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.
I guess one reason why I am not shocked or appalled by the answers of some people is that I am just not surprised by humanity anymore. While I think that humans have the capacity to exercise self-control, I do not believe that we are inherently good. One of my all-time favorite readings is James Madison's Federalist Paper #51. While I believe on many fronts that government has grown too large and overstepped its bounds, I recognize that the CONCEPT of government is sound. Madison would agree, as he states, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." We DO need government on some level. I believe that government is one thing that is holding back absolute savagery from one human to another.
Humans are creatures of habit. When habits and routine becomes broken, chaos often ensues. In Virginia we recently had that large storm that knocked power out for several days. My neighborhood lost power, as well as a good portion of the area where I live. Something as little as the traffic signals being down resulted in some down-right nasty behavior from drivers. Now just about every state's driving handbook tells us that when a traffic signal is out, we are to treat it as it were a 4-way stop, right? I can atest that this is not even a distant resemblance to the disorder and lack of courtesy in the hours following that storm. You see, even though there is a plan in place for a traffic signal being down, it is not routine for us to not have traffic signals govern our actions at an intersection. In other words, without the "comfort" provided by that traffic signal, it got ugly. People can be downright nasty when you remove the comfort of routine.
And that is a traffic light after just a few hours of inconvenience. Imagine a complete collapse of government. Or at least on a level such that the laws that govern society are rendered obsolete by the government's inability to enforce them. I think we would see the worst in people revealed in a hurry.
This is why the subject of predetory cannibalism does not surprise me. I have sort of assumed all along that people would resort to it is a worst case scenario. I don't like it, but I think it is a strong likelihood that it would become common if food became scarce. I think that lifelongMOgal raises a good point about foraging, and I admire her committment to survival not at the expense of another's life. I wish everyone felt that way. The sad truth is that some out there would see a person as a low-risk-high-reward target. It may actually be easier to kill a person than to forage. If you put your mind in the time/place that something like this were to happen, the aggressors may be too weak or lazy to forage, and thus take advantage of an unsuspecting victim.
I am certainly not advocating predatory cannibalism. I hope and pray that we never see that day. I am simply conveying why I am not horrified at the mere suggestion of it. I am not even condemning those who say they would do it. I equate it to a person asking themselves how far are they willing to go in order to survive. Our minds can push us to some unpleasant possibilities. As of now, my mind has not pushed me that far. I don't think it ever will.
Last edited by iknowftbll; 07-25-2012 at 01:16 PM..
Sadly, I see little difference from ghetto thugs looting and rioting and murdering and ( so called) survivalists who believe anything goes if there are no laws or no one to enforce them
Shooting and eating an innocent human in order to survive certainly is not self defense anymore than ghetto thugs mudering and robbing people for money
I am noticing very little difference between ghetto thugs' justifications and the justifications of most posters on this subject.
Exactly right. After having gone through four years of post-structuralist, relativist, ultra-liberal indoctrination (obviously unsuccessful indoctrination), I understand very well their philosophy. In their world, anything can be justified because there is no right and wrong. And there is no purpose to life other than self-gratification. In the context of "survivalism," I suppose we could call such folks the Marquis de Sade types of self-sufficiency. Sort of a sick, twisted, erotic fantasy about what a severe social crisis may be like and the sorts of things they would do to others under the pretense of "survival."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Rules and laws do not keep my morality and actions in check.
And there is one of the cornerstones of our argument.
Other than being much more cautious, and in the absence of some sort of threat to my life or property, my basic behavior and dealings with others would remain the same if suddenly all law enforcement evaporated into thin air. Obviously, that's not the case for many here. In the "absence of law" it would simply become a free-for-all. The same old basic thug mentality that prevails in the inner city gang lands. Just another facet of the same old problem.
But a free-for-all is certainly not what I would be fighting for should the time come. For the most part, I'm a "leave me alone" type of person. But I certainly wouldn't be sitting on my hands if my family, neighbors, and friends were being murdered for whatever reason--including because somebody's tummy is growling. That is unless my family, neighbors, and friends were engaged in that same sort of behavior. If they were, then to hell with them.
Losing my humanity while surviving is not part of my plan. Quality of life and the ability to live with the morality my actions in the process are important. A body that survives while the soul, character and mind are lost is just an empty shell worth nothing but future carion for vultures; or God forbid, some people on this forum.
