So? I cannot see anything non-ethical in eating a dead person's meat. Of course...

Eating human/your species meat isn't really something evil albeit it's later described as such to prevent a plathora of problems cannibalism would bring to people in the older times who lacked modern medicine, hygiene and so forth but had developed culturally and/or spiritually to burry or honor the corpses of the dead instead of eating them like e.g tribals from Africa or South America.

For instance, prion disease from consuming brain tissue or inheriting any disease they might've had in them(which is still a possibility with AIDS/HIV). Cooking the meat isn't always a guarantee of cleanliness and if I'm correct there hasn't been extensive testing to see if people would develop something like mad cow disease because of protein rejection.

In a civilized society people should be allowed to donate their bodies after their death to be made into protein blocks for the poor.

But knowing how fucked up we are as a species we'd just end up with luxury restaurants where they serve gourmet human dishes with a big glass of blood at around 100k or more USD.

Attached: sorta close.jpg (1280x720, 187K)

Jesus is reading every word of this, user

>The question is whether this activity is ethically permissible.
it is a death sentence, so no it is not. If you are in any way at any point in time considering eating a person or human meat in general, the same dilemma can be rationalized as "would killing yourself solve this problem?" at which point you enter moral relativism territory, so kiss whatever morality standards you hold goodbye.

>Now the MSM is trying to justify cannibalism
jesus fucking christ

Interesting times, eh?

well considering they're communists they need to get it in people's heads that cannibalism is ok once the mass starvation hits.

>Blood borne pathogens transmit easily from human to human
>Cases of cannibalism driving people to insanity due to spongiform of a diseased corpse
>Humans are pack animals and cannibalism is not only dangerous to the person eating said flesh but also dangerous to others in the pack
Geee, it's like humans practice safe habits to avoid communicable diseases. Why is this article even a thing?

Attached: 1522912306507.jpg (640x480, 96K)

The people who ask questions like this fashion themselves to be Pragmatic as much as possible, and believe this to be superior by definition to any kind of moral rule, which are just generalizations for plebs. There's no god after all.

eating something even close to your species (including mere monkeys) rises the likelihood of developing prions
hence why the cannibalistic taboo

I just a lowly country boy so I'll put this pretty simple.
Is it ethical?
For the individual, I believe as long as you're not hurting anyone, the person you're eating consents, and the people who knew that person in life are cool with it. Then it's up to you to rationalize it in your moral compass but I don't see much wrong with it.

Not if you're talking on a larger scale, where it's a common practice in a society, I think it will be a problem, not every will find it okay. Some people will take it to far, and I believe it will leave to a devalue of appreciation for human life.

So like most things. It's about moderation.

>Don't eat diseased meat
That applies to all meat retard

author is a jew. doing what he does best.

Attached: merchant-finch.jpg (738x741, 104K)

that's why you need religion, and accept morals from a higher source - liberals cannot find any rest with the "Why not?" mentality, they will end fucking and marrying their own grandparents

my favorite part is
>does consent matter
if the answer is no, I'm going to dig up an Indian burial ground and shit in their skulls, because apparently its fine.

Enjoy neurodegeneration and dying painfully. As far as ethics, have respect for the dead, faggot.

Your points except for the third applies to all meats, uneducated retard

yea I would hate having prions..

dumb french nigger, read up before making comments about shit you are clueless about

Again, this applies to any meat. You guys have a lot to learn about biology.

>The fact that it may be unhealthy is not the point either. The question is not whether we have to eat dead people. The question is whether this activity is ethically permissible

It's unethical to partake in or condone an activity that risks the survival of your wider species.

It's unethical for faggots to have their freedom to live out degenerate sexual deviant lifestyles because they are popping antibiotics like candy and ruining it for the rest of us.

it doesnt lead to it, but if one person have it, its contagious. Even then, its only if you eat the actual brain, not the meat. Stop with this cannibalism = prion disease meme, its incorrect in human history unless you literally eat inbred brains. Not meat. Brains.

Why don't we feed homeless people to starving niggers in Africa?

I can't wait until the government is going to have to remind people not to eat their children.

If you eat brains, you get kuru. Eating people is completely fine as long as you avoid consuming the CNS.

prions.

