Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/8/03 10:41 PM, stafffighter wrote: Its turns out they were talking about beef in a completly differnet way.

lol

At 6/8/03 10:35 PM, Qwertypod wrote: It's wrong because human flesh probably doesn't even taste that great anyways

My good friend Nat Nata Nintunk Titly Orso said it tastes rather like cow dung, which happens to be a delicacy in his tribe

lol... people can cook anything to make it taste good. Please, I am sure it tastes fine I just won't eat because this is my kind. Oh and today I have decided to become a vegan for many reasons. One reason being that animals shouldn't be raised just to kill. I have tried not eating meat before but the doc said I had to. Now I just don’t care what he says I saw something that changed my life. Stay away from Veal...please!!!

Canni this topic is still getting posts...lol

I cant help myself

Here is an excerpt from the DAG discussion "Cannibalism and Slavery: old solutions to old problems"

the world has always faced the problems of overpopulation,unemployment, and starvation. In times past, these were solved by institutions such as slavery (mandatory inescapable work in exchange for subsistence) and cannibalism. What if we were to take the worlds starving poor (please note only desperate dying people with no other options) and divided them into two groups: Slaves and meat. We feed some of the starving poor to the other part, and then use the remnant to farm and create more food. The beauty of the system is that we increase the amount of resources and decrease demand, and all we have lost is some imaginary "morals" which have no real use to society at the desperation point. As long as we only use this system as a solution for the desperate poor and starving, and not make any of this food commercially available, this system will not create and economic shock to the rest of the world (devaluation of labor and food).

So, would it work now, as it has in the past?

*quoted from me, so I guess its not plagiarism then, is it?

At 6/11/03 12:27 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: So, would it work now, as it has in the past?

I dunno. It might work, but just because it worked in the past, doesnt mean it will work now. Times change.

*quoted from me, so I guess its not plagiarism then, is it?

Only if you give yourself permission.

At 6/11/03 01:44 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

At 6/11/03 12:27 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: So, would it work now, as it has in the past?

I dunno. It might work, but just because it worked in the past, doesnt mean it will work now. Times change.

*quoted from me, so I guess its not plagiarism then, is it?

Only if you give yourself permission.

I knew I forgot something. Well, maybe I can make some money by suing myself.

I don't believe this is still going! hehehehe

At 6/11/03 02:36 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
I knew I forgot something. Well, maybe I can make some money by suing myself.

Hey I never thought of that before!

*gives myself $1*

This is PHUN! =D

At 6/13/03 10:25 AM, misterx2000 wrote:

At 6/11/03 02:36 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
I knew I forgot something. Well, maybe I can make some money by suing myself.

Hey I never thought of that before!

*gives myself $1*

This is PHUN! =D

So, does that mean you are for cannibalism, or against it's practice? That is why I started this topic.

At 6/4/03 02:57 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: some fun stuff about cannibalism

*Nirvana Shakes head in dismay*
I thought when we talked about eating people we concluded it was fun but the world isn’t ready just yet. :)

I really don’t think it is wrong unless it’s like some cult thing where people don’t consent to it. People agree to donate their bodies to science when they die so is people donate their bodies to cuisine then why would it be wrong?

Sawney and all of the adult males of his family were dismembered and allowed to bleed to death, while the women and children were burned at the stake.
Wow, you did your homework Nirvana. Thank you.

At 6/5/03 09:52 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote:

At 6/5/03 01:47 AM, jimsween wrote: To be truthfull, HUMANS DO NOT TASTE GOOD.

and how i've always noticed there are so very few cookbooks on the subject. Even a worse case scenario survival tribal supper needs the right care in preparation of whatever ingredients one can scrape togeather... Best i could recommend is broiled with fava beans, then lightly basted in olive oil, roasted over a log fire until crispy, and maybe served with seasoned re-fried rice.. and a nice bottle of ciante.. yummms!

You forgot to add the lemon pepper for that zesty flavor. Cannibalism as a source of food is stupid. There are plenty of other alternatives. The only reason to eat other people is if you want them dead anyway.

At 6/15/03 03:04 AM, mikehrt wrote:

At 6/5/03 09:52 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote:

At 6/5/03 01:47 AM, jimsween wrote:

The only reason to eat other people is if you want them dead anyway.

Not necessarily. It is the ultimate act of becoming one with that person. You love them that much that you would do an act like that.

Human meat tastes somewhat like pork. Somewhat tender, not sinewy. Certain Mexicanos took a liking to pork because it had a similar taste to that divine meat.

At 6/16/03 08:10 AM, Virgilcomic wrote: Human meat tastes somewhat like pork. Somewhat tender, not sinewy. Certain Mexicanos took a liking to pork because it had a similar taste to that divine meat.

That is great! Do you know from experience what flesh tastes like...? Anyways, I was referring to becoming one with that person, so much so, that you would partake an act like that, in some cultures, if you eat the flesh of another person, you take on their power and might. Others believe it can prolong their life. I started this topic to inquire into your minds, and implore you to state your stance on cannibalism.

That is why some were cannibals: they believed human meat imbued them with power. The Mexica believed human meat to be precious and sacred, and the human heart and blood to be the only food that could satisfy the Sun's hunger.
Still others were cannibals for simple survival reasons. When there is no other food available, the dead and enemies were eaten.

