Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can one be---serious--- about a question posed in a hypothetic thread?
Seems when I question posters morals, they state the thread is only " hypothetic "
No you cannot question a persons morals when discussing a hypothetical scenario, you could question someone's hypothetical morals in that hypothetical situation, but you cannot draw any conclusions on that persons morals as they currently stand. No one knows how they will react in that situation, I personally just don't find it morally abhorrent while sitting safely behind my keyboard, and certainly can mentally entertain the notion given the dire circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwolf fan
I wonder if any of you brave posters would state the same things to your neighbors in Alaska and Wyoming as you did here.
You just might get to be #1 on someone's hit list the minute it even appears trouble is starting in this country.
I have discussed this topic with others, and in general the overall feeling is the same, if in dire need and for a short time it was necessary, then they would also consider resorting to eating other people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
Yup, they just executed the parties responsible just this past week.
Hey well there you go, they survived for 15 more years than those who didn't, in that time they could easily have died of natural causes, or an accident, had kids, got married, etc. etc. it's certainly more time than I can guarantee I'll be around, I mean I know barring accident or injury I'll probably be around for a few more years (or even a few more decades), but I can't guarantee it and I'm only in my early 40's.
Hey well there you go, they survived for 15 more years than those who didn't, in that time they could easily have died of natural causes, or an accident, had kids, got married, etc. etc. it's certainly more time than I can guarantee I'll be around, I mean I know barring accident or injury I'll probably be around for a few more years (or even a few more decades), but I can't guarantee it and I'm only in my early 40's.
It actually surprised me that it took this long for NK to get around to executing them. That country seems quick on the trigger when it comes to violating human rights, so I would have thought executing convicted felons would be a routine and fast practice.
The thoughts in the back of my mind on any forum are always - "What if-- 1) The other posters are all 15-year-olds in their mom's basement, who have never gone anywhere or done anything that they say; 2) I am actually arguing with one or two entities who have changed their names, have multiple identities, and who are actually arguing with themselves to draw others in; or 3) posters are presenting themselves in a certain way to elicit certain responses, just as a 42-year-old hairy male FBI agent will identify himself as a 14 year old girl?"
You can't determine who or what anyone is merely by their postings on a forum.
I - of course - am none of those examples. Ahem. But not one of you has any way of knowing that.
I am constantly wondering the same thing! I think most times it's option 1.
would any woman marry a man who stated------------" I can not say if I would beat you if I am angry. You will have to wait to find out "
Can any man state that under all circumstances he will never hit a woman? If he does there's one fact, he's lying, delusional, or not thinking of all possible events that might cause him to respond violently. If my wife attacked me with a knife, you bet your ass I'm going to respond violently, and she knows it too which is why she'd wait until I'm asleep.
However in reality it's an invalid comparison, most of us have been incandescently angry and know how we respond in those situations. How many of us have been starving to death, with the only form of sustenance human flesh?
would any woman marry a man who stated------------" I can not say if I would beat you if I am angry. You will have to wait to find out "
Would anyone marry anyone without recognizing that there is always a potential risk regardless of what is stated, believed or avowed?
Seriously, I love my husband and he loves me, we trust each other and depend on each other for many things... but that doesn't blind either of us to the fact that the other could, under the right circumstances, become an absolute threat (either voluntary or involuntary). We freely acknowledge and discuss this amongst ourselves and with friends... but it doesn't mean that either of us is sleeping with one eye open or constantly looking over our shoulder or seeking divorce.
Accepting that something could happen and living in constant fear that it will happen are two entirely different things. Which I think is the whole backbone of SS&P.
Can any man state that under all circumstances he will never hit a woman? If he does there's one fact, he's lying, delusional, or not thinking of all possible events that might cause him to respond violently. If my wife attacked me with a knife, you bet your ass I'm going to respond violently, and she knows it too which is why she'd wait until I'm asleep.
However in reality it's an invalid comparison, most of us have been incandescently angry and know how we respond in those situations. How many of us have been starving to death, with the only form of sustenance human flesh?
I gave many examples of mass starvation and there were no reports of murdering others and cannabilism.
Perhaps all those had more morals and a better upbrining than those who state they would resort to it.
