Ukraine flag Armor Games stands with Ukraine Ukraine flag
If you’d like to help, please consider giving to Ukraine Crisis Fund

ForumsWEPRCannibalism

146 43192
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

Cannibalism.
Topic: Should it be made legal?
My Answer: No.

Leading Evidence
- WW2 International War Tribunals.
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- Psychology.

_ _ _
Does it harm individuals taking part?
Dead: Post feeding of cannibalism will always leads to psychological problems which has a negative effect on persons well-being, this is assuming that the person has cannibalized most of the body. In some cases cannibalism has lead to rare illnesses (rare in the sense that it is uncommon and not in the sense that it is unlikely to get in terms percentages) which also harms the persons well being physically.

Alive:
It clearly does if both parties are alive. Pain is medically defined as .

_ _ _
Does it harm society?
Dead:
Feeding upon each other brethren is a clear sign of poverty. Nearly all civilization where cannibalism for whatever reason was/is accepted have been wiped out, those that have not been wiped out are alive by the grace of their ruling sovereign that allows them to live in their realm since the only civilizations that continue to cannibalize the dead are tribes that could not even hope to hold their own in a modern war. Cannibalism is a sign of a unprogressive, unmodernized, and unrealistic state (unrealistic in terms that it is not possible to restore as a moral or punishment) which is then clearly a negative sign.

Alive:
The only instance in which a society would openly cannibalize those who are still breathing are those who sought extreme punishment methods or unusual rituals. Such extreme punishment is no longer used by first world countries, many countries have gone through revolution (ex. France) for the sovereign's unfavorable and extreme methods of execution and punishment. This is another clear sign that cannibalism is a set back in civilization which is unfavorable by a populous sooner or later. Many religions that once had cannibalism have changed their ways and their followers are very contempt with it, for example many religions have left behind ancient execution and punishment methods and are happy with it and would not dream to restore them (except for restoriationist but that is an entirely different story).
_ _ _
Does it infringe on an individuals rights?
Dead:
No because people normally do not ask to be cannibalized and clearly cannot answer when dead and Yes because some might consent to it. In WW2 soldiers would cannibalize each other and it was considered a war crime. Zoophilia is illegal in many states (not specifically states within the U.S.A) and it infringes an individuals rights, so does drinking age, so does Romeo and Juliet (law), but those are there to protect us. Those who cannibalize are at a very real risk at getting the illness "Kuru" and other illnesses, the infringement of an individuals rights were justified in zoophilia because it can bring death to a human, drinking age because it can harm and bring death to a human, and Romeo and Juliet which can harm a human (specifically minors), and because cannibalism will also harm a human it should not be made legal but rather it should be illegal.

Alive:
Yes. My counter argument for this is "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this clearly implies that we are too treat each other with brotherhood. Eating your brother is not brotherly. "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, take note that it specifically says "no one".
_ _ _
Is cannibalism illegal right now?
Technically Yes. Cannibalism is listed as a war crime by the U.N or more specifically the WW2 Tribunal against the Japanese.

P.S
I want to take this time to apologize to @FishPreferred for randomly dropping some of our threads and to any others that I might have done the same with. I don't check my emails a lot...

P.S.S
My writing style is similar to Eastern Asian writing which normally makes use of a lot of cinematic humor, I forget that in the West this isn't as common and you probably could not detect all of it so I apologize if any of my statements came off as offensive.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

Topic: Should it be made legal?
For whom? I'm not aware of any country that illegalizes it.

Post feeding of cannibalism will always leads to psychological problems which has a negative effect on persons well-being, [...]
No, it won't. That's an irrational generalization.

It clearly does if both parties are alive. Pain is medically defined as .
Not necessarily. Anaesthetic is defined as.

Feeding upon each other brethren is a clear sign of poverty. Nearly all civilization where cannibalism for whatever reason was/is accepted have been wiped out, those that have not been wiped out are alive by the grace of their ruling sovereign that allows them to live in their realm since the only civilizations that continue to cannibalize the dead are tribes that could not even hope to hold their own in a modern war.
So? As I've pointed out before, having something negative assosiated with it under some circumstances does not imply that it is bad. That's a genetic fallacy. Also, what exactly does modern warfare have to do with any of this?