My life on this earth is not so valuable that I need to murder and eat another to merely survive. Should that time come I would hope I have the sanity to take my own life before losing that which makes me human by participating in murderous cannibalism. Truly, I'm shocked and disappointed by those whom appear to look forward to the opportunity.
Tuning up on my precision rifle marksmanship skills for self-defense.........
Couldn't agree more !
I plan on adhering to a certain sense of propriety no matter how bad it gets.
I can't see eating someone, but I would give permission to my friends to eat my body if necessary. I need daily medicine to survive, so I wouldn't outlive my medical supply by very much. However, I would caution them to avoid the brain and spinal cord because of 'kuru'. It is a prion disease concentrated in the brain and spinal cord. I would warn them to cook everything thoroughly to avoid disease. With animals, there just aren't that may disease we have in common with them, but eating people is a whole nuther thing! By the way, at my age I would probably be best braised and slo-cooked.
Seriously, a look at history shows over and over that cannablism occured during every serious famine. I don't think we have outgrown it. If there is no other choice but to kill and eat someone, or watch one's family starve, I think most people would kill anyone or anything to survive.
What I think has happened on this thread is mob mentality.
Each poster thinks they must prove to their " posting buddies" what a mean dude they are and wouldn't think twice about resorting to butchering innocent humans.
The same logic is used by thugs ( and wannabe thugs ) in the ghetto wher talking tough is a sign of manhood.
Nope not me, and I am armed and have ancient woodland skills... Go back and you will see i said NO, but I am willing to use the body parts for making things, use the hide, sinew and bone for tools and things...
And i have no need of a gun to do it, but i do have guns.
I consider deer to be a walking tool kit that just happens to supply meat. I consider people who would mistreat me and my wife a walking tool kit that is otherwise a waste of meat.
If we consider what low life is out there who in their alledged right mind would really eat them. This isn't 1950 anymore.
I can remember when riding motorcycles was considered more dangerous than sex... LOL
I might eat a neighbors cats or dogs, but i am not going to eat him, and if he whines I didn't share, I just might make mocs of him.... but i won't try real hard.
Basic spiritual and religious beliefs aside, I firmly believe in the concept of liberty. This thread has demonstrated to me that many people here do not believe in liberty, or at the very least, they do not understand the principle. Liberty does not mean a free-for-all between a group of foxes in a henhouse.
It's been said before, it's very easy to be a principled man with a full belly. I think you're fooling yourself if you believe that people will not do some heinously unprincipled acts in the pursuit of life. Even moral upstanding people who you would not believe would act in that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
I have also noted that a few have suggested that decent people are decent only because the boys in blue force that decency. I do not believe this. I believe that there are good and bad people. They would have the same basic tendencies whether or not Mr. Policeman is around. I'm not saying that people cannot change, but their basic moral makeup is not dictated by law. Personally, I'm going to do what I do, regardless of civil law. Fortunately for those around me, murder is not part of my basic moral makeup.
If you see no difference in murder and killing in self defense, then there is nothing to discuss. Had Ted Bundy's first victim shot and killed him as he was attempting to rape and murder her, it would have been no more justified than Bundy's 30+ rapes/killings. Had that second victim of Holmes at the Batman movie blown Holmes' brains out, it would have been no more justified than the 12 murders he committed. Had Joe Blow shot the cannibal crawling through his window before the cannibal sliced, diced, and cooked him in the fireplace, that would have been no more justified than the cannibal slicing, dicing, and cooking him in the fireplace. Sorry, I don't see it that way.
I see it in the way of statistics, we know that sailors have clawed their way to the surface before, and drowned their friends, and shipmates to get there, because they were trying to survive. Did they commit murder? Were they considering that the people that they caused to drown in their flight to the surface may have had more intrinsic value that they did?
I think that equating what someone may do to survive to a serial killer is fallacious, I could write a short paper on the motivations of serial killers, and in general their motivations are not murderous, murder is incidental to their primary motivations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Nope. Sorry. Again, as I said above, I believe in liberty. Your argument if from a relativist, post-structuralist point of view. Simply a way to justify bad behavior. As such, it has no concept of "right" and "wrong." Meanwhile, back in the real world, such an attitude is referred to as sociopathy (...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others...). If I go out and randomly shoot someone because my stomach is growling, I am disregarding their right to life. I am in the wrong. If someone comes up to me waving the barrel of a gun in my face, I have the right to defend myself. I am justified if I neutralize that threat to my own liberty.
