Should I be allowed to eat you?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: VoidHawk

Laws are a rather lofty ideal to strive for when Mazlows Hierarchy completely breaks down. I hold no one accountable for a survival situation.

That said....if HMS ATS were going down, i'd totally eat Beezzer first. I love me some Cacciatori.

LOL

I used HMS ATS because I wondered how long it would be before somebody said "Eat the mods first" But instead the big fat mod wants to eat the fluffy bunny.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: VoidHawk


FYI -

In 1838, Edgar Allan Poe published The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket. The novel includes the tale of four men stranded at sea after their ship sank. Desperate, the men kill and eat a cabin boy named Richard Parker.

Forty-six years later, a ship called Mignonette suffered the same fate. The four starving survivors killed and ate the cabin boy whose real name was -you guessed it- Richard Parker.

Wow!
Thanks for that info

originally posted by: Night Star
Because I may not be as young and healthy as others, I would be picked for the sacrifice. Why wouldn't my life matter as much as anyone else's?

I'm in the same boat as you (pun intended) but I hope my age and ill health would put them off wanting to eat me.

If a person is dead already then I say eat the body to survive.

In the case presented they knew the cabin boy was going to die first, but the ships butcher said they would get more nourishment if they bled him while his heart was still beating. I can see the logic in that, the guy is already unconcious and soon to die and he would not know what they were doing, by bleeding him they increase their chance of survival. Would you say "eat the body" in this situation?

To have to sacrifice another living being is a true horror.

Agreed 100%

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
Self preservation trumps any law they can make. Humans do some down right wicked # when the chips are down.

With the exception of the guy who wants to eat the fluffy bunny, yours is probably the most honest answer I've seen so far.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The person would have to have been eating organic food and a vegetarian before I would eat them. Also they could never have used soap or aftershave or deoderants and not have taken any medications.

Thats me!!! well almost, I do eat a very very tiny amount of meat, and I use a non toxic soap, and I'd only use medication if it was a life or death situation.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
I think you would be quite surprised as to what you would do - come crunch time.

Thats the part a lot of people just dont get.
They say "Hunger is the best gravy" and its so very true, I know because there are foods I do not like, but when I'm hungry I'll happily eat them.
If I were starving to death I know I'd eat anything that would help me survive.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: rickymouse
The person would have to have been eating organic food and a vegetarian before I would eat them. Also they could never have used soap or aftershave or deoderants and not have taken any medications.

Thats me!!! well almost, I do eat a very very tiny amount of meat, and I use a non toxic soap, and I'd only use medication if it was a life or death situation.

Well, then maybe we shouldn't be out stranded on a desert island together with no food.

a reply to: VoidHawk


If it's a life or death survival thing Donner Party style then you gotta do what you gotta do to live. I see no moral issue if the person is already dead. Killing them for food is murder, however. They needed to wait until someone died on their own to eat them. What they did was really selfish.

I'm sure they weren't out there for over a month. If they had some form of water (like their own piss) then they were going to be JUST DANDY without food. Grow a pair and starve for a month or until you get rescued. People have done it before. It takes a bit of integrity. Robbing that other man of the chance to survive is simply heartbreaking and really mean.

originally posted by: intrepid
"Should I be allowed to eat you?"

Quite frankly I didn't know you thought of me that way.

*blushes*

The Adamantium may make you a bit tough though!

I've always had difficulties eating anything still with its eyes, but if someone could possibly chop his head and tail off, then I could probably eat VoidHawk.

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: VoidHawk


If it's a life or death survival thing Donner Party style then you gotta do what you gotta do to live. I see no moral issue if the person is already dead. Killing them for food is murder, however. They needed to wait until someone died on their own to eat them. What they did was really selfish.

I'm sure they weren't out there for over a month. If they had some form of water (like their own piss) then they were going to be JUST DANDY without food. Grow a pair and starve for a month or until you get rescued. People have done it before. It takes a bit of integrity. Robbing that other man of the chance to survive is simply heartbreaking and really mean.

In the case presented they knew the cabin boy was going to die first, and the ships butcher said they would get more nourishment if they bled him while his heart was still beating. So, the guy is already unconcious and soon to die and he would not know what they were doing, by bleeding him they increase their chance of survival. Do you still think what they did was wrong?

originally posted by: Chadwickus

originally posted by: intrepid
"Should I be allowed to eat you?"