The only instance in which a society would openly cannibalize those who are still breathing are those who sought extreme punishment methods or unusual rituals.
So? There's a vast gulf between not denouncing an act and openly participating in it.

Such extreme punishment is no longer used by first world countries, many countries have gone through revolution (ex. France) for the sovereign's unfavorable and extreme methods of execution and punishment. This is another clear sign that cannibalism is a set back in civilization which is unfavorable by a populous sooner or later.
If this is clear, you should have no trouble explaining why cannibalism is unfavourable, rather than focusing upon how frequently it falls out of favour. Loss of popularity is not sufficient grounds for illegalizing something.

Many religions that once had cannibalism have changed their ways and their followers are very contempt [sic] with it, [...]
Many others haven't, so the point is moot.

Does it infringe on an individuals rights?
Dead:
No because people normally do not ask to be cannibalized and clearly cannot answer when dead and Yes because some might consent to it.
Doesn't... even... make... sense.

Those who cannibalize are at a very real risk at getting the illness "Kuru" and other illnesses, the infringement of an individuals rights were justified in zoophilia because it can bring death to a human, drinking age because it can harm and bring death to a human, and Romeo and Juliet which can harm a human (specifically minors), [...]
And smoking, because it can cause emphesema and myriad cancers, and skydiving, because chute failure can result in certain death, and nuclear power, due to the dangers of runaway meltdown, and automobiles, because of the liability for traffic incidents which result in severe injury and/or death, and swimming pools, because people could slip in and drown, and doorknobs, due to the ready transfer of bacterial and viral pathogens. Could you imagine what sort of chaos would ensue if we weren't protected from all those dangerous things?

Yes. My counter argument for this is "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
So, what you're suggesting is that we should not impinge upon the freedoms of others in order to satisfy our emotional biases toward their choice of action? Interesting.

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, take note that it specifically says "no one".
Please also note that the relevant criteria, "torture", "cruel", and "degrading", do not meet the qualifications for a cannibal act, and "inhuman" cannot rationally be applied to the behaviour of any human being. You've just committed another genetic fallacy; specifically the association fallacy.

Is cannibalism illegal right now?
Technically Yes. Cannibalism is listed as a war crime by the U.N or more specifically the WW2 Tribunal against the Japanese.
Actually, no. Japan was tried for "crimes against humanity" due to the appalling treatment of their prisoners of war. Cannibalism is not a war crime, or anything like it. Torturing POWs by dismemberment most certainly is. Your conflating the two means yet another association fallacy.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,920 posts
Grand Duke

Well, I don't think that WWII tribunal example would work, because in a nutshell, it was involuntary. I think the discussion at hand is whether cannibalism, if both parties consent to it, should be criminalised or not. Clearly, what the soldiers did back then was done forcefully.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

Please also note that the relevant criteria, "torture", "cruel", and "degrading", do not meet the qualifications for a cannibal act, and "inhuman" cannot rationally be applied to the behaviour of any human being.

Inhuman =/= nonhuman. I think that qualifies as straw man.
.
As for the "degrading" part, it is actually debatable, mostly because it is subjective. Tribes that practice cannibalism have naturally come to accept it, but in societies that do not practice cannibalism, it will offend a great many people who see it as a degrading practice. With this, I could loop back to my original argument: while the simple act of cannibalism is not necessarily wrong, I don't think it has a place in our society simply because we have different values about the dignity of the human body than other societies/tribes.
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,345 posts
Farmer

As for the "degrading" part, it is actually debatable, mostly because it is subjective. Tribes that practice cannibalism have naturally come to accept it, but in societies that do not practice cannibalism, it will offend a great many people who see it as a degrading practice. With this, I could loop back to my original argument: while the simple act of cannibalism is not necessarily wrong, I don't think it has a place in our society simply because we have different values about the dignity of the human body than other societies/tribes.

well, societies do change... maybe it will have place in the future? i find it difficult to believe but i dont think its ok to say that something doesnt have a place in a society if theres no good moral explanation against it.

also, while most people here are westerns, this is the internet and its pretty absurd to say "our" society cause this thread is talking about the general act in regards to well... everything.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

well, societies do change... maybe it will have place in the future? i find it difficult to believe but i dont think its ok to say that something doesnt have a place in a society if theres no good moral explanation against it.

