4 ms·

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

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.

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.