine in 1932-3,[42] forcing Soviet officials to commission posters saying: "To eat your own children is a barbarian act".
Parenting at it's finest.

2000's
-In July 2002, four Ukrainians were arrested in Kiev for killing and eating a teenage girl. They were suspected of killing at least 6 people. Evidence showed that the murders may have been influenced by satanism.
And this is why the Church of Satin is afraid the Order of the Nine Angles. It's like how the the Al-Qaeda is afraid of ISIS.

Weird, it seems like the site deletes everything that isn't the first sentence when you edit a comment.

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,024 posts
Templar

onsidering that the only unmodernized state(s) continue with cannibalism as tradition it is more than safe to say that it is unprogressive.

Aside from the fact that you are not proving this in any way in your post, you are actually proving the opposite, unless you define "modern" in a different way than us. By saying this:

In July 2002, four Ukrainians were arrested in Kiev for killing and eating a teenage girl. They were suspected of killing at least 6 people.

Unless if modern for you means only the United States and some European nations, then I dare say that your point is false and thank you for disproving it for me yourself (Ukraine is a "modern" nation, not everyone is a 19th century farmer)

Yes they do, read my links, I even pointed out once or twice that cannibals 'may' carry out the act because of depression and other psychological factors. "major depression, and psychotic delusions".

I like how you've marked the word "may"... You've been talking about clinical psychiatric conditions as if they are the major cause of cannibalism all this time.

TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

Aside from the fact that you are not proving this in any way in your post, you are actually proving the opposite, unless you define "modern" in a different way than us. By saying this:

At the time I was actually using modernized as an equal to progressive.

Unless if modern for you means only the United States and some European nations, then I dare say that your point is false and thank you for disproving it for me yourself (Ukraine is a "modern" nation, not everyone is a 19th century farmer)

That's where you're wrong. You probably didn't know this but I have a background in occultism, you see the Satainist that acted out the event were clearly affiliated with ONA in one way or the other. ONA hides in the shadows of civilization, in the woods, in old broken down factories and etc, there is nothing progressive or modern about the group. Thank you for trying though.

I like how you've marked the word "may"... You've been talking about clinical psychiatric conditions as if they are the major cause of cannibalism all this time.

Thank you for pointing that out. Because AG does not allow you to edit more than once and I was up at night typing up my reply and did not look back at it too much. You see I originally only put depression and not the other which is the source of your misconception, I apologize for that.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,024 posts
Templar

That's where you're wrong. You probably didn't know this but I have a background in occultism, you see the Satainist that acted out the event were clearly affiliated with ONA in one way or the other. ONA hides in the shadows of civilization, in the woods, in old broken down factories and etc, there is nothing progressive or modern about the group. Thank you for trying though.

Yes but you didn't talk about modern or progressive "groups". You talked about "states" (

the only unmodernized state(s) continue with cannibalism as tradition
). Which means that even if we accept the truth of the claim that the Cannibals were Satanists that were supported by the ONA (which is not proven in any way), even if we accept the overgeneralization that comes from this as well
(1. the people that committed this act were Satanists
2. They actively cannibalised their victims
***SO***
Cannibalism can be associated with Satanists in general)
and even if we accept the view presented about the ONA (that there is nothing progressive with the group itself, that they hide in the shadows of civilization etc.), your mentioning of modern "states" rules out Ukraine, as it cancels your original point ( that
that the only unmodernized state(s) continue with cannibalism as tradition
). With Ukraine in, it is clearly not a case of unmodernized state.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

We have cut and narrowed this down. You are a cannibal because you are 'very very very very very hungry','because of fanatical culture', or 'because you find it sexually appealing'.
Fanaticism has nothing to do with it. If a grieving family takes consolation in having part of the deceaced consumed, that should not be denied them on such weak grounds as "that's gross", "that's uncivilized", "that's taboo in my culture", or "there's a small chance of getting an extremely rare, yet deadly, disease if you eat remains of someone who happens to have a family history of that disease".