It could change, but discussing about what could be in the far future is a moot point.
.
I have not paid close attention to this until now so I may be wrong, but I think we need to make a difference between morals and ethics at this point. Objective ethics are different to cultural/societal morals. I do think cannibalism can be considered amoral in my culture and so has no place in it, even though I tend to agree that the act itself is not necessarily unethical.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

Inhuman =/= nonhuman. I think that qualifies as straw man.
The literal definition is "not human". I'm excluding this on the grounds that humaneness ≠ humanity, and therefore inhumaneness ≠ inhumanity. Not that it makes much difference, because cannibalism is neither inherently inhumane nor inherently inhuman.

As for the "degrading" part, it is actually debatable, mostly because it is subjective. Tribes that practice cannibalism have naturally come to accept it, but in societies that do not practice cannibalism, it will offend a great many people who see it as a degrading practice.
The same is true of the converse. For societies that practice mortuary cannibalism, it would be highly offensive to the family of the deceased if no part of the remains were consumed.

With this, I could loop back to my original argument: while the simple act of cannibalism is not necessarily wrong, I don't think it has a place in our society simply because we have different values about the dignity of the human body than other societies/tribes.
I agree.
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad


Please also note that the relevant criteria, "torture", "cruel", and "degrading", do not meet the qualifications for a cannibal act, and "inhuman" cannot rationally be applied to the behaviour of any human being. You've just committed another genetic fallacy; specifically the association fallacy.

Degrade

: to treat (someone or something) poorly and without respect

: to make the quality of (something) worse

: to cause (something complex) to break down into simple substances or parts

Cannibalism is a degrading act even when done with complete respect (if that's possible).

So, what you're suggesting is that we should not impinge upon the freedoms of others in order to satisfy our emotional biases toward their choice of action? Interesting.

No that's what the U.N is suggesting, that is also what nations around the world are suggesting because they signed the declaration.

Doesn't... even... make... sense.

Dead people have rights and thus they must give consent (which they can’t but still). People not dead also have rights.

Many others haven't, so the point is moot.

Because they are not even 25% let alone 50% you cannot say many. They are clearly a minority among minorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

Find me at least 9 in the dozens in this list that still continue the practice to date as a whole. It even has the information of the religions for you ^_^.

If this is clear, you should have no trouble explaining why cannibalism is unfavourable, rather than focusing upon how frequently it falls out of favour. Loss of popularity is not sufficient grounds for illegalizing something.

It has fallen out of favor as punishment centuries ago by the most modernized nations because cannibalism is a set back in civilization. Not cannibalizing is a piece of tech that we humans have developed, despite how humorous it may sound it’s true, it’s similar to how humans started to take baths and showers; it’s nothing overly complicated, at it’s core it is a very simple piece of tech; you can debate that this is a cultural achievement however a cultural achievement is also tech. We will always know better than to cannibalize our fellow humans unless there is an extreme circumstance.

1

a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 <medical technology>

b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology>

2

: a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>

3

: the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>

So? As I've pointed out before, having something negative associated with it under some circumstances does not imply that it is bad. That's a genetic fallacy. Also, what exactly does modern warfare have to do with any of this?

Bad is defined as...

1

a : failing to reach an acceptable standard : poor <a bad repair job>

b : unfavorable <make a bad impression>

c : not fresh : spoiled <bad fish>

d : not sound : dilapidated <the house was in bad condition>

2

a : morally objectionable : evil <bad men>

b : mischievous, disobedient <a bad dog>

3

: inadequate or unsuited to a purpose <a bad plan> <bad lighting>

4

: disagreeable, unpleasant <bad news>

5

a : injurious, harmful <a bad influence>

b : serious, severe <in bad trouble> <a bad cough>

6

: incorrect, faulty <bad grammar>

7

a : suffering pain or distress <felt generally bad>

b : unhealthy, diseased <bad teeth>

8

: sorrowful, sorry <feels bad about forgetting to call>

9

a : invalid, void <a bad check>

b : not able to be collected <a bad debt>

So yes it does. Modern Warfare is related to this because it shows how underdeveloped the civilization is. Even WW2 era arms can stand up against modern arms, this shows how far back they are, how vulnerable they are, and how their civilization continues simply because a superior civilization allows them too.

