4 ms·

I’d imagine most cannibals who ever lived were not breaking the law at all. This may hold true even today. It reminds me of a joke, “why do people refer to me a

I’d imagine most cannibals who ever lived were not breaking the law at all. This may hold true even today. It reminds me of a joke, “why do people refer to me as a cannibal? I think it’s my woodwork that defines me. Why not call me a woodworker?”

leto_ii 6y ago
I don't know enough anthropology to debate that, but my feeling is that even in societies where cannibalism was allowed there were clear rules around it. I expect that you wouldn't just be able to kill and eat people randomly.
- monadic2 6y ago
  Yes, this is absolutely true, I was just lightly teasing the use of “criminal” as a moral thing.
wuliwong 6y ago
The murderous part implies they are criminals. :)
- monadic2 6y ago
  For societies that viewed this as a crime, anyway. For instance, many don’t consider military engagements to be murder but others do, and regardless whether or not you might consider it a crime depends deeply on your geopolitical beliefs. Anyway, there are even cultures (now extinct I think) that eat their own dead as a form of mourning. Ritualistic cannibalism is a whole thing that is not criminal and it’s been found on every continent where humans naturally live. Many societies don’t even have states to define or enforce crimes. So yea, I think most cannibals were probably not criminals.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    > Anyway, there are even cultures (now extinct I think) that eat their own dead as a form of mourning. Yes, but you wouldn't call those people murderous cannibals, would you? Murderous implies that you murdered someone. Now, true, one man's liberator is another man's murderer, but someone who has not killed anyone can't be called murderous any way you stretch it, even if they are a cannibal. So, even if you are right that most cannibals were not criminals, I think it's safe to say, as GP did, that murderous cannibals are criminals.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - monadic2 6y ago
      I believe it was the gentleman calling them “murderous criminals” that introduced this concept; obviously I would not consider a ritualistic cannibal to imply being a murderer and just don’t accept the “murderous” label.
      - leto_ii 6y ago
        It's the GP that introduced the concept: > Bare minimum, there's always going to be some demographic ostracized by society, even if that demographic is only, like, murderous cannibals. I said: > I would qualify murderous cannibals as dangerous criminals, not weirdos Nobody used the collocation "murderous criminals" - it sounds silly and would be more or less a tautology.
  - wuliwong 6y ago
    Killing may or may not be criminal but murder is by definition.
karatestomp 6y ago
> why do people refer to me as a cannibal? I think it’s my woodwork that defines me. Why not call me a woodworker? The long form of this I've heard goes through about three extensive accomplishments or deeds, as: "You see the roofs on all those houses? I thatched every one of them. But do they call me Johnny the Thatcher? No." And on for brick-layer, et c. Then ends on: "But you fuck one sheep..."
- monadic2 6y ago
  Hah, frankly a real joke compared to mine.

leto_ii 6y ago

I don't know enough anthropology to debate that, but my feeling is that even in societies where cannibalism was allowed there were clear rules around it. I expect that you wouldn't just be able to kill and eat people randomly.

monadic2 6y ago
Yes, this is absolutely true, I was just lightly teasing the use of “criminal” as a moral thing.

wuliwong 6y ago

The murderous part implies they are criminals. :)

monadic2 6y ago
For societies that viewed this as a crime, anyway. For instance, many don’t consider military engagements to be murder but others do, and regardless whether or not you might consider it a crime depends deeply on your geopolitical beliefs. Anyway, there are even cultures (now extinct I think) that eat their own dead as a form of mourning. Ritualistic cannibalism is a whole thing that is not criminal and it’s been found on every continent where humans naturally live. Many societies don’t even have states to define or enforce crimes. So yea, I think most cannibals were probably not criminals.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > Anyway, there are even cultures (now extinct I think) that eat their own dead as a form of mourning. Yes, but you wouldn't call those people murderous cannibals, would you? Murderous implies that you murdered someone. Now, true, one man's liberator is another man's murderer, but someone who has not killed anyone can't be called murderous any way you stretch it, even if they are a cannibal. So, even if you are right that most cannibals were not criminals, I think it's safe to say, as GP did, that murderous cannibals are criminals.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - monadic2 6y ago
    I believe it was the gentleman calling them “murderous criminals” that introduced this concept; obviously I would not consider a ritualistic cannibal to imply being a murderer and just don’t accept the “murderous” label.
    - leto_ii 6y ago
      It's the GP that introduced the concept: > Bare minimum, there's always going to be some demographic ostracized by society, even if that demographic is only, like, murderous cannibals. I said: > I would qualify murderous cannibals as dangerous criminals, not weirdos Nobody used the collocation "murderous criminals" - it sounds silly and would be more or less a tautology.
- wuliwong 6y ago
  Killing may or may not be criminal but murder is by definition.

karatestomp 6y ago

> why do people refer to me as a cannibal? I think it’s my woodwork that defines me. Why not call me a woodworker? The long form of this I've heard goes through about three extensive accomplishments or deeds, as: "You see the roofs on all those houses? I thatched every one of them. But do they call me Johnny the Thatcher? No." And on for brick-layer, et c. Then ends on: "But you fuck one sheep..."

monadic2 6y ago
Hah, frankly a real joke compared to mine.