However not doing so you eliminate your right to liberty and life. Is their right to life and liberty more valuable than yours? In the situations discussed effectively there are two options kill and eat another person or die, you state from the comfort of your keyboard you choose death, and my argument is that I accept the possibility that in that situation I may choose life, and do not reject those actions out of hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
True liberty does have rules. It's not a free-for-all. That's anarchy. And anarchy is what this thread has demonstrated to me that many folks on this forum believe in. Which sort of pisses me off, because I hear so much (hollow, as it turns out) banter here about liberty. And how the boogie man government is out to take our liberty away... all the while coming from predators (the potential foxes in the henhouse) who would do worse than that government they disparage. Looks like a case of ulterior motive to me, because the brand of relativism you state above sure ain't conducive to the concept of liberty for all. On the other hand, I truly do believe in liberty for all. I'm not just spouting it off so that I can justify (in my own head) killing you when your back is turned and I feel a little hungry. It turns out that I actually AM trustworthy. After this thread, there are quite a few folks that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.
As I said above, it's easy to make these statements from the comfort of your keyboard. However to not evaluate that given the needs of a circumstance and the overwhelming survival instinct; to draw the conclusions you are is invalid. You're missing the point of the thread, and ignoring the dire circumstances surrounding it, because you're overly abhorrent of the possible conclusion. It's not like eating Mrs. Jones down the road next Friday because there's a backyard BBQ on Saturday, and the only thing preventing it is the legality of the deed.
We're discussing events similar to what happened with the Donner party, who were moral upstanding figures (and in at least one families case devoutly religious), who themselves resorted to cannibalism because outside events caused them to run out of food and resort to it. I'm sure if I was having the same conversation with William Eddy he would likely make similar observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
If nothing else, this thread has opened my eyes. It has caused me to reassess what survivalism, prepping, and self-reliance are, what they mean, what they stand for, how they relate to one another, and how they relate to the concept of liberty, the principles of the founding of this nation, and virtue/decency in general. I seem to be nearly a lone voice on this thread (with a couple of exceptions). That does cause me some concern. Yet, I suspect that those regulars (here on the forum) who have not chimed on this thread have their heads screwed on straight and they knew better than to become involved. At least I hope so.
Perhaps because virtue/decency are unrealistic in real survival. There really are no noble savages, and never were, and civilization is not even the last coat of paint on the human psyche, which was developed to enable us to survive.
I think some people are being entirely too cavalier ascribing motivations to others and imputing them unjustly in this hypothetical discussion. A theoretical contemplation and evaluation of potential responses and actions in a dire situation, and exploring premises and assumptions discovered, neither supports nor denies a person's basic moral and ethical character... it simply exposes whether they are able to maintain discourse without prejudice.
Some posters make it sound like murder and canniblism are to be expected when mass starvation occurs.
Not true !
We never heard of murder and eating humans when starvation was running rampant thru Africa.
We never heard of it when Jews were starving in Nazi concentration camps
We never heard of it when folks in Ireland were starving during the potato famine.
Why ?
Perhaps those Africans, Jews, and Irish still had some morals and were not going to give up their morals for a slightly longer, miserable, life.
I always laugh when posters ( especially posters in self sufficency forums) state they do not believe in religion and do not believe in a God.
They then get angry when someone asks if they have morals w/o believing in a God.
On this thread we have seen how quickly most posters would throw their morals aside and live like savages in hopes of surviv ing a few more days.
Those who say murder an cannililism is-----normal----during chaotic times are lying and only trying to fool themselves.
It is very rare and believing otherwise is denying history as a way to justify your position.
I think some people are being entirely too cavalier ascribing motivations to others and imputing them unjustly in this hypothetical discussion. A theoretical contemplation and evaluation of potential responses and actions in a dire situation, and exploring premises and assumptions discovered, neither supports nor denies a person's basic moral and ethical character... it simply exposes whether they are able to maintain discourse without prejudice.
and I would have to tell you ( like you have told me and others many times)-----------I disagree with your conclusion.
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.
Not for myself