Not necessarily. Anaesthetic is defined as.

Pain is defined as

“Pain is an unpleasant feeling that is conveyed to the brain by sensory neurons. The discomfort signals actual or potential injury to the body. However, pain is more than a sensation, or the physical awareness of pain; it also includes perception, the subjective interpretation of the discomfort. Perception gives information on the pain's location, intensity, and something about its nature. The various conscious and unconscious responses to both sensation and perception, including the emotional response, add further definition to the overall concept of pain.”

No, it won't. That's an irrational generalization.

Kuru

Also

“So the cannibal is in the class by himself. And he knows it. This produces a euphoric state which activates the pleasure center in the brain. Each cut brings more good feeling. So it is common to find many smaller cuts on the body. The process is that exciting.”

So in conclusion the cannibal “amplifies” his lust over a human because it puts him in a superior position (dead or alive) because the cannibal is degrading the other which also supports my argument. This may make more sense if you read more of the article.

Actually, no. Japan was tried for "crimes against humanity" due to the appalling treatment of their prisoners of war. Cannibalism is not a war crime, or anything like it. Torturing POWs by dismemberment most certainly is. Your conflating the two means yet another association fallacy.

You have activated my trap card.
“The Japanese Lieutenant Hisata Tomiyasu who was eventually found guilty of the murder of 14 Indian soldiers and of cannibalism at Wewak (New Guinea) in 1944 was sentenced to death by hanging.”

“Japan was tried for "crimes against humanity"” so thus with the point standing true I thank you for supporting my argument.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

Cannibalism is a degrading act even when done with complete respect (if that's possible).
Unless you're referring to the third defenition, it isn't, and if you are: Equivocation.

No that's what the U.N is suggesting, that is also what nations around the world are suggesting because they signed the declaration.
Right, so we're agreed that (at least according to the U.N.) criminalizing the act of cannibalism itself would be a violation of the basic rights of human beings.

Dead people have rights and thus they must give consent (which they can’t but still).
That doesn't mean they didn't give their consent to posthumous cannibalism while they were alive.

Because they are not even 25% let alone 50% you cannot say many.
Certainly I can. If a field has 1300 potatoes in it, there are many potatoes in that field. The fact that this is less than 1% of all potatoes, globally, is irrelevant.

Find me at least 9 in the dozens in this list that still continue the practice to date as a whole.
Why 9? Even one is enough to demonstrate that ritual cannibalism is not universally abandoned or obsolete, so the mootness of your point remains unchallenged.

It has fallen out of favor as punishment centuries ago by the most modernized nations because cannibalism is a set back in civilization.
Circular reasoning. You have provided no evidence of cannibalism being a "set back in civilization" in the first place. That's what you need to explain.

Not cannibalizing is a piece of tech that we humans have developed, despite how humorous it may sound it’s true, it’s similar to how humans started to take baths and showers; [...]
If you're suggesting that the non-cannibalistic diet was invented by humans, I strongly advise you to read up on grade-school biology. If not, I fail to see the relevance.

We will always know better than to cannibalize our fellow humans unless there is an extreme circumstance.
Obviously not. Hence the whole point of discussing cannibalism in the first place.

Bad is defined as...
Exactly the 'bad' I was referring to.

So yes it does.
Well, no, it most certainly doesn't. It would be equally rational to argue that all surgeons are bad because they intentionally cut living beings with knives, which is also something that murderers do, and murder is bad.

Modern Warfare is related to this because it shows how underdeveloped the civilization is. Even WW2 era arms can stand up against modern arms, this shows how far back they are, how vulnerable they are, and how their civilization continues simply because a superior civilization allows them too.
No part of that statement has any recognizeable relevance to the topic whatsoever. What are you even trying to say here? That WW2-era weapons are more developed than modern ones? That vulnerability evidences lack of development? What?

Pain is defined as
Proof by assertion is defined as:

"[A]n informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies."

Kuru
Exactly. It's irrational to generalize the incidence of an extremely rare disease to every instance of cannibalism ever.