Quite frankly I didn't know you thought of me that way.

*blushes*

The Adamantium may make you a bit tough though!

Adamantium: A fictional metal.
Good point, it might scrape against my fillings

originally posted by: Meduzi
I've always had difficulties eating anything still with its eyes, but if someone could possibly chop his head and tail off, then I could probably eat VoidHawk.

My 5 year old grandson, when introduced to prawns said "I like them, can I eat their eyes?" Not knowing what to say I said "thats your decision"
He ate them and they were nice

And no, you aint eating me!

a reply to: VoidHawk

No one eats a Swanne!

Besides, I hardly have any meat.

Now may I turn your attention to BigFatFurryTexan?

I really want to focus your attention on the fist "F" of this gentleman's name.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: VoidHawk

No one eats a Swanne!

Besides, I hardly have any meat.

Now may I turn your attention to BigFatFurryTexan?

I really want to focus your attention on the fist "F" of this gentleman's name.

Ah yes, he's already spoken, he wants to eat the fluffy wabbit. But I agree, in such a case as this I think most hungry peeps would be concentrating on his first f


I have eaten swan, its similar to beef

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: buster2010

Do you think we should be charged with murder if we do?

If you kill someone to eat them then you should be charged with murder. I don't care about the circumstances if you kill them then you murdered them at least have the decency to wait for a person to starve to death before eating them.

In the case I refered to the cabin boy was already unconcious, the guy who slit his throat was a butcher and knew the best way to bleed him was while his heart was still pumping. So, he didn't directly kill him, he let the kid slowly bleed to death so that they could get the most blood.

The kid was alive and the guy slit his throat and then he died. The guy murdered him plain and simple. When someone is alive and a person makes them die they murdered them.
When bleeding your kill like this guy did just proves he murdered him. Also there is a difference between a person being unconscious and being dead.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: buster2010

Do you think we should be charged with murder if we do?

If you kill someone to eat them then you should be charged with murder. I don't care about the circumstances if you kill them then you murdered them at least have the decency to wait for a person to starve to death before eating them.

In the case I refered to the cabin boy was already unconcious, the guy who slit his throat was a butcher and knew the best way to bleed him was while his heart was still pumping. So, he didn't directly kill him, he let the kid slowly bleed to death so that they could get the most blood.

The kid was alive and the guy slit his throat and then he died. The guy murdered him plain and simple. When someone is alive and a person makes them die they murdered them.
When bleeding your kill like this guy did just proves he murdered him. Also there is a difference between a person being unconscious and being dead.

But you seem to be forgeting that this was all about survival.
I dont agree with murdering for food, I don't even agree with capital punishment, none of us have the right to end anothers life. But in a case such as presented, the boy was unconcious and dying, he knew nothing of what happened, but the actions they took were the actions that best ensured their own survival.
In this case, if we deny them that nourishment, are we not putting them to death?

a reply to: VoidHawk

But you seem to be forgeting that this was all about survival.

I don't care. Killing a person to eat them is not acceptable even if you are starving to death. Besides if the cook knew so much that if you bled the kid he could have done it just as easily after the kid had died a natural death.

But in a case such as presented, the boy was unconcious and dying, he knew nothing of what happened, but the actions they took were the actions that best ensured their own survival.

That is the reason why it was murder. Had the kid been awake and gave his ok for them to do it then it wouldn't be murder but in this case he didn't.

In this case, if we deny them that nourishment, are we not putting them to death?

I have no problem with them eating the kid it is the way they went about it that is wrong.

a reply to: buster2010

Besides if the cook knew so much that if you bled the kid he could have done it just as easily after the kid had died a natural death.

But you cant bleed something that is dead, a pumping heart is required. By bleeding him while alive they were able to access a lot more blood, increasing their chance of survival.

As I said, I agree we should not kill, but I can see the logic in their thinking. Bleed the kid and some get to live. Dont bleed him and they all die. I see no sense in all of them dying.

a reply to: buster2010

Buster thanks! If we are both in the same place, and the circumstances go that route, and I wind up dying,
Please give me a proper burial!
And I will do the same for you!

Thank you in advance. (hehe)