If you've come to enrich your mind with tidbits of thoughtful discussion and enlightening discourse, please turn back before we cause any more damage. This page will be devoted entirely to thoughtless, pointless, inane rambling and meaningless 'discussion.' If you want content, I have tucked that away in my other blog--which I must also caution you not to read, since it never (and I mean never) updates and will bore you almost instantly. Just take my word for it.
Anyway, let's get this 'thing' started with a topic. I'm waxing a bit philosophical tonight, so here it is: what's more morally reprihensible, cannibalism or autocannibalism?
11 comments:
I would have to say that it's worse if you eat yourself. Obviously, you're all for cannibalism, and there aren't many people who are. And since cannibalism is probably one of the best ways to control the population, eating yourself- a rare cannibal- will only make matters worse
Yeah, but in the case of cannibalism, you're engaging in a socially acceptable practice--preying on the meat of another creature--but against a socially unnacceptable target--a human. In the case of autocannibalism, you're like, a double-weirdo, because you have not only chosen an unnacceptable target, you're preying on yourself.
which is why you should other people to control overpopulation! if it's both socially unacceptable to prey on other people and yourself (and since you must really have an urge to eat people to be considering autocannibalism) you might as well do some good by eating other people. Sure, the world may not like you a whole lot, but in thirty years, they'll look back and laugh
edit to the first line of my previous post: why you should EAT other people. sorry, you can no longer insert your own fun, wacky verb =(
WTF is wrong with you.
what do you MEAN what is wrong with me? i believe my solution is for the greater good of humanity! just wait! when your kids kids (aka grandchildren) ask, "hey grandma, isn't lower population density GREAT?! we're sure glad you helped by cannibalizing the weaker people in our species!" what will you say!?! NOTHING. because you thought it was wrong. for posterity. thats why this step is essential!!
But what if we as a species decide that human flesh is DELICIOUS? Then it's not going to be a simple matter of lower population density--it'll be MASS EXTINCTION! How would you like that? My grandchildren will never have the opportunity to laud the comforts of low population density, and do you know why? Because they'll be on a MENU in FRANCE. That's right, France, I said it. I WENT THERE.
SO WE'LL EAT THE FRENCH! if we all develop a tast for flesh, it'll mean that only the cunning and clever will survive. the weaker people will be weeded out. if you desereve to live, your grandchildren will too!
But now we're pretty much talking 'stronger' as in physically stronger, able to muscle weaker creatures into submission so they can be consumed. That'll mean that when Joe Schmoe Cannibal is feeling peckish, he can just subdue himself a pasty little college undergrad for lunch. So soon the world would be overrun with strong, but not necessarily smart, cannibals! A scary thought for you and I (I notice you are in fact a pasty undergrad). UNLESS cannibalism was instantly institutionalized, and a system of slaugherhouses was set up, so the moneyed elite could control the flow of human cattle... but problems arise here, too. Profit seekers might go so far as to begin breeding programs, or people farms, to cultivate the livestock, which might exacerbate rather than abate overpopulation. If that was outlawed, we would soon decimate the uneducated, unskilled (yet delicious) lower class, and what then? Our college diplomas wouldn't be marketable in a world full of the educated elite, and we'd soon starve and work in filth without the low-wage fruit-pickers and janitors of the world. As for eating the French--don't be silly, you know how much it costs to import meat!
mmm....unskilled lower class *drools a little*
...Sigh. I hate you. -.-;
Post a Comment