"Kuru may be untreatable, but it is also rare. So rare in fact, that it is limited geographically and temporally to the Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea, who experienced a sustained epidemic which peaked during the 1950s and slowly declined over the ensuing decades." Quoted from the very same article.

So in conclusion the cannibal “amplifies” his lust over a human because it puts him in a superior position (dead or alive) because the cannibal is degrading the other which also supports my argument. This may make more sense if you read more of the article.
Do you not understand the difference between "the act or practice of humans eating the flesh or internal organs of other human beings" and "a paraphilia characterized by the erotic desire to be consumed by, or sometimes to personally consume, another person or creature"? They are two very different things. Stop conflating them.

“The Japanese Lieutenant Hisata Tomiyasu who was eventually found guilty of the murder of 14 Indian soldiers and of cannibalism at Wewak (New Guinea) in 1944 was sentenced to death by hanging.”
“Japan was tried for "crimes against humanity"” so thus with the point standing true I thank you for supporting my argument.
1 If, by now, you've read my analysis of your last point, you should be well aware that a specific act which includes cannibalism is not the same as cannibalism itself.
2 The Japanese Lieutenant Hisata Tomiyasu, believe it or not, is not equal to the nation of Japan.
3 Being tried for something general and something particular does not in any way imply that the general includes the particular.
4 Sorry, but that point wasn't even relevant to your argument.
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

Why 9? Even one is enough to demonstrate that ritual cannibalism is not universally abandoned or obsolete, so the mootness of your point remains unchallenged.

Because you said many. I acknowledge there are a few tribes that do it (maybe even just one at this point) but even then it could be a sect and not a religion as a whole.

Circular reasoning. You have provided no evidence of cannibalism being a "set back in civilization" in the first place. That's what you need to explain.

I pointed out that 'not cannibalizing each other' is a piece of tech similar to taking a bath or shower. Once you discover tech it is a step back to lose it and when your civilization has not yet reached this tech it is a step back from the others.

No part of that statement has any recognizeable relevance to the topic whatsoever. What are you even trying to say here? That WW2-era weapons are more developed than modern ones? That vulnerability evidences lack of development? What?

My point is that cannibalism is a step back in humanity. We agree humans are animals yes? Lets look at why animals do it
a. "In spiders and praying mantis, the females normally eat the males during or after mating and in many fishes, frogs, salamanders, lizards, snakes and crocodiles the diet is mainly or partially composed by smaller individuals from the same species (it seems that cannibalism helps them colonize new environments where other prey species are scarce)." I want to point out it isn't true that spiders and mantises will not that unless they are hungry.
b. "In the case of nesting birds of prey, the flesh of the dead chickens is distributed by the parents between the surviving offspring."
c."there are cases would be the young of certain insects and spiders known to devour their own mothers, while male lions are known to eat cubs after they acquire new harems."
All of these examples are due to limited resources. Humans in general are no longer limited to this point, even nations living in poverty can still provide a decent amount of food from hunting and farming, if they were to cannibalize each other then they would lose the ability to hunt in groups or spread out to hunt and lose manpower in farming. My point here is that it is not natural to do so unless there are very limited resources which is uncommonly the case in humans.

Exactly the 'bad' I was referring to.

Exactly the bad I was referring to as well.
"4

: disagreeable, unpleasant

5

a : injurious, harmful

b : serious, severe "

Obviously not. Hence the whole point of discussing cannibalism in the first place.

I meant we as in a society and not as individuals. As individuals we are not very... cunning a lot of the time.

Proof by assertion is defined as:

"[A]n informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies."

Your point was that they may not feel pain due to pain killers no? Even with pain killers you still feel pain because pain is defined as an action that has to do with our nerves not a feeling and even with pain killers you will still feel some pain from whatever it is you're doing.

Do you not understand the difference between "the act or practice of humans eating the flesh or internal organs of other human beings" and "a paraphilia characterized by the erotic desire to be consumed by, or sometimes to personally consume, another person or creature"? They are two very different things. Stop conflating them.