Can any man state that under all circumstances he will never hit a woman? If he does there's one fact, he's lying, delusional, or not thinking of all possible events that might cause him to respond violently. If my wife attacked me with a knife, you bet your ass I'm going to respond violently, and she knows it too which is why she'd wait until I'm asleep.
However in reality it's an invalid comparison, most of us have been incandescently angry and know how we respond in those situations. How many of us have been starving to death, with the only form of sustenance human flesh?
This is why I do not understand the angst over this question. I object to cannibalism. But I do not object to having a discussion. This is how we draw the parameters in which we live our lives. The OP has essentially asked, "How far are you willing to go?" It is a valid question. While I understand the objections to the concept, I do not understand the objections to merely discussing a difficult conversation.
PS: I once had a girlfriend who attacked me with a knife. While I did not hit her, you can bet your bottom dollar that I restrained her forcibly. Fortunately nobody was hurt.
However you ignore the possibility that many species do indeed cannibalize, when food supplies are short to continue until food supplies are restored. I'm basing my observations on temporary food shortages and starvation, not that humans are the only remaining food source.
Perhaps not extinction, but pretty much every omnivore and carnivore will resort to cannibalism in times of famine, for example Lynx in AK are best trapped by using Lynx as bait during the winter, because there is a temporary food shortage, they're prepared to eat their own species to survive until there is a better food supply. I'm not expecting that cannibalism would become a way of life, or the only form of survival, just a means of continuation until conditions improve. It's even known that animals eat their own young in times of famine, even rabbits (who are herbivorous).
Would they admit if they did, certainly Keseberg while never tried and convicted for murder received the princely sum of $1 of damages (but not court or legal costs) from claims of defamation against several of the party members who were stating he was a murderer. Those damages certainly tell a story. Indeed lets be honest here, even the Uraguayan Rugby Team who crashed in the Andes, we don't know whether people succumbed to injuries, or were pushed, and given that the remains were cleared of flesh it would be difficult forensically to identify pre and post death trauma to the remains.
And I'm just clarifying why they're not holes given the parameters I was arguing under. My view is it's a temporary shortage with no food sources available for a period of time where I know I could not survive that period without some alternative. If humans are the ONLY food source left, then there's not much point other than setting down your seat, downing a bottle of your favorite sauce, and taking a 45 caliber exit ticket of course that scenario is pretty out there, but the scenario where there is a temporary food shortage that required people to eat one another has happened a number of times in the last 100 years for instance during in the 1930's in the Ukraine and in WW2 during the Siege of Leningrad and in Nazi concentration camps, during the Chinese Famine between 1958-61, and there are even reports from North Korea as recently as 1997 during their famine.
No, I didn't ignore anything. Acknowledging cannabilism in nature and pointing out how primitive human nature really is do not address your logical inconsistencies.
BTW, you seem to be blurring the line between eating an already dead human and killing one to eat.
Anyway, the OP stated that the parameters are: "ultimate SHTF scenario" and the food supply has been depleted.
Ultimate SHTF scenario does not suggest that it's temporary; it means the end. And the depleted food supply means everything edible, wildlife, plant life, everything except humans is gone.
So I would agree with you here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
If humans are the ONLY food source left, then there's not much point other than setting down your seat, downing a bottle of your favorite sauce, and taking a 45 caliber exit ticket
Would anyone marry anyone without recognizing that there is always a potential risk regardless of what is stated, believed or avowed?
Seriously, I love my husband and he loves me, we trust each other and depend on each other for many things... but that doesn't blind either of us to the fact that the other could, under the right circumstances, become an absolute threat (either voluntary or involuntary). We freely acknowledge and discuss this amongst ourselves and with friends... but it doesn't mean that either of us is sleeping with one eye open or constantly looking over our shoulder or seeking divorce.
Accepting that something could happen and living in constant fear that it will happen are two entirely different things. Which I think is the whole backbone of SS&P.
elaborating in detail what one --might--do sounds very disturbed.
The vast majority, you included, were doing just that.
In fact, if one of the posters ever went off "the deep end " like that Colorado shooter did, I will bet the media would have a hay day with it and law enforcement would be saying-------------" all the signs were there and nobody did anything about it "
Mac Muz----------You claim all you " regulars " know each other real well.
Unless you all have met in person, you are living in internet fantasy land.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But not one of you has any way of knowing that.