From an ethical standpoint if eating dead people becomes okay than what happens when the demand for dead people to eat increases?

Why aren't starving Africans fed to starving Africans?
>those who're eaten do not starve
>those who get to eat do not starve

win-win

know your place, worthless fucktard
it is well known that eating a species close to yours makes a prion disease more likely
eg the prion diseases in west Africa mostly due to monkey bush meat
and it's far from limited to the nervous system (although it of course makes the problems more likely)
eg playing with urine and shit from their species made US deers develop a contagious as fuck prion disease of their own (cwd)

>Ethically sourced bodies over here!
>Come get your ethically sourced ribs, thighs, and extremities!
>Plump and juicy!
>All died of accidents, disease free!
Hey these orders are picking up. Tom, go get us a few more homeless.

Because it feels unethical. It has nothing to do with prion disease. Kuru, the only known example of spreading prion disease in humans, was a result of brain consumption. In other animals, prion disease spreads without any meat consumption at all. Cows, caribou, sheep etc dont cannibalize and are the species most known for contracting contagious prion disease.

Enjoy getting sick and dying.
Just tear warning labels off of things and let nature take its course

Attached: 1520011124825.png (500x375, 396K)

2 girls 1 cup, enjoy the taste, faggot

The only part that is currently not known to carry deadly degenerative diseases, prion-mediated or else, is the bone marrow
and that's only because there haven't been cases in which only the bone marrow was consumed.

Certain diseases pass from human to human more easily than nonhuman to human, retard~
Enjoy your degenerative diseases and HIV.

I hear cannibalism is hip during late stage communism.

>ancrap

Attached: 22gaou.jpg (1200x794, 174K)

and you enjoy being a virgin, incel

There's a new series on Netflix called The Rain that explores this briefly. Spoiler alert, but in one of the weird cult-y camps it turns out that every so often they have a lottery in which the loser/winner (fucking cults man) is killed and used as meat for the group. I'm going to assume a similar survival group scenario for the discussion.

As other people have pointed out there are medical reasons to avoid cannibalism, human flesh contains proteins which we don't digest fully called prions, they enter the bloodstream and instead of being broken down to fuel us they're transported to the brain where they build up and cause long term degenerative diseases.

To consider ethics you also have to consider yourself, so let's look at the medical ethics. You would knowingly be eating something known to have a long term incurable negative effect on your body. The more you do it the more likely you and your group are to die in the long term. This will drain group resources as you will die of a myriad of brain diseases, making your end of life behaviour in-congruent with group survivability. In the hypothetical group survival scenario the long term goal is to ensure the survival of the group, so eating human meat beyond times of dire need would be unethical as it would be actively detrimental to the ultimate long term goal (ULTG) of the group. Actions vs ULTG would be unethical.

Then we have the individual being eaten, can someone consent to being eaten before they die, would you respect their wishes if they chose not to be eaten? Having your body handled how you want after you die is pretty big in our society, we show others the same respect we expect. If we eat people when they have refused to allow their body to be used that way we open the door to people doing things with our own bodies that we do not approve of after we die, not just being eaten. I'd say personal choice of the individual being eaten has a large role in the ethics here.

cont

In our culture, eating another human is not ethically permissible, period. Go live with an african or carribean cannibal tribe if you want to live in a society where it is.

>and nature returns to perfect balance

Well I'm convinced.

If you have starving people in your country then you have an ethical obligation to eat people until no one is starving anymore.

im so underrated

Attached: wut.jpg (960x640, 59K)

lel, didnt even deny being a nigger

>France

my point is that prions are not all dangerous. Your post is like saying "I dont want bacteria" which is retarded.

>it feels unethical
>muh feelings

I can’t believe we’re even seriously considering this and not immediately disregarding

A well cooked human leg from a healthy human won't hurt you anymore then a chicken tendie from a restaurant. Checkmate retard.

Enjoy being stuck in a 3rd world country, cyкa.

Attached: 1519821208716.png (855x760, 718K)

also this lmfao

i didnt say it was a valid point

It's not about healthiness as much as it is about it leading to horrible death of the cannibal

Crows have more respect for their dead than liberals.