You misunderstand, I acknowledge that paraphillia is different from cannibalism because it is a fetish but I am pointing out the post and pre of what happens when one acts on it. You will either have been driven to an extremely depressed state or have some other psychological illness to act on it or after you will suffer from PTSD or another psychological illness. When you act on paraphilia it is still cannibalism the same way when you act on zoophilia it is still... mating with an animal. Note this was part of "Does it harm individuals"

1 If, by now, you've read my analysis of your last point, you should be well aware that a specific act which includes cannibalism is not the same as cannibalism itself.
2 The Japanese Lieutenant Hisata Tomiyasu, believe it or not, is not equal to the nation of Japan.
3 Being tried for something general and something particular does not in any way imply that the general includes the particular.
4 Sorry, but that point wasn't even relevant to your argument.

1. I answered that the above of this.
2. Japan herself was never tried but her armed forces were.
3. ..? Still tried and found guilty. See here, here, and here.
4. It was because the previous point was that it was a crime and people have been internationally tried for it.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

I pointed out that 'not cannibalizing each other' is a piece of tech similar to taking a bath or shower.
And you entirely failed to justify this assertion. On what grounds is it technological, or in any way sophisticated? It certainly wasn't an invention, like soap or bath houses, so how is it comparable to bathing? Would you regard a camping trip as a 'loss of civilization' as well, or is the current state of human culture invariably superior to that which came before it?

All of these examples are due to limited resources. Humans in general are no longer limited to this point, even nations living in poverty can still provide a decent amount of food from hunting and farming, [...]
Well, no, actually, they often can't. That's why large-scale cannibalism occurs during severe famines.

[...] if they were to cannibalize each other then they would lose the ability to hunt in groups or spread out to hunt and lose manpower in farming.
Some people still do cannibalize each other, and are still capable of group hunting and/or farming. Your slippery slope falls through.

My point here is that it is not natural to do so unless there are very limited resources which is uncommonly the case in humans.
1 Appeal to nature. All ritualistic behaviour is 'not natural'. One could argue that all of civilization is 'not natural', which further exposes the flaw in your "tech" argument.
2 That completely ignores the cases where there are severe limitations on resources. How is it an immoral or criminal act when it's a necessity for survival?

I meant we as in a society and not as individuals.
My point stands. Most societies regard it as taboo, but not cruel, degrading, or inhumane, and certainly not a violation of human rights if done with the full consent of all parties involved. Hence its legality under those circumstances.

Your point was that they may not feel pain due to pain killers no?
Not quite. My point is that pain is not an integral part of cannibalism, alive or dead, even if the cannibalized part is innervated. Also, you should have checked the link: Painkillers are not anaesthetics.

Even with pain killers you still feel pain because pain is defined as an action that has to do with our nerves not a feeling and even with pain killers you will still feel some pain from whatever it is you're doing.
The signalling of those nerves is what controls the sensation of pain. An anaesthetic would inhibit that signalling. Hence, no pain.

I acknowledge that paraphillia is different from cannibalism because it is a fetish but I am pointing out the post and pre of what happens when one acts on it. You will either have been driven to an extremely depressed state or have some other psychological illness to act on it or after you will suffer from PTSD or another psychological illness.
Right, so again you're relying upon an association fallacy. Maybe you didn't like my surgeon analogy? Have another one:

Should all sexual acts be illegal?
Well, several debilitating and potentially fatal diseases are sexually transmitted, so sex is unhealthy.
Also, some people have weird phychological disorders that manifest as cruel or depraved sexual practices, so sex is psychologically damaging.
Furthermore, it is often violent, causing severe, sometimes lifelong, physical and psychological damage to the victims and may straddle them with the burden of childbirth, so sex is a violation of human rights.
Therefore sex should be illegal.

All three of the above points are completely irrational grounds for illegalizing sex:
The first point assumes that all related diseases are incurable, unavoidable, and intrinsic to sex.
The second point displaces the negative consequences of certain psychological disorders and presents them as negative consequences of sex.
The third point conflates sex with rape and assumes that what is true of the latter is also true of the former.
Sound familiar?