I have already agreed that it is in a way justified in starvation (but claimed that it is rare even during those times). This leads us with two things left discussing about; cannibalism as a fetish and as zeal.
1 It being an exception does not change the fact that it is cannibalism, so you should not be making general statements like "Cannibalism is listed as a war crime", or "Cannibalism is an ICD".
2 It being rare does not justify establishing laws that ignore it completely.
3 This is a false trilemma. In addition to the alternatives I already mentioned, there's also unintentional cannibalism to consider. People should not face criminal charges based on ingredients they don't know are in their food.

We have established that cannibalism as a fetish is an ICD and now I have pointed out that it is still an ICD even when it is not in fetish form.
Both of those were assumed (by you). Both are incorrect. Cannibalism is NOT (pron. not) a disorder.* An action cannot be a disorder. There isn't really any way for me to make this any clearer.

I. Yes they do, read my links, I even pointed out once or twice that cannibals 'may' carry out the act because of depression and other psychological factors. "major depression, and psychotic delusions".

1 Your links have nothing at all to do with cannibalism. They don't even mention cannibalism. The closest thing I could find was binge eating for MDD sufferers, and it says nothing about eating the flesh of anything. Unless you have another link which actually demonstrates that people qualify as "comfort food", your links are useless and completely irrelevant.
2 Again, your point relies upon an association fallacy to shift the negativity of something else onto cannibalism. Should we also illegalize panic attacks? They're a major symptom of panic disorder, which is also listed in ICD-10 (F41.0).

II. Considering that the only unmodernized state(s) continue with cannibalism as tradition it is more than safe to say that it is unprogressive.
No, it isn't. Cannibalism is unpopular because it's taboo. It's taboo because the dominant religious factions condemn it. They condemn it because it conflicts with their funerary traditions. Much the same was true of cremation at one or more points in history.

III. I will prove to you it is 99.9% of the time inhumane in a later point.
No, you won't.

I don't see why a group of people couldn't become mentally ill over time and see being mentally ill as the norm for them.
Yes, finally the scientific community has the proof it's been searching for**: All religious and spiritualistic beliefs are the product of diseased minds! Now we can all hang up our lab coats and take up golfing full-time.

Is it because I have "Angel" in my name that you saw fit to call out Christian Catholicism (which does not make up the "most&quot then tried to shrug it off as a "it's a perspective problem" to try to make up for whatever offense you might have caused?
1 It's commonly called an "example". It's an actual thing, in case you were wondering.
2 Even if we assume, as you apparently have already, that your personal beliefs have any involvement in this, no amount of ergo decedo will make his statement any less valid.

To respond to this I will say this, are you really going to try add Christian theology (Remember Christians have hundreds of branches) to our discussion? We have been here for 4-5 weeks. We will be here till Christmas if we do this.
Are you really going to dismiss an entirely new point on the grounds of ad nauseam? I hope you realize I can do the same with every argument you've presented to me since the start of page 7.

How an individual Christian sees the act of consuming the bread and wine (now grape juice in most cases) is dependent on several factors and how they think.
So? At least some of them will both consume the host and assert that it actually is the absolutely real honest-to-God flesh of Christ.

Now I want to ask you something. Is it okay to find Attack on Titan sexually appealing and see it as a hentai?
Presumably. Is that at all relevant to the discussion?

Our ancestors were clearly more intelligent than we are today.
How is this relevant?

Nothing like starving to near death while waiting to fight in the front lines again to most likely be used as cannon fodder.
How is this relevant?

Clearly the proper way to show a politician that the people aren't happy.
How is this relevant?

Drawing straws to decide who gets eaten first! What a fun game (drawing straws is seriously the inspiration to a children's game and nursing song though).
(see above)

He seems like a likely fellow.
'Likely'? Also: (see above)

Parenting at it's finest.
(see above)

And this is why the Church of Satin is afraid the Order of the Nine Angles. It's like how the the Al-Qaeda is afraid of ISIS.
A church dedicated to satin fabrics? Interesting, but (see above)

At the time I was actually using modernized as an equal to progressive.
That's still begging the question.

That's where you're wrong. You probably didn't know this but I have a background in occultism, you see the Satainist that acted out the event were clearly affiliated with ONA in one way or the other. ONA hides in the shadows of civilization, in the woods, in old broken down factories and etc, there is nothing progressive or modern about the group.
That's still begging the question. Saying something is unprogressive will not make it true.