Attached: 1527207786753.jpg (600x458, 193K)

Fuck off, I rarely watched jungle book and it doesn’t take brainwashing to feel sympathy for innocent animals that don’t necessarily understand what’s happening to them.

You sound like a total psycho, would make fun of until you go full columbine

You have the permission to suck cocks. Free protein for wannabe cannibals.
Pro tip: Gloryhole

This lol

>So? I cannot see anything non-ethical in eating a dead person's meat.
Nothing morally wrong. It seems wrong because eating dead people gives us kuru.

liberals cannot find any rest with the "Why not?" mentality,

they

will

end

up

fucking and marrying their own grandparents

godamni

t

Do you want to eat people?

not only should it be legal, we should take all the below 80IQ children and have them killed for meat around puberty. The 80-100 group should be enslaved and sterilized. The 100-130group of women can be used as wombs for a select subset of very high quality men. men and women above that level can attempt to contribute to important fields

naturally my eminently reasonable suggestions will not be taken seriously and we will just continue along our gay dysgenic path until the psychically anthropoid masses overwhelm the civilzing capacities of the small group of actually human individuals

If I have to choose between starving to death and eating a recently deceased person, then I don’t think it’s much of a debate.

Can't prions be found anywhere in the body?
I know they cause damage to the brain, but that doesn't mean they are only found in the brain.

>twitter.com/KialoHQ/status/1000435458046877696
oh its actually real
the simspons called it

Attached: ETA.jpg (645x364, 53K)

What about the woman with an IQ above 130?

>So? I cannot see anything non-ethical in eating a dead person's meat.

As long as you're a materialist and atheist then no. It's just meat. However there are perverse incentives even if we declare it "just meat". If people are legal to eat, people will be killed for their meat even for novelty. This is why the slippery slope is real even if you believe a corpse is just a sack of meat.

Making cannibalism permissible opens up a whole nest of societal ills and gives us absolutely no benefit. Besides, nobody has been punished for HAVING to eat human flesh, as with the Andes plane crash situation, so society already considers it okay in dire emergency.

Frankly these kinds of debates are first year philosophy student wank, and as soon as you spoil it by being realistic people want to take their ball and go home because only the EXTREEEEME moral points are any "fun".

Cue late night drunken talks about which situation you'd be okay eating people in. Personally I don't give a shit. If I lost an arm and it could be put on ice I'd eat it myself just for novelty.

Attached: どうかなあ.png (305x375, 125K)

>implying you wouldn't

Attached: 2f9702a0-5a50-0133-0bcc-0e34a4cc753d.jpg (1223x658, 95K)

drop dead retarded commie

Sure, but what would drive you to eat a human leg served up and fried?
Chicken is there, readily available. I'm sure that you can work out some arrangement for cannibalism to be considered ethical. However, Who is going to cut off the leg?
Who is going to drain the blood?
What will happen to the person?
What will happen to the blood and other biological contaminants from the leg?
By the time you cook up and prepare a human leg you could have ran over to KFC and got yourself a bucket of fried chicken.
Just because you can "ethically" do something doesn't mean that it's feasible in the slightest.

Attached: 1525883342171.jpg (1920x1080, 212K)

i thought it was because human muscle fibers don't digest properly and they end up in the bloodstream and tear blood vessel walls up or something

Gross fuck it...
Let the kid fuckers and brain eaters out
It will only speed up their demise

murder will still be illegal.
So if making cannibalism illegal would stop cannibalism, why wouldn't making murder illegal stop murder?

I'm just clearing up misconceptions.

Do you want to live in a society where someone thinks you might be delicious?

i said they can attempt to contribute to important fields. this plan would obviously have to take into account more than just IQ, mentally ill people have to go as well, which means Id have to go, but for the glory of the future ubermensch i can deal with that.

Y’all motherfuckers are scary messed up fucks

If your answer isn’t immediately no, I would sooner justify killing you off in mass graves just to have people with that kind of ethical ambiguity dead than eat you

>we should take all the below 80IQ children and have them killed for meat around puberty

Humans are one of the least effective stocks to raise for meat so this isn't even internally consistent in your lol edgy world. Children can be tested for intelligence reliably around 5-8 years of age. If you had actually thought your own scenario through that's where you'd put their deaths. And there's no reason to eat them, it just risks horrible diseases including prions be spread. For the same reason turning them to slurry and feeding some other animal is a bad idea and a social negative, even if you didn't care at all about doing it.

