Should I be allowed to eat you?

Killing others for one's own benefit is selfish and illegal.

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.

Way to go Swanne! They can get the most out of their homicides, so should choose them wisely, --- yeah, that's the ticket. !!!

Sorry, BFFT. But the tribe has spoken.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

I have eaten swan, its similar to beef

I am kinda glad you didn't say "chicken"...

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.

Charge me because the ladder is dying anyway. You really don't know what a person will do when something like that is forced upon them. That duality of man thing isn't one sided or biased either.

a reply to: VoidHawk

If I end up being the main course I have one condition....skin my corpse properly, make something nice from everything of use from my cadaver. Use everything respectfully and....what the hell....make a wind chime from my bones.

By the way, if the situation allows for it, I taste better as beef jerky.

Just for the record.


ETA: But seriously, folks - I should warn you there's a large concentration of poisons in every part of my system from years of eating salt peter and other noxious contaminants, so those of you with delicate digestive systems and weak hearts should probably abstain.

Also, I am not Gluten Free.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: VoidHawk

But seriously, folks - I should warn you there's a large concentration of poisons in every part of my system from years of eating salt peter and other noxious contaminants, so those of you with delicate digestive systems and weak hearts should probably abstain.

Also, I am not Gluten Free.

Was just starting to drool, but then I read "not Gluten Free"

a reply to: VoidHawk

Sorry about that.

I'm sure there are more Vegetarian and Vegan delicacies to choose from.

Carnivore meat is rather sour anyway.
I'm more "last resort" than "main course".

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.

I guess whoever can bring me down would certainly have earned the right to wear me as a pelt....but it would be more traditional to go after a weaker member of the group first.

But I would bet my rump would make a decent roast.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

One of the most precious posts I had the honor to read!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

"traditional"

I just can't imagine this ever being the case.

Shipwrecked, there's fish to be had, birds, etc.

Even that case in the Andes...I have to think there was SOME other food source available. At least then though, they ate folks who had already died in the plane crash, so that was quite different than murdering someone. So I can give them a pass there.

Maybe it's just the prepper in me, but even in the harshest environments on Earth, there is food to be had, if you know where to look. In most places, we're SURROUNDED by food (especially insects). While disgusting, I'd much rather eat them than my fellow man.

originally posted by: Gazrok
In most places, we're SURROUNDED by food (especially insects). While disgusting, I'd much rather eat them than my fellow man.

I wonder if they taste like shrimps (the insects, I mean)?? I love shrimps.

They say that crickets are quite common as a food, but the problem is, of course, to catch them.

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.

No....he killed them...there isn't question about it. If I am the cabin boy and I am already dead by no fault of yours, and you will perish without sustenance that I don't feel like you've done any damage by eating me

However, in your case, the boy was UNCONSCIOUS...aka...alive

He slit his throat, the boy died, he was eaten. The butcher is a murderer, the others are accomplices and they are all cannibals. Period. He was alive at the time. It doesn't matter if he didn't feel a thing. Someone ended the boy's life prematurely and without consent. Murder

So yes they all deserve prison

originally posted by: KyoZero

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.

No....he killed them...there isn't question about it. If I am the cabin boy and I am already dead by no fault of yours, and you will perish without sustenance that I don't feel like you've done any damage by eating me

However, in your case, the boy was UNCONSCIOUS...aka...alive

He slit his throat, the boy died, he was eaten. The butcher is a murderer, the others are accomplices and they are all cannibals. Period. He was alive at the time. It doesn't matter if he didn't feel a thing. Someone ended the boy's life prematurely and without consent. Murder

So yes they all deserve prison

But but but....they were hungry!



Seriously though, under any other circumstances I'd agree, I dont believe any of us for any reason have the right to take anothers life, thats why I dont agree with capitol punishments. However, in this case, the boy was never going to wake up, he only had hours, or maybe even minutes to live, and bleeding him while his heart was pumping was logically the best thing to do to give the others a good chance of survival.
If they had not bled the boy then its possible all of them would have died!
Its a hard one, and thats why I posted it.

originally posted by: Gazrok
I just can't imagine this ever being the case.

Shipwrecked, there's fish to be had, birds, etc.

Even that case in the Andes...I have to think there was SOME other food source available. At least then though, they ate folks who had already died in the plane crash, so that was quite different than murdering someone. So I can give them a pass there.

Maybe it's just the prepper in me, but even in the harshest environments on Earth, there is food to be had, if you know where to look. In most places, we're SURROUNDED by food (especially insects). While disgusting, I'd much rather eat them than my fellow man.

You would need a lot of insects to feed four grown men, and there's not many insects out on the ocean, and catching fish with bare hands might not be possible on some oceans.

Its quite easy for us modern folk to condemn these guys, but back then it was very common for those lost at sea to eat each other, and in this case, the whole village supported what they had done, even the queen got involved and reduced their sentence to six months!

Lock four dogs in a barn and just leave them there and eventually they will set on the weakest and eat him, and we humans will not blame the dogs, knowing they had no choice if they wanted to survive, instead we'll blame the scumbag who left them there.

You say "Maybe it's just the prepper in me". Maybe the prepper in you (when dying of starvation) would realize that if you wanted to survive you were gonna have to eat the guy?

a reply to: VoidHawk

what is with the whole bleeding thing? How does it make a difference? If they had waited until say he died, bled him by hanging him, what is the difference?

And I understand we will disagree here and all respect is given to you I promise

I am still going with murder

originally posted by: KyoZero
a reply to: VoidHawk

what is with the whole bleeding thing? How does it make a difference? If they had waited until say he died, bled him by hanging him, what is the difference?

And I understand we will disagree here and all respect is given to you I promise

I am still going with murder

As I understand it you get a lot more blood if its pumped out by the heart.

The survival rule is 3 weeks without food, though realistically, more than 1 week, and I suspect you'll be in no real shape to procure it.

That said, yes, even in a shipwreck scenario (unless totally drifting at sea more than a week), probably some food sources around (seaweed, etc.). Of course, if adrift, you'll have other more pressing problems (severe sunburn, and dehydration, for example).