You see I originally only put depression and not the other which is the source of your misconception, [...]
No, it isn't. You've been using the same faulty reasoning throughout the entire thread. Your arguments only consider cannibalism as a whole when you try to make an exception for starvation. Then it goes back to "cannibalism is unacceptable and immoral because ...", as though you believe the term no longer applies to anything that doesn't fit your most recent point.

___________
*It also isn't an International Classification of Diseases, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that.
**This is a joke, in case any YECs can't tell.
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

Yes but you didn't talk about modern or progressive "groups". You talked about "states"

I said ONA was unprogressive, I don't really believe that I need to give you an example of a modern state but I will give you one if you insist; the nation in which you are currently living in.

Cannibalism can be associated with Satanists in general)
and even if we accept the view presented about the ONA (that there is nothing progressive with the group itself, that they hide in the shadows of civilization etc.), your mentioning of modern "states" rules out Ukraine, as it cancels your original point ( that

I didn't say Satanist in general were cannibals I said a radical sect (ONA) was. The Church of Satan aren't known for terrorism in contrast to the KKK both who reside in the USA but that's another story.

"your mentioning of modern "states" rules out Ukraine, as it cancels your original point". I don't understand, are you saying that my argument is invalid because a state (in this case Ukraine) that has cannibals is not unprogressive? If so then I will say that Ukraine is in fact not 'not modern' state but the group that carried out the act clearly was.

Fanaticism has nothing to do with it. If a grieving family takes consolation in having part of the deceaced consumed, that should not be denied them on such weak grounds as "that's gross", "that's uncivilized", "that's taboo in my culture", or "there's a small chance of getting an extremely rare, yet deadly, disease if you eat remains of someone who happens to have a family history of that disease".

What belief system upholds this? The group I am referring to the group that eats dead bodies found along rivers and 'also' acts out cannibalism for the reason you state, I'm pretty sure it was in one of my early links. Now, why should they also eat dead bodies of people they find? That isn't right, that's like cremating a dead body of which you know nothing of. The worst you can do is leave the body alone and the best is try to preserve the body. Why force a dead person to take part in something that probably doesn't have the same belief. As I've said before dead people have rights too.

", that should not be denied them on such weak grounds as..." by that logic a culture that socially accepts rape should be allowed to rape because it's part of their culture. Pedophilia is also justified in this way.

1 It being an exception does not change the fact that it is cannibalism, so you should not be making general statements like "Cannibalism is listed as a war crime", or "Cannibalism is an ICD".
2 It being rare does not justify establishing laws that ignore it completely.
3 This is a false trilemma. In addition to the alternatives I already mentioned, there's also unintentional cannibalism to consider. People should not face criminal charges based on ingredients they don't know are in their food.

I. With those statements defeated I don't see why you are pointing them out they are no longer relevant. You have indeed proven Cannibalism is not an ICD nor is Cannibalism a war crime and I reacted by saying ICDs are a leading reason for cannibalism.
II. So?
III. There is also unintentional assault and unintentional murder. They are depending on the laws of said land almost always followed by far less severe
punishment or no punishment at all.

1 It's commonly called an "example". It's an actual thing, in case you were wondering.
2 Even if we assume, as you apparently have already, that your personal beliefs have any involvement in this, no amount of ergo decedo will make his statement any less valid.

I. 'Said person' said that it was a troll move which implies that it was known before and after typed that it could be annoying or offensive this I felt like it was trying to "hit home".
II. I still responded to later on just not in an entirely direct way.

That's still begging the question. Saying something is unprogressive will not make it true.

I withdraw my statement original statement about it then. Cannibalism is not a direct cause of poverty or lack of modernization, it is a symptom of them.

No, it isn't. You've been using the same faulty reasoning throughout the entire thread. Your arguments only consider cannibalism as a whole when you try to make an exception for starvation. Then it goes back to "cannibalism is unacceptable and immoral because ...", as though you believe the term no longer applies to anything that doesn't fit your most recent point.

I assume we are on the same page when I talk about cannibalism and it's sections but I do try to keep in general not inclusive and exclusive.

Why is the timeline relevant?
"Now lets look at the graceful history of cannibalism and all that cannibalism as given to us and how we benefit from it!

Showing 61-75 of 146

We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing analytics and serving ads.
Learn More