Ok... You are making Logic out of Cannibalism. I have one thing to say. You sick Sick F*&ks

At 6/19/03 01:17 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote: Ok... You are making Logic out of Cannibalism. I have one thing to say. You sick Sick F*&ks

I knew eventually someone would post exactly what i wanted to say...thank you.

bakshi isnt the only one ]:}

I thinks canabilism is wrong, and here is why:

1.Allthough primitive cultures indulge in the act of canabalism today and in the past, according to the philisophes, who's theories we follow widly do this day, such as capitalism, each generation improves on the living standard of the previous, both technologivcally, socially, and morally. Acoording to this thoery, mankind will eventually creat the perfect society. I therefore submit, on that basis, that a more advance culture is also morally more advanced than a reletivly primitive culture. Therefore, cannabalism is morally wrong because no advanced cultures practice it, and making use of the fact that primitive cultures inguage in this act to support the arguement for cannabalism is invalid.

2.Cannabalism can be found in many speicies in nature, such as certain speicies of spider. In all these speicies, however, there can be as many as hundreds of offspring per female pregnancy, making the food source for cannabalism readely avalable. In humans, however, there are only one or two offspring in a usual pregnancy. Therefore, canabalism in humans would seem to conflict with the way humans evolved. You do not see it in apes, so it must be a purely cultural invention.

3. When you eat another human being, you are essentailly lowering their status to nothing but meat (not very tasty meat at that, as some of you have pointed out) Yes some cultures do believe it makes you "one" with the person or imbues them with "powers", but I just can't see someone getting eaten as any sort of act of respect. Will it help that person be remembered for thier accompishments in life? Will it allow that persons loved ones to sleep peacefully knowing that their dead family member was nothing more to someone than a filling meal, an animal?

4. I hope I didn't offend anyone, I want to make it clear that this is just my opinion.

At 6/19/03 04:48 PM, calculon000 wrote: 1.Allthough primitive cultures indulge in the act of canabalism today and in the past, according to the philisophes, who's theories we follow widly do this day, such as capitalism, each generation improves on the living standard of the previous, both technologivcally, socially, and morally. Acoording to this thoery, mankind will eventually creat the perfect society. I therefore submit, on that basis, that a more advance culture is also morally more advanced than a reletivly primitive culture. Therefore, cannabalism is morally wrong because no advanced cultures practice it, and making use of the fact that primitive cultures inguage in this act to support the arguement for cannabalism is invalid.

and what makes you think that our culture is "higher" than cultures that practice cannibalism? I understand you see cannibalism is wrong, but if it is, then it should be stopped. And if certain cultures need to be stopped, then their leaders and propagators need to be silenced. And there is only one way to silence someone. You make them incapable of speech. So in this statement you are condoning the destruction of certain cultures, and the belief in a master culture. But many cultures find those concepts in which you believe abhorrent (belief in cultural superiority). So with your logic, they should silence you.

2.Cannabalism can be found in many speicies in nature, such as certain speicies of spider. In all these speicies, however, there can be as many as hundreds of offspring per female pregnancy, making the food source for cannabalism readely avalable. In humans, however, there are only one or two offspring in a usual pregnancy. Therefore, canabalism in humans would seem to conflict with the way humans evolved. You do not see it in apes, so it must be a purely cultural invention.

actually you do see cannibalism in apes. Chimps are well known for their "wars" and particularly the eating of rivals young. Research where Jane Goodall kept her children during her research.

3. When you eat another human being, you are essentailly lowering their status to nothing but meat (not very tasty meat at that, as some of you have pointed out) Yes some cultures do believe it makes you "one" with the person or imbues them with "powers", but I just can't see someone getting eaten as any sort of act of respect. Will it help that person be remembered for thier accompishments in life? Will it allow that persons loved ones to sleep peacefully knowing that their dead family member was nothing more to someone than a filling meal, an animal?

by what basis do you say people are not animals?

4. I hope I didn't offend anyone, I want to make it clear that this is just my opinion.

No, youve made some of the most sensible arguments on this thread yet. Please note I am not a cannibal, but I playing Devil's Advocate in this argument.

Ok, this is getting a little sick and how would that dude know if human tasted bad or not? The true reason behind Grandma's disappearance!

At 6/19/03 05:19 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: and what makes you think that our culture is "higher" than cultures that practice cannibalism? I understand you see cannibalism is wrong, but if it is, then it should be stopped. And if certain cultures need to be stopped, then their leaders and propagators need to be silenced. And there is only one way to silence someone. You make them incapable of speech. So in this statement you are condoning the destruction of certain cultures, and the belief in a master culture. But many cultures find those concepts in which you believe abhorrent (belief in cultural superiority). So with your logic, they should silence you.

Well, In the past, all cultures were at the same level of socialigical and technological development. Now some have different values and ides about how one should live, I'm just saying that because these new cultures have changed over centuries while others have not and this would seem to indicate that they have "advanced" and are therefore "more" advanced. I'm not saying that the cultures should be stopped, or silenced, I just used my observation as supporting evedence for my arguement that canabalism is universally wrong, but I do see your point that it depends on cultural values. I also may sound like a hypocrite if I state that canabilism is universally wrong but we should do nothing to stop others from doing it. Too che (I don't know how to spell it)

actually you do see cannibalism in apes. Chimps are well known for their "wars" and particularly the eating of rivals young. Research where Jane Goodall kept her children during her research.

You're right. Good point.

by what basis do you say people are not animals?

I make this statment on the basis that there seems to be a universal difference between humans and non humans. For example, like ants, human have created societies that benefit its members (more or less) but unlike ants these societies change over time and are not based on instinct, because humans are sentient. Allthough bioligically, humans fall under the catigory of animal, but the similarities end there.

No, youve made some of the most sensible arguments on this thread yet. Please note I am not a cannibal, but I playing Devil's Advocate in this argument.

Thanks. You make good arguments with supporting evedence yourself. And about why your on the pro cannible side, I understand, and I'm argueing this because I like to debate.