“When there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.”
PING!
Even in the animal kingdom, when attempted on another living member of your species, you’re can expect a big fight. The moral message in that innate fight for life went right past these really smart PhD guys.
Well besides the moral argument, eating human flesh isn’t exactly healthy for you.
<< The eternal law that God established in the universe is inscribed on the human heart. Thus, everyone at all times and places knows right and wrong. >>
Not those who reject God from their hearts.
Ever hear of Kuru
1st Cannibal: I really don’t like my mother-in-law
2nd Cannibal: Well, then just eat the vegetables.
Reminds me of the forgotten Burt Reynolds movie SKULLDUGGERY from 1970,in which semi-human apes (Tropis)are used as workers in a phosphate mine. Their pay was one can of SPAM for each load.
Then the local natives found the “Tropis good!” to eat.
Interviewer to native: “Do you eat Tropis?”
Native: “Tropi Good!”
Interviewer to native: “Are you a Cannibal?”
Native(Offended): “ME METHODIST!”
So Burt Reynolds sets out to prove they are “human”.
Since I have not seen this movie since 1970, it has stayed in my mind.
This is hysterical. I kind of knew this was coming. It was sort of satirical to think about, but it just made some kind of ridiculous sense for the left to start defending cannibalism as an alternative lifestyle. I mean, we can’t be judgmental..
SMOD, please
I’m done for, I’ve got a gammy leg . . . .
Whenever I read something about cannibalism, I am reminded of the old joke about why cannibals don’t eat clowns.
I have read before, and this article refers to it, that cannibalism can be justified because of “climate change.” So there you go. I am guessing that all kinds of destructive and barbaric, anti-human practices can be recommended as necessary to save the planet and, unless this nonsense is headed off, we are headed to a very dark place.
I presume that to get over the gag factor about cannibalism, we won’t consume our neighbors in the form of chops or steaks or sausages, but in some kind of rendered product. Maybe like Soylent Green?
So when do they propose eating another human? After they’ve died? From disease, a traffic accident, like road kill? Or do they think it’s ok to kill people for food? These fools are trying to sound so scientific as if we are just animals and it’s just psychological that this would disgust us.
Just curious if they even thought that far. The reason we are different than animals is because we have a conscience (for the most part) and understand killing is wrong. Period. Fools. They are idiots.
This is from the same country that tried to call fish “sea kittens” so people would think fish were cute and cuddly which would lead to people to stop eating fish.
They’re all crazy over there!
I remember my parents describing English food they attempted to eat many decades ago. If it was that bad, then cannibalism might be step up in the food menu chain.
The “taboo” against eating dead people is not a religious one. It is a natural one, based on reality. It transmits disease, plus most people, excepting a$$hole leftist college professors, have some respect for other humans and the mortal coil they have shuffled off.