3. ..? Still tried and found guilty. See here, here, and here.
4. It was because the previous point was that it was a crime and people have been internationally tried for it.
Yes. Tried and found guilty of dismembering prisoners of war, sometimes while still living, cooking their flesh, and eating it in full view of the other prisoners. That is immoral. That is inhumane. That is a crime against humanity. That's physical and psychological torture and in direct violation of both the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The part that is actually relevant to the discussion; the "and eating it" part, is not.
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

And you entirely failed to justify this assertion. On what grounds is it technological, or in any way sophisticated? It certainly wasn't an invention, like soap or bath houses, so how is it comparable to bathing? Would you regard a camping trip as a 'loss of civilization' as well, or is the current state of human culture invariably superior to that which came before it?

I compared it to taking a shower/bath because.
A. It had to be reached by civilizations.
B. They both relate to human health.
C. They are both reached by more modern civilizations. You can debate that humans before the first true showers and baths cleaned themselves in rivers however it was more of a instinct rather than us really thinking about what it does for us.

Well, no, actually, they often can't. That's why large-scale cannibalism occurs during severe famines.

Alright I'll dig a bit deeper then. I as an individual from one of the poorest third world countries will tell you that isn't true. The only time famine can get that bad is if it was before the classical era or if they are in a very cold place such as the famine in the USSR.

Not quite. My point is that pain is not an integral part of cannibalism, alive or dead, even if the cannibalized part is innervated. Also, you should have checked the link: Painkillers are not anaesthetics.
The signalling of those nerves is what controls the sensation of pain. An anaesthetic would inhibit that signalling. Hence, no pain.

Pain
Diagnosis
"Pain is considered in view of other symptoms and individual experiences. An observable injury, such as a broken bone, may be a clear indicator of the type of pain a person is suffering. Determining the specific cause of internal pain is more difficult. Other symptoms, such as fever or nausea, help narrow down the possibilities. In some cases, such as lower back pain, a specific cause may not be identifiable. Diagnosis of the disease causing a specific pain is further complicated by the fact that pain can be referred to (felt at) a skin site that does not seem to be connected to the site of the pain's origin. For example, pain arising from fluid accumulating at the base of the lung may be referred to the shoulder.
Since pain is a subjective experience, it may be very difficult to communicate its exact quality and intensity to other people. There are no diagnostic tests that can determine the quality or intensity of an individual's pain. Therefore, a medical examination will include a lot of questions about where the pain is located, its intensity, and its nature. Questions are also directed at what kinds of things increase or relieve the pain, how long it has lasted, and whether there are any variations in it. An individual may be asked to use a pain scale to describe the pain. One such scale assigns a number to the pain intensity; for example, 0 may indicate no pain, and 10 may indicate the worst pain the person has ever experienced. Scales are modified for infants and children to accommodate their level of comprehension."
You can still have pain when you don't feel it. Pain killers mess with how your body sends information but you'll still have it, it just won't register as an "ouch".

1 Appeal to nature. All ritualistic behaviour is 'not natural'. One could argue that all of civilization is 'not natural', which further exposes the flaw in your "tech" argument.
2 That completely ignores the cases where there are severe limitations on resources. How is it an immoral or criminal act when it's a necessity for survival?

1.
a. Homo-Sapiens and all sub races at one point had "ritualistic" behavior so we can at least say it is or was natural in humans.
b.Civilization is natural because hierarchy is natural.
2. I have answered that in the past. The only time it can be acceptable is in extreme survival cases, even then sovereigns have in the past tried people in such cases for murder (which admittedly is odd).

All three of the above points are completely irrational grounds for illegalizing sex:
The first point assumes that all related diseases are incurable, unavoidable, and intrinsic to sex.
The second point displaces the negative consequences of certain psychological disorders and presents them as negative consequences of sex.
The third point conflates sex with rape and assumes that what is true of the latter is also true of the former.
Sound familiar?

I present to you "q=icd-10+f65&sc=7-10&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=1AF8A9C62C5E44C2BA28ECC69B298A32">ICD-10 F65".

Yes. Tried and found guilty of dismembering prisoners of war, sometimes while still living, cooking their flesh, and eating it in full view of the other prisoners. That is immoral. That is inhumane. That is a crime against humanity. That's physical and psychological torture and in direct violation of both the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The part that is actually relevant to the discussion; the "and eating it" part, is not.