Thus your edgy teenager LARP about how psychotic you are is frankly boring and ill considered.

Because it's communist.

they wanna legalize eating babies

Attached: Sacrifice.jpg (1494x1672, 625K)

back to the ghetto nignog

Laws don't govern behavior, morals do. They're what let us live relatively free in society without absurd amounts of police.

>produce synthetic human meat
>everyone wins and nobody's consent is violated
Free market fix'd it again :^)

So far we have discussed cannibalism being detrimental to the ultimate long term goal of the group, making it unethical on a group level. We have discussed the considerations of the individual, if a person consents to be eaten after death it isn't necessarily unethical to eat them, but remember that making an act ethically permissible by giving consent doesn't negate other ethical concerns. Consider a merge of the first 2 points, a person gives consent to be eaten after death. It is technically ethically acceptable to eat that person after death. Then consider the scenario in which you would do that, since eating the meat is detrimental to the group's ULTG eating them after death is still unethical. Even though they gave consent and you're not infringing their rights or wishes, the circumstance itself makes it unethical.

Is there ever a circumstance in which cannibalism is in some way not unethical? Well if we consider group survival again, if there's no food but human meat then there's no point worry about long term health risks. If you don't eat you die, so if someone gives consent and the group is starving, maybe that's when cannibalism becomes ethical.

Your own beliefs on the afterlife then come in to play. If you believe in an afterlife of any sort it must be populated with people. Some cultures believe that the physical body's state affects your astral appearance, see ancient peoples putting out eyes, cutting off tongues and ears to make people wander the afterlife blind deaf and dumb. If neither of you believe in that we're good to go.

But then you have social pressure. Are your ancestors watching? Are your god(s) watching? Would they approve, disapprove or be neutral? Would they prefer it if you starved rather than engaged in cannibalism because of a deep seated feeling of disgust at the issue, or maybe some higher knowledge, but that's not something we can consider. Would you care about their opinions? Spiritual so personal.

con

This is a fair fate for the vampires that skulk this board.

?
Are you dumb or just stupid

Niggers would be theones okay with eating people

at least i'm getting laid on the reg, incel

you're right, being a meagre 120ish iq myself i couldnt see what your superior nordic intellect was so quick to point out

Why not eat the children though, if they are there, its my understanding you only get diseases from eating the brains.

And i am not at all psychotic, this plan is no crueler than the dysgenic slide into collapse and genocide which we are going to ahve otherwise

>Christianity isn't needed for ethics and morals

>murder will still be illegal.
>So if making cannibalism illegal would stop cannibalism,

For the same reason we're now dealing with puberty blockers and sex changes for little kids only a couple of decades after giving gays "equal rights". When the moral slider of society goes off to one end it makes also changes where the halo of acceptable morality goes. Similar to the Overton Window of explaining how the window of acceptable political opinion moves and is manipulated.

Removing the taboo for homosexuality brought forth a new host of deviants eager for acceptance including "pedosexuals", copying the gay acceptance agenda completely. Removing the taboo on cannibalism will net you situations like finding out your neighbour likes human meat and not questioning it, not having the police show up, and just thinking it's curious he's always stocked up on it and sharing it.

First of all 120 is a great IQ, I had it when I was 8-10ish

Second of all, IQ doesn’t mean that much anyway (I only bring it up because you fucks believe in it so religiously), but if I did care about it as much as you I’d know that what the guy you replied to said is false - IQ’s are known for rising (and in some instances such as hard drug abuse and physical trauma) falling with age

It’s not, consciousness is. These people are actual animals

How does that in any way affect the point I was making?

>Are you dumb
Are you retarded?
Do you even know what dumb means?

yeah, you’re exhibiting it

>I cannot see
Well congrats you just figured out the basic point of morality.
The reason we establish society-wide moral rules is that whetever definition of ethics you pick, there will always be that one fucking guy who just "can't see".

i dont think IQ is really that great of a measure, but it is the best one we have, and averaged over entire populations it works quite well. There would be unfortunate cases of people who could contribute despite their low iq being needlessly sterilized, but on the whole the plan would definitely be eugenic