Alright you got me there.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

A. It had to be reached by civilizations.
For humans, yes, but so did all of the rituals which involve cannibalism.

B. They both relate to human health.
About as much as mosquito bites do.

You can debate that humans before the first true showers and baths cleaned themselves in rivers however it was more of a instinct rather than us really thinking about what it does for us.
No it wasn't. That's not only a groundless assumption; it doesn't even make sense.

I as an individual from one of the poorest third world countries will tell you that isn't true. The only time famine can get that bad is if it was before the classical era or if they are in a very cold place such as the famine in the USSR.
So, in other words, what you're saying is that it most certainly is true, but it doesn't count because you haven't personally experienced it?

You can still have pain when you don't feel it. Pain killers mess with how your body sends information but you'll still have it, it just won't register as an "ouch".
Could you please pay attention to what I'm telling you? AnaestheticsPainkillers. You cannot have pain if your pain receptors' sodium channels are blocked. Nor is all human tissue innervated with pain receptors.

a. Homo-Sapiens and all sub races at one point had "ritualistic" behavior so we can at least say it is or was natural in humans.
b.Civilization is natural because hierarchy is natural.
You would have to explain your definition of "natural", as neither of those appear to have any relation to what I would call "natural". You're also going to need to justify appeal to nature if you want your point to have any value.

I present to you "ICD-10 F65".
I'm not going to sift through 17,700,000 search results to find whatever it is you're trying to present here, sorry.
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

@FishPreferred
I apologize for such a late response but I was busy with stuff and got the game "Dying Light.", I know I randomly go off the radar sometimes haha.

Anyways to the topic at hand.

ICD-10
" Disorders that include recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving nonhuman objects, suffering of oneself or partners, or children or other nonconsenting partners. (from dsm-iv, 1994)
Sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors generally involving themes of suffering, humiliation, sexual activity with non-consenting partners, or an orientation toward non-human objects for sexual arousal."
The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems sees verophilia as an ICD therefore it is clearly a disturbance in one's health.
Why would you want someone to suffer from an ICD? Turning a blind eye to verophilia is no different from turning a blind eye from someone who likes to have the flu, it isn't right. Are they hurting anyone other than themselves? No. Before we continue I would like to point out that I am addressing what happens when you do 'act' on it. So back on topic, why would you let someone be unhealthy simply because they want to be? It 'may' not be our place but it is at the very least the position of the government to prevent people from hurting each other that includes from themselves because sadly humans aren't exactly bright but I'm sure you've noticed that. Just because they may not be harming anyone else does not justify cannibalism, for example there is a fetish for impaling women with a pole-arm, cutting women's heads off, and etc, these are clearly not morally correct or healthy. Are you saying we should turn a blind eye to these people instead of giving them treatment?

Should we let a depressed person jump off a bridge or encourage them to seek help?
Should we let a person rape someone because their culture allows them too?
Is the Rape of Nanking justified because it is an old barbaric way to wage war?
Does the fact that ISIS puts children's heads on a stick and display them in public parks humane because they aren't bothered by it?

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems sees verophilia as an ICD therefore it is clearly a disturbance in one's health.
So?

Why would you want someone to suffer from an ICD?
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.

Turning a blind eye to verophilia is no different from turning a blind eye from someone who likes to have the flu, it isn't right.
So?

So back on topic, why would you let someone be unhealthy simply because they want to be?
Like when people engage in smoking, drinking, over-eating, under-eating, overworking, indolence, risk-taking, forsaking hygene, and refusing medical treatment? Because denying them the right to do so altogether would be a violation of human rights.

Just because they may not be harming anyone else does not justify cannibalism, for example there is a fetish for impaling women with a pole-arm, cutting women's heads off, and etc, these are clearly not morally correct or healthy.
They also aren't related to cannibalism in any way whatsoever.

Are you saying we should turn a blind eye to these people instead of giving them treatment?
Are you saying we should tie them to stakes and fling them into an active volcano?

Should we let a depressed person jump off a bridge or encourage them to seek help?
Should we let a person rape someone because their culture allows them too?
Is the Rape of Nanking justified because it is an old barbaric way to wage war?
Does the fact that ISIS puts children's heads on a stick and display them in public parks humane because they aren't bothered by it?
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?
Showing 46-